The Pulverisation of Australian Rugby

[Inside Shoulder]

I'm not disputing any of this, I don't disagree with the concept of expansion, just the way it's been enabled to allow the force and rebels the best chance of success.

It's not about them or just about them.
I want them to succeed but I don't want a policy (which is the difference re Speight) which looks to importation from other countries or other codes.



Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[Ted S Hunter]

As it happens I had a long chat to a mate about something of this nature concerning the development of our younger players. Whilst this is a rough theory, I think it has a bit of merit. We were discussing how ordinary the U20's were against Ireland the other day, his reply was something to the effect of "they have had 6 games already through the 6natins, of course we got pumped!".

As the aru academy is now non-existent, the states now have there academy's taking over. Each state must develop a 25 man U20's squad. These squads then play each of the state sides in Australia as curtain raisers to the super rugby domestic clashes. This gives a proper U20's comp and also gets the boys playing and tranng in a high performance environment, but most importantly I say it again IT GETS THEM PLAYING FOOTBALL!

As a flow on effect, the young kids making up the academy's also filter into the local club comp and start to build up the other states comps, as it is more likely that the bulk of players will come from NSW or QLD, so you stat to strengthen the local comps in Vic and WA.

Someone needs to do something pretty smartly about getting a stepping stone from schoolboys to super rugby, because academy's and weights don't quite cut it, and the jump from Shute sheild or premier rugby up to the super arena just seems to big.

Hope Pulver has some ideas and is willing to chop some of the ARU and state body deadwood to make it happen!

 

[Inside Shoulder]

.

Hope Pulver has some ideas and is willing to chop some of the ARU and state body deadwood to make it happen!

Yeah he he has,
We'll be importing dead wood from now on.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[Ted S Hunter]

Yeah he he has,
We'll be importing dead wood from now on.


Oh good, I thought for a minute we might try and change stuff! But hey if you shut your eyes and say the system works, it must work right

 

[Bruce Ross]

I think I missed the bit where you said "the system works", IS.
.

 

[Inside Shoulder]

How can you say that a system that sees the former CEO, the new CEO and the coach all live in 1 suburb and that sees a worldwide search produce as a new CEO the chairman's best mate since they were half and 5/8 at school, not to mention members of the same golf club, needs to consider revision?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[Ted S Hunter]

It's not a good look IS, you nailed that one on the head!

Their credentials can't be argued with in terms of their position (will leave Robbie's position out of it), but they need to make some tough calls and big changes or everyone will sit by like you and I asking how the hell these guys managed to get in their!

Pulver has 6 months to make changes following the links series finishing up. I'll give him that long. In that 6 months, the ARU had better have a new coach AND a decent proposal for a second tier/ platform in place to improve the transition from schools and shield rut to super rugby. If nothing, then I to will join the chorus baying for blood!

 

[ChargerWA]

A

As the aru academy is now non-existent, the states now have there academy's taking over. !

Slight issue there Ted S Hunter , the ARU has de-funded the WA academy and now only funds the Sydney and Brisbane academies.

Not only are we behind the game, with the new changes that will never change. Mercenaries don't strengthen our player pool in the long term. To address the issue would take a long term commitment to the grass roots rugby comps in WA and Vic. That would require vision and leadership from the ARU, so needless to say I'm not holding my breath.

 

[Ted S Hunter]

Neither am I Charger, but if the set up an U20's comp to shadow the sper teams for the domestic legs, it would at least show the ARU was series about developing our younger talent and sending competitive teams to the world champs each year, it ,it be cause for hope that things could change.

Bringing in kids who are 18/19 for a couple of years helps to build your academy side and also strengthens the quality of d secnd tier rugby in Perth while they are there, but the force for example will have first shot per say at the young bloke which makes the super side stronger, which in turn makes the game more attractive, whic makes more young kids watch it and want to pay it, and all of a sudden it becomes the spur to kick start the growth of junior rugby in WA. It's a 10-15 year plan, but the longer you wait, the longer it will take to the results!

 

[Ted S Hunter]

Apologies for the longest sentence in history too, was on a roll and couldn't think of an appropriate time to hit stop!

