Waratahs 2013

[waratahjesus]

Totally agree, we donthave the playing group for 5 Aussie teams to have strong rosters and be able to challenge for a title, it's going to be along time before we do and infact if you look at south Africa and NZ then you have to say no country does.

Unfortunately for the force, there the least concern in the overview of Australian rugby. The east coast (sans Canberra really) is the largest market and needs to have the dominate teams in order for rugby to shore p the numbers needed to generate the income and presence it needs in the market place.

I'm not saying I hpe the force die or anything, I like having five teams, I'm just saying that the force should be concentrating on buying or recruiting young guys and building them into a team. If you could turn back time, surely having four/five years of pain building towards a goal rather than reactive recruitment each year would be better. I look at the GWS recruitment in the AFL and why it could fail, having a ton of talented juniors at least gives hope.

 

[fatprop]

The Force are good for TV, they fill the 9.30 slot with live rugby

 

[waratahjesus]

The Force are good for TV, they fill the 9.30 slot with live rugby

They sure do, but filling a 930 slot means alot more when a large population are interested in the match. Having local derbies in Sydney with a west Sydney or coast team and Brisbane with a north or gold coast team would make alot more revenue fir the sport than berth ever will. Perth is there to grow the game, but as I said in actual terms of wealth to the code there nit that valuable.

 

[Slim 293]

Im not being NSW centric. My point is that an Australian team winning the comp does more for rugby in the country then having a strong conference. The Brums and the Reds in the past are perfect examples of that...

I don't really care which Aussie team wins the Super XV so long as it is an Aussie team... With Hooper at the Tah's I think they are one step closer to a squad that could do that

This argument always cracks me up...

So by that rationale...

Wouldn't it then be better for Australian rugby if he stayed with the Brumbiea as they'd be in a better position of winning the comp?

 

[Joe Mac]

This argument always cracks me up...

So by that rationale...

Wouldn't it then be better for Australian rugby if he stayed with the Brumbiea as they'd be in a better position of winning the comp?

Only if you are inferring that the Brumbies will be a better outfit than the Tah's in 2013?

If that's what you mean then absolutely. If the Brumbies had the best chance to win the comp next year then yes, it would be best for Aussie rugby for Hooper to stay there.

But only a rabid, one-eyed Brumbies fan would come to that conclusion looking at the current rosters for 2013. Which obviously isn't you Slim

 

[Slim 293]

There's no reason why they might not be....

Point is, the old "it's the best thing for Australian rugby" quote is always pulled out when it's to the benefit of that persons team...

 

[fatprop]

It is pro sport, there will always inequities.

The Tahs had 3000 good props, they lose Palmer, the Brumbies have a couple of good opensides, they lose one. The Reds have plenty of backs, they lose some to the Brumbies. The Brumbies had 3 good 10s last year, but Giteau leaving allowed both to stay

It evens out eventually and then it starts all over again.

 

[Joe Mac]

There's no reason why they might not be....

Point is, the old "it's the best thing for Australian rugby" quote is always pulled out when it's to the benefit of that persons team...

I see the conflict of interest, but the Tah's genuinly need an openside. Now they have it, their pack looks as good as any in the competition (If they can keep the other big names)... When was the last time an Aussie team could boast that? And that is why it seems like a good move for Australian rugby...

 

[Slim 293]

Only if you are inferring that the Brumbies will be a better outfit than the Tah's in 2013?

If that's what you mean then absolutely. If the Brumbies had the best chance to win the comp next year then yes, it would be best for Aussie rugby for Hooper to stay there.

But only a rabid, one-eyed Brumbies fan would come to that conclusion looking at the current rosters for 2013. Which obviously isn't you Slim

The Tahs are currently sitting where on the ladder?

It's going to take more than one excellent opensides to put them in any contention...

Like a good fly half, or some fit in form backs...

Point is... None of this is in the best interest of Aussie rugby... Just NSW rugby...

Thinking otherwise is delusional...

 

[barbarian]

Why Slim?

I agree with Joe.

This change gives more game time for two great young players who would normally be fighting over the one spot - Colby Fainga'a and Michael Hooper. Thus both will develop into better players. This is good for Australian rugby.

 

[Slim 293]

On the flip side, competing for that one spot would make them better players...

And thus, better for Australian rugby...

Or not...

Point is, the old better for my team = better for Australian argument is a grand delusion...

 

[Lee Grant]

waratahjesus - re: your post #161:

It's the never ending story: do you want to read the chapter where Oz rugby had 3 Super teams as it was originally, or the one where they had 4 when the Force was added, or 5 as it is now?

Some folks said that having 4 teams would lessen the chances of an Oz team winning the Super comp. When a 5th Oz team was added the same thing was said.

