Rebels 2013

[KevinO]

Another thing to come out of that live chat, is that Saffy is still up in the air. Has another scan soon.

Read that he had another operation 2 weeks ago and is back in light training and they will know shortly. Hope he is right and finds the form he had in 2011 before all this happened.

 

[TOCC]

Absolutely. This is why I don't understand when I say that adding franchises weakens Australian rugby. It might make the top teams a bit weaker for a couple of seasons but the extra opportunities presented are invaluable.

How much opportunity would Pyle, Jones, Neville, Phipps etc. have had if it wasn't for the Rebels?

A few years ago the same could have been said about Pocock, Brown, Hodgson, McCalman etc. at the Force.

Hugh Pyle was at the Brumbies prior to the Rebels.. Brumbies just signed a South African lock...

Nick Phipps was playing Shute Shield in NSW, Tahs signed a South African halfback in 2011 and a kiwi one for 2012..

Luke Jones was at the Force in 2011, they signed a kiwi lock in 2012..

Brown was already in the Reds system when he signed with the Force, Pocock was always going to come through..

For every Neville there is a David Harvey...

I appreciate what you are saying, but we need to accept that our franchises have been weakened by adding extra teams.. Yes it has long term benefits, but It has unquestionably impacted in the competitiveness of existing teams.

 

[Braveheart81]

I agree, but I also don't think it takes long for the ground lost by the top teams to be closed.

All the examples you cited gained opportunities sooner by moving to the Rebels or the Force. They might have been part of Super Rugby squads already but they went somewhere else and got game time well before they would have if they'd stayed put.

 

[Dumbledore]

I appreciate what you are saying, but we need to accept that our franchises have been weakened by adding extra teams.. Yes it has long term benefits, but It has unquestionably impacted in the competitiveness of existing teams.

And seeing as we desperately needed to expand the talent pool of Australian rugby, it's a long term move we had to make. Like it or not, a lot of players have been exposed to Supe rugby who wouldn't have if we only had three or four teams.

Basically what Braveheart said.

 

[TOCC]

And seeing as we desperately needed to expand the talent pool of Australian rugby, it's a long term move we had to make. Like it or not, a lot of players have been exposed to Supe rugby who wouldn't have if we only had three or four teams.

Basically what Braveheart said.

Let me clear up I am fully supportive of expansion, however I truly believe that it has been poorly and jeopardized the competitiveness of exsisting teams in the process...

We talk about deepening the playing pool, but a significant number of those promoted into the super rugby squads because they were solid performers at Shute shield and premier rugby hasn't translated to been capable of performing at super rugby level..

I'm just advocating more foreigners for the non-traditional states(ie Force and Rebels).. 8 foreigners in both teams could significantly increase the competitiveness of these teams whilst still ensuring 54 positions available to Australians.

This could be a bit of a concession off-set for Perth and Syney to combat the 'home sickness' allure which can impact on wages.

 

[Braveheart81]

Part of what makes rugby competitive in Australia in the long run is the number of jobs available for professional footballers.

This is the area where rugby league has an advantage over union. The average salary might be lower but there are a lot more people playing professionally in Australia.

The best comparison I can find is in Victoria the AFL takes a lot of top quality junior cricketers out of the system. This is because there are a couple of hundred positions available in the AFL where you can earn $200k a year vs only a handful in Australian cricket. The top Australian cricketers might earn much more than $200k a year but there are a far smaller number of those places available.

Just changing the number of super rugby franchises from 4 to 5 should really develop the depth of Australian rugby in just a few years. It will provide a greater incentive for talented young footballers to play rugby and stay in Australia.

 

[qwerty51]

I can't stress that enough Bh81, it's all about the pro contracts. We have the talent, we really do, we just don't have the opportunities.

 

[TOCC]

Part of what makes rugby competitive in Australia in the long run is the number of jobs available for professional footballers.

This is the area where rugby league has an advantage over union. The average salary might be lower but there are a lot more people playing professionally in Australia.

The best comparison I can find is in Victoria the AFL takes a lot of top quality junior cricketers out of the system. This is because there are a couple of hundred positions available in the AFL where you can earn $200k a year vs only a handful in Australian cricket. The top Australian cricketers might earn much more than $200k a year but there are a far smaller number of those places available.

Just changing the number of super rugby franchises from 4 to 5 should really develop the depth of Australian rugby in just a few years. It will provide a greater incentive for talented young footballers to play rugby and stay in Australia.