 

[Gnostic]

In my view one of the biggest impediments to showcasing the talent that Australian Rugby actually has is the stupid contracting system. The ARU and RUPA have created a system where the "top" players tie up all the cash. Those players will be in the Wallabies every year, regardless of form and fitness, simply because the ARU doesn't have the cash to pay somebody not topped up to come in. You can name the Wallaby squad year to year by who is topped up. Indeed, Cooper who was never going to be selected again under Deans, only got a top up contract because the QRU needed to be bribed to prevent a significant revolt.

Just look at teams like the Reds tonight, shorn of the Wallabies they matched a Test side. look at the Rebels, they actually play better without the "X factor" types that Deans and the ARU like to promote.

There is plenty of talent in Australia that just doesn't get a run, not only at test level but at Super Level also. In fact the list is fairly long, of players who have left Australia because they couldn't get a start anywhere.

 

[Inside Shoulder]

In my view one of the biggest impediments to showcasing the talent that Australian Rugby actually has is the stupid contracting system. The ARU and RUPA have created a system where the "top" players tie up all the cash. Those players will be in the Wallabies every year, regardless of form and fitness, simply because the ARU doesn't have the cash to pay somebody not topped up to come in. You can name the Wallaby squad year to year by who is topped up. Indeed, Cooper who was never going to be selected again under Deans, only got a top up contract because the QRU needed to be bribed to prevent a significant revolt.

Just look at teams like the Reds tonight, shorn of the Wallabies they matched a Test side. look at the Rebels, they actually play better without the "X factor" types that Deans and the ARU like to promote.

There is plenty of talent in Australia that just doesn't get a run, not only at test level but at Super Level also. In fact the list is fairly long, of players who have left Australia because they couldn't get a start anywhere.

I agree with you wholeheartedly.
As devil's advocate and since someone else will raise it if I dont, it may be said that if you dont use the top up system the ARU cannot control who gets the money and therefore who stays in Australia and who goes overseas in search of $$$.

 

[Inside Shoulder]

Neither am I Charger, but if the set up an U20's comp to shadow the sper teams for the domestic legs, it would at least show the ARU was series about developing our younger talent and sending competitive teams to the world champs each year, it ,it be cause for hope that things could change.

Bringing in kids who are 18/19 for a couple of years helps to build your academy side and also strengthens the quality of d secnd tier rugby in Perth while they are there, but the force for example will have first shot per say at the young bloke which makes the super side stronger, which in turn makes the game more attractive, whic makes more young kids watch it and want to pay it, and all of a sudden it becomes the spur to kick start the growth of junior rugby in WA. It's a 10-15 year plan, but the longer you wait, the longer it will take to the results!

Frankly I'm not sure we have the bodies to do a 1 team from each province/franchise comp.
For that you need 30 for each side, 5 sides = 150.
On average say 75 in their first year out of school and 75 in their second.
This means paying everyone in Australian Schools and Oz Schools A - leaving aside the issue of whether those teams are entirely merit based - and then finding another 15-20 EVERY YEAR!
That represents a lot more than ever go on with elite level rugby and would still miss the kids who develop a little later.
The loig model works because the clubs are more powerful than the schools and it starts to sort itself at Harold Matthews (? or whatever the youngest rep age is called) where everyone with potential essentially goes into a single comp, played weekly rather than over a week or weekend (in shortened versions), where they play against everyone else thought to have potential.
The union model does not work because of diverse interests in diverse competitions only focused on their 3 or 4 rivals within their particular comp.
The ARU has no interest in breaking the essentially school based system because it is cheap development (its imperfections do not outweigh the attractiveness of its cheapness) - that's not even addressing the more vexed question of whether they could even if they were inclined to.
Our "system" is still based, essentially, on an amateur model struck no later than the 1920's

 

[Ted S Hunter]

Fair point IS, but I don't think it is un achievable, and more importantly it forms Parton the "pathway" so people will want to be involved. They do something similar wit the Aleague a the moment and it works for them a treat!

 

[Inside Shoulder]

Fair point IS, but I don't think it is un achievable, and more importantly it forms Parton the "pathway" so people will want to be involved. They do something similar wit the Aleague a the moment and it works for them a treat!

but soccer has huge numbers: see todays herald

 

[Gnostic]

I agree with you wholeheartedly.
As devil's advocate and since someone else will raise it if I dont, it may be said that if you dont use the top up system the ARU cannot control who gets the money and therefore who stays in Australia and who goes overseas in search of $$$.