We knew that would be the case before 4th and 5th team started playing, just as we knew that SAffers and Kiwis would moan that the standard of the comp would be depreciated.

We knew they would be right: the best predictions are true when you make them.

When the possibility of having a 5th Oz team was announced the above matters were discussed in this forum. Many Aussies also raised the objections mentioned above.

Yours truly said that if a choice between having a 5th Oz Super team or a national competition was available he would pick the national comp every day of the week. Since that wasn't an option he would take the 5th Super team, not because it would improve the chances of an Oz team winning the comp, but despite the opposite being a certainty.

Many held this opinion since they saw a chance to have a de facto national competition without spending a dollar and getting the benefits of increasing the pool of Oz professional players by 25% whilst keeping more of them in the country.

There was a possibility that more candidates for the Wallabies would be revealed than with 4 teams. Some players would go offshore before we got a chance to look at them properly, others would be benched for years even if they stayed. At the very least some players would be recognised earlier than in the parallel universe where there were only 4 Super teams.

SAffers and Kiwis objected to subsidising this and we knew they were right to do so. We told them that their unions agreed to it because of financial gain; so, blame them, not us.

But I digress. The Force and Rebels will always be up against it in most years because a majority of players will tend to want to stay in their home area - and most of them come from the east coast of the country.

There is little that the ARU can do about this. The innovation that the Rebels could use more foreigners than other teams, a dispensation that the Force should have had in their set up period, was a good idea. The Rebels and the Force should be allowed to have 2 foreign marquee players and 2 developing foreign players each, always, and the 3 other teams no foreigners at all. Perhaps the developing players should not be counted in the contract quota, which is currently 30.

More important is the building of the sport in WA and Victoria, but that is another issue.
.

 

[Gnostic]

I agree that in keys areas we don't have enough top level players ATM to fill five teams especially when we have injureies which will happen every year. But in some areas we have some players that just wouldn't have got a start or the developement if it wasn't for the Force and Rebels. Here I will point to the case of the Front Rows and Locks.

If we had just the old 3 some very promising potential players would not be getting developed. Peterson, Batye, Pyle, Wykes, S. Carter, Douglas, Timani, Kimlin, Simmons at lock (and I know I've missed a couple). The starting locks would be Mumm, Sharpe, Horwill, with three from the list and maybe another three in the squads getting minimal game time.

Same in the front rows just list the props now with very good experience. Hooker is more of any issue but without the Force and Rebels I have no doubt that we would only see Fainga'a, Moore and TPN, with others starting for injures.

The areas we suffer and by extension results are suffering is at 10 most especially. This is nothing new, the Tahs haven't produced a top level 10 since Knox and Bowen in the 90's (and some would argue those two did rate as top level).

 

[barbarian]

On the flip side, competing for that one spot would make them better players...

And thus, better for Australian rugby...

Or not...

Point is, the old better for my team = better for Australian argument is a grand delusion...

No, it wouldn't. Quite simply that is not a valid argument.

I agree the term 'better for Australian rugby' is thrown around a bit too much but I legitimately believe this to be the case in this particular transfer.

I would say the same if, say, Saia Fainga'a was signed by the Rebels giving James Hanson more time in the starting XV for the Reds.

.

 

[Slim 293]

No, it wouldn't. Quite simply that is not a valid argument.

I agree the term 'better for Australian rugby' is thrown around a bit too much but I legitimately believe this to be the case in this particular transfer.

I would say the same if, say, Saia Fainga'a was signed by the Rebels giving James Hanson more time in the starting XV for the Reds.

.

Saying it wouldn't doesn't make it so...

But I'll leave it there...

 

[barbarian]

What?

Having two good young players getting regular starting spots at separate teams is CLEARLY superior to having them both competing for the one spot and thus only playing half a game each at the same club.

I would have thought that is fairly obvious.

 

[fatprop]

Video on the Fox site, nice to see Mitchell running about a bit, no boot and of course Rocky looking grumpy and dirty

http://www.foxsports.com.au/rugby/s...h-wales-waratahs/story-e6frf4qu-1226331032919

 

[Braveheart81]

What?

Having two good young players getting regular starting spots at separate teams is CLEARLY superior to having them both competing for the one spot and thus only playing half a game each at the same club.

I would have thought that is fairly obvious.

No. Apparently it will make them both fat and lazy and lose all drive to perform because it will be much easier for them to have a starting spot.

Currently the only thing motivating Hooper is that Fainga'a is nipping at his heels.

 

[Lee Grant]

One hopes that it is not the only thing.

 

[Braveheart81]

Maybe I should start typing in magenta to indicate sarcasm.