Yes in the long term... however we are in a professional market place and in the short term concessions should be allowed to keep our teams competitive, attract the audiences and fans and keep the sponsors happy... The average punter doesnt give a crap if half the players are kiwis or south africans..

I can't stress that enough Bh81, it's all about the pro contracts. We have the talent, we really do, we just don't have the opportunities.

Yes we have the talent, but talent doesn't automatically translate to super rugby player... It takes years in the professional and development system to take this 'talent' and turn it into a professional player, to develop their technical understanding of the game and in many cases develop physically.

Thus introducing a team and increasing the player pool by 25% places significant strain on the existing resources(i.e. players).


What is the point of developing depth if we have no fans and no sponsors interested in the game?? We need our teams to be competitive and playing quality rugby not just opening up positions for more players.

 

[qwerty51]

There are players in the Shute Shield that are 1st graders on the verge on Super rugby that are good enough for the pro competitions in Europe. Since Super rugby is all we've got, they go over and are lost to Aus rugby. We need to stop the exodus.

 

[TOCC]

There are players in the Shute Shield that are 1st graders on the verge on Super rugby that are good enough for the pro competitions in Europe. Since Super rugby is all we've got, they go over and are lost to Aus rugby. We need to stop the exodus.

Maybe.. But a player suitable to the European competitions doesn't translate to success at Super Rugby level..

If you are happy with the poor performance of the Australian conference then that's fine... I personally would rather see competitive teams which attract crowds, sponsors and rating and generate more money for aussie rugby..

Long term will see player depth built, however financially broadcast agreements are signed every 5 years and the value is predetermined as a reflection of the preceding agreement period..long term rugby union may be cheating itself of a lot of funding..

 

[en_force_er]

Saffy did have a massive tackle count in 2011, I find it hard to play Delve any where but 8. Higgers is a solid 6 where I don't like the idea of moving Delve to Flanker.

Will be interesting to see the formations down in Geelong and what's tested out.

How do you figure? What are the core skills of an 8 or a 6?

6 - A dogsbody type player. Is expected to be a good defender, offer a high workrate (though probably not as high as a 7), and is usually expected to be the 3rd lineout option.

8 - Impact player, must gain the team plenty of metres in attack and is often given the license to range wide and aid the FB.

If we can agree these are pretty standard positional expectations then we can agree that Delve whilst obviously an 8 ticks all the boxes at 6 whilst Higgers ticks most of the boxes at 8.

Obviously if we get tied up in the physiques of the players then Delve is an 8 and Higgers a 6 but lets view them in light of what they bring to the table rather than how pretty they look at the beach.

 

[en_force_er]

I have no problem with the selection of players like Lynn and Harris to Australian Super Rugby. Whilst they are really Kiwis they exploit a loophole in the system and are all in all clever pick-ups.

And you know, what's life without clever work arounds? That's why some blokes run rugby teams and we write on forums.

I don't particularly like pick-ups of non-Aussie Kiwis that don't do their time though (so zero issues with say, Grayson Heart), sure some are good but can't we get a pick more creative than just getting the next best ITM Cup player?

There's plenty top of the line Japs, Brits, Italians, Argies etc who are just as good if not better than 3rd tier Kiwis. Show some ingenuity Aus Super Rugby!

 

[kronic]

I gave up on this article after a while: http://www.theage.com.au/rugby-unio...on-has-hurt-the-wallabies-20121007-276vs.html

Still managing to string Kiwis along.

 

[KevinO]

How do you figure? What are the core skills of an 8 or a 6?

6 - A dogsbody type player. Is expected to be a good defender, offer a high workrate (though probably not as high as a 7), and is usually expected to be the 3rd lineout option.

8 - Impact player, must gain the team plenty of metres in attack and is often given the license to range wide and aid the FB.

If we can agree these are pretty standard positional expectations then we can agree that Delve whilst obviously an 8 ticks all the boxes at 6 whilst Higgers ticks most of the boxes at 8.

Obviously if we get tied up in the physiques of the players then Delve is an 8 and Higgers a 6 but lets view them in light of what they bring to the table rather than how pretty they look at the beach.

Delve has won our best player award two years in a row at 8, I understand your point but is changing his position really going to be best for the Rebels, I understand Higgers is a quality 8 but is he a better 8 than Delve?

My view is Delve is the best 8 in any of the Australian Super Rugby sides 2 years in a row and if he wasn't a Walsh international would have kept both Samo and Higgers out of the 8 jersery, I think Higgers could learn a lot about the role from Delve and make the shift from 6 to 8 in a years time when Delve is gone.