The ARU should contribute directly to the Super Franchises as they currently do but expand that marginally. Selection in Wallabies squads and teams progressively entitles a player to gradually increasing incentive payments for higher performance. Given incumbency unless injured or horrendously out of form the status quo will be maintained. The players income can be guaranteed in the case of injury by insurance, just like the rest of us which the aru should subsidize. Such a system would have is own issues but will allow so much more flexibility and offer true reward for effort.

 

[No4918]

As others have said the contracting system is a big problem. Too many players go overseas when they are no longer 'required' by the national coach as there money drops substantially. If players like G Smith and Giteau could have made reasonable coin only playing Super Rugby the code and franchises would be a lot stronger. It would also help retain the many fringe Wallabies that are so important to franchises.

 

[Bowside]

The think the practise of signing foreign journeymen has to stop.

I agree that the super rugby teams should each be allowed a Foreign capped player so that Argentinian and PI players have a chance to make a living in the SH. I can see a case for a guys like Tanaka, Fotuali'i, Nagala and Toumalalo to play super rugby, because they are genuine talents.

But the force and rebels are just signing 25+ year old (non aus eligible) kiwis who can't get a run in NZ and all they end up doing is playing a few games mostly off the bench. I'd like to see these fringe spots to go Australian players.

Furthermore these development spots just sound like poaching to me. It is a short term solution that will hurt Australian rugby in the long term; and it's not good for international rugby fullstop.

 

[Caputo]

Thanks Bruce good article and I have 7 points I would like to say

1. The health of Australian franchises in 2013 and onwards. I feel I have seen enough good signs by all five teams. Rebels and Force have good future signings. Waratahs have verged on impressive more often and Brumbies building on from 2012 but would like to see them more expansive.

2. ARU KPI it seems is a strong Wallabies but does not filter down to the standard of competion in Melbourne, Adelaide, Perth or even Armidale.

3. Unknown Australian's abroad possibly being confused with Imported Development Players (IDP). In the last few years we have seem the number of these rise. Fairbrother formerly Force, Sekope Kepu and Mike Harris Wallabies. Others Leon Power, Winston Stanley, Sam Christie, Grayson Hart, Smith twins and Murphy (IRB disagree) and next year at the Rebel's Smith, Sexton and Lahiff. Whilst our IDP have been Sias Ebersohn, Jayden Hayward, Ettiene Oosthuizen, Henry Speight, Jason Woodward and Scott Fuglistaffer. Up until now the balance has been good.

4. Shute Shield v Local Competitions. It seems that one of the Jake white legacy have been having all Brumby contracted players remain in the John I Dent Cup and to distribute these players. This may have encouraged other players to stay. Additionally Jake has tried to accommodate the local competition. I note a few weeks ago Manly complaining about Rebels that may not be released to the Shute Shield. Qld do not release players so why should Rebels and Force players be released. We want the local Perth and Melbourne competions to be better.
One of the worst thing I saw was the announcement of JOC (James O'Connor) with West Harbour, a player who has not played in the local competitions.

5. WA and Victorian representatives for Australian Schoolboys incl A and Australian U20 representatives. Have they been tracked and what is their best development. Could they be additional to numbers and salary cap. I note some have finished up in the Sydney University nurserary.

6. Academies where is the direction. Cost cutting and in Sydney and Brisbane but divorced from the Super franchises. Before there was the tied level of professional and amateur. I remember in 2005 where the ARU had HP contracts where they wanted TPN to change from flanker to prop/hooker and each franchise had 5 players training with them and could only be called up with horrific injuries.

7. Australian U20 and 7's we need to find a spot where these teams sit. Olympics help the 7's and should they be on national contracts at wallaby standard. I like the idea of a national U20 competion as curtin raisers.

 

[TOCC]

It's not about them or just about them.
I want them to succeed but I don't want a policy (which is the difference re Speight) which looks to importation from other countries or other codes.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

In the long term neither do I, but their success or lack thereof is a reflection of the shallow depth, right now Australia doesn't have the depth to provide 35 super rugby player to each team.

I think australia has the potential to fill those positions, but the development pathways are broken, the academy system is quite frankly a failure and the current squad sizes are barely big enough to meet the requirements of a full season.