I do understand that all Wallabies fans want to see him at 8 because it's best for the Wallabies future, but I am a Rebels fan and want to see what's best for the Rebels proving they can match it with the best in Super Rugby.

 

[Dumbledore]

It's not just about Higgers and Delve though. It's about getting all our best players out onto the field at the same time, and at the moment that means shuffling the decks so that Pyle, Neville, Jones, Higgers and Delve are all starting. That's not set in stone of course, there will be injuries, Neville might get the second year blues, Higgers might give up even pretending to hit rucks. But at the moment that's what looks like our best bet - which is why Hill is talking about Higgers at 8. We picked him up to be a ball-runner, a forward who can consistently get us over the advantage line. Having Jones and Delve, who are both naturally tight players, in the same backrow gives him the freedom to do so.

 

[en_force_er]

Delve has won our best player award two years in a row at 8, I understand your point but is changing his position really going to be best for the Rebels, I understand Higgers is a quality 8 but is he a better 8 than Delve?

My view is Delve is the best 8 in any of the Australian Super Rugby sides 2 years in a row and if he wasn't a Walsh international would have kept both Samo and Higgers out of the 8 jersery, I think Higgers could learn a lot about the role from Delve and make the shift from 6 to 8 in a years time when Delve is gone.

I do understand that all Wallabies fans want to see him at 8 because it's best for the Wallabies future, but I am a Rebels fan and want to see what's best for the Rebels proving they can match it with the best in Super Rugby.

6 and 8 are just positions in the scrum which have certain defensive and offensive resoncibilities for the phase that directly follows the scrum.

Higgers is a better ball runner than Delve, therefore he could potentially have more impact first phase after the scrum as a carrier.

Other than that it's much of a muchness, playing Delve at 6 would not make his game worse it's just a different role 1st phase off the scrum. Nothing more.

 

[KevinO]

It's not just about Higgers and Delve though. It's about getting all our best players out onto the field at the same time, and at the moment that means shuffling the decks so that Pyle, Neville, Jones, Higgers and Delve are all starting. That's not set in stone of course, there will be injuries, Neville might get the second year blues, Higgers might give up even pretending to hit rucks. But at the moment that's what looks like our best bet - which is why Hill is talking about Higgers at 8. We picked him up to be a ball-runner, a forward who can consistently get us over the advantage line. Having Jones and Delve, who are both naturally tight players, in the same backrow gives him the freedom to do so.

You love Jones, but Saffy and Fuglistaller are both more likely to play 7 if fit. Saffy made 180 tackles in 2011 Super Rugby topping the competition and getting himself into contention for the Wallabies squad at the time, his injury has cost home badly with Hooper now stepping up. I think Jones played his best rugby in the second row last season before Neville got his chance and took it well enough that Jones couldn't get it back.

I don't think shuffling players out of their Best Positions is a good idea, Jones will be a great impact sub but will struggle to cement a back row spot when his natuarl position is a lock against the Flankers Saffy and Fuglistaller with the later being bought in to only really cover the 7 role and having 2 internationals taking places. It leaves Hill with 4 options for 1 position and a tough call to make when everyone is fit. Can't see Davidson getting a lot of game time next season.

 

[KevinO]

6 and 8 are just positions in the scrum which have certain defensive and offensive resoncibilities for the phase that directly follows the scrum.

Higgers is a better ball runner than Delve, therefore he could potentially have more impact first phase after the scrum as a carrier.

Other than that it's much of a muchness, playing Delve at 6 would not make his game worse it's just a different role 1st phase off the scrum. Nothing more.

Who's your 7?

 

[en_force_er]

Who's your 7?

It's irrelevant to the argument as neither Delve nor Higgers should be anywhere near a 7 jersey but probably Saffy if fit. Even though I don't think he's a 7 (I think of him as a Messam-esc 6) we can make it work if he have the right play style.

After than in the depth chart I'd put Davidson, then Fuglistaller, and then the two EPS 7s we have (I like the Manly one with dreads)

 

[KevinO]

It's irrelevant to the argument as neither Delve nor Higgers should be anywhere near a 7 jersey but probably Saffy if fit. Even though I don't think he's a 7 (I think of him as a Messam-esc 6) we can make it work if he have the right play style.

After than in the depth chart I'd put Davidson, then Fuglistaller, and then the two EPS 7s we have (I like the Manly one with dreads)

I do agree with you regarding 7 and I do see your points regarding the Delve and Higgers roles, it really is down to Hills tactics for scrum time that's going to decide this role. The depth of competition for places is great even to debate. Can't wait to see what the formations are in Geelong and how the new players gel.