What Do Aussies Think?

[Bullrush]

I read this comment on a story in the NZ Herald and I wondered how Aussies would take to this:

Chris, you are correct, it was an extremely poor rugby game on Saturday night and the fact the Wallabies were in it until the end, despite their inept performance doesn't say much about the ab's performance. The Australian rugby Union lacks any depth. They have only two real first grade competitions, Brisbane and Sydney, and I watched some Sydney rugby on tv last week in Australia, Paramatta playing Wests, and it was the equivalent of President's grade rugby in nz. I have never seen so many over weight players in first grade.

This lack of depth makes Dean's job very difficult. I think it is about time the nzru assisted their Australian counterparts by allowing them to put teams into the itm Cup. They have nothing between limited first grade opportunities and Supper 15. Nz has the itm Cup and the South Africans the Currie Cup. Australia has helped nz out in basketball/League and football and nz has benefited considerably having these professional sports available to nz youngsters.


I think nz should reciprocate in Rugby. Strong Australian rugby is better for everyone especially the spectators.

While I am totally loving the NZ dominance over the Wallabies for the last 10 years, I have to agree that 'strong Australian rugby is better for everyone'

 

[Jiggles]

To be honest, when Link comes in next year and picks players on form and uses a game plan, I think you will see us a bit more competitive. The players are here.

This is just 1997 all over again.

Sticking QLD, NSW and ACT teams in the NPC would be nice, but I don't expect it will ever happen. So I won't dwell on it too much.

 

[Hugh Jarse]

I have floated that concept previously on these threads and received rather unenthusiastic responses from the Gaggerlanders displaying a silver fern icon.

As I understand it Otago is in receivership (or would be if it was a retail business), and many other ITM franchises require significant cash injections from Darkness HQ to keep going.

With the massive crowds, big sponsorships, poker machine super club cash injections, TV $ and merchandising, many of our mungo clubs are also on struggle street.

Without massive crowds, moderate sponsorship, bugger all poker machine revenue, not much from TV, and stuff all merchandising, it would probably be a bridge too far to expect clubs on this side of the Tasman to be able to afford the travel and accommodation costs associated with playing in the ITM cup. fairly sure that the NZ ITM cup teams would not look too favourably on several cross tasman flights either.

 

[Bullrush]

To be honest, when Link comes in next year and picks players on form and uses a game plan, I think you will see us a bit more competitive. The players are here.

This is just 1997 all over again.

Sticking QLD, NSW and ACT teams in the NPC would be nice, but I don't expect it will ever happen. So I won't dwell on it too much.

While the top-tier first choice Wallaby team may be competitive with a new coach, would that address the depth issues that seem to be hurting Australian rugby?

I understand that logistically and financially it might not be at all viable but it would be damn interesting.

 

[Jiggles]

While the top-tier first choice Wallaby team may be competitive with a new coach, would that address the depth issues that seem to be hurting Australian rugby?

I understand that logistically and financially it might not be at all viable but it would be damn interesting.

I know this may not be a popular opinion, but I believe that the lack of depth in Australian rugby has nothing to do with a 'third tire' like the NPC or Currie Cup. The South African's have a third tire, but they haven't performed better than Australia at test level for sometime now. Additionally the talent seems to get drafted into the big three Super teams. If you look at the test statistics going back to 1992, or re-introduction, South Africa actually has an inferior test record overall, head to head and against NZ than Australia, despite a third tire.

I would rather resources go towards placing an emphasis on club rugby over schoolboy as the premier junior development pathway in this Country. The private schools are the reason rugby survived in this country, but times have changed. Currently if you want to make it as a pro rugby player, you have to go to an elite private school. Essentially that means rugby as a professional sport is open to people like me, who had parents that for what ever reason thought I would benefit from this education and were in a financial position to send me there, and open the top 1% of kids who may not be able to afford private schooling, but get scholarships. Rugby is shut off to many kids in Brisbane from age 14 onwards who do not go to a top school, and who may not be outstanding players at this age. With the ever increasing number of kiwi and islander kids in South East Queensland, we need to provide an avenue for them via club rugby, for the benefit of Australian rugby in the future.

 

[BPC]

I tend to agree with Hugh Jarse that the financial impediments boths sides of the Tasman would be hard to overcome.

I am also unsure what to make of "Australia has helped nz out in basketball/League and football". I don't know enough about basketball or football but in League, I am pretty sure the Warriors was always intended to be a profit making enterprise and a bridgehead into the rugby culture in NZ. Not a lot of altruism there as far as I can tell.

 

[BPC]

Financial issues aside, it would be my second choice after a decent Australian third tier competition.

 

[I like to watch]

Jiggles,I'm not disagreeing with the thrust of your post, but how does giving funding to Club Rugby help 14 yo's?
The better kids will still wander off to prestigious private schools on their scholarships. What would funding to clubs change?

 

[Jiggles]

The point of having the top tire of junior rugby as a club rather than GPS Schoolboy thing is to expose more kids to better rugby.

 

[Iluvmyfooty]

Said it beforer and I will say it again - play schools during the week and allow the schools players to play club on the weekend. Best of both worlds

 

[Bullrush]

Just in regards to SA, from a lot of the Saffers I've spoken to, their rugby is held back more by politics in the game than anything else. From a NZ point of view, I look at the talent they have coming thru and I think it's scary. If they ever get their shit together, SA would be flippin' awesome....

 

[Hugh Jarse]

There goes the first week of the July holidays for the Private Schools then.

I have been told that the Private Schools get the extra holiday week on the basis that they consider Saturday sport attendance as part of normal School hours. To stay under some School Hours "salary cap" type arrangement, then Private Schools then have an extra week of holidays to keep parity with the Public system.

 

[I like to watch]

HJ, I think you will find that Private schools have a longer day than Public schools ( start earlier,finish later).
that's how they get longer hols.

 

[Freddo Frog]

ILTW is right - it's the longer school day that scores the private kids the extra week's break. Most school have about an extra 40 minutes each day (start about 8.20am rather than about 9am).

It'll be interesting to see exactly what a new coach and some young keen players will add to the Wallabies - hopefully a bit of bloody grunt! At the moment I'm seeing far more passion from 17 and 18 year olds (hell, even 15 year olds!) playing for their school than I'm seeing from half the Wallaby lineup.

 

[AngrySeahorse]

I know this may not be a popular opinion, but I believe that the lack of depth in Australian rugby has nothing to do with a 'third tire' like the NPC or Currie Cup. The South African's have a third tire, but they haven't performed better than Australia at test level for sometime now. Additionally the talent seems to get drafted into the big three Super teams. If you look at the test statistics going back to 1992, or re-introduction, South Africa actually has an inferior test record overall, head to head and against NZ than Australia, despite a third tire.

I would rather resources go towards placing an emphasis on club rugby over schoolboy as the premier junior development pathway in this Country. The private schools are the reason rugby survived in this country, but times have changed. Currently if you want to make it as a pro rugby player, you have to go to an elite private school. Essentially that means rugby as a professional sport is open to people like me, who had parents that for what ever reason thought I would benefit from this education and were in a financial position to send me there, and open the top 1% of kids who may not be able to afford private schooling, but get scholarships. Rugby is shut off to many kids in Brisbane from age 14 onwards who do not go to a top school, and who may not be outstanding players at this age. With the ever increasing number of kiwi and islander kids in South East Queensland, we need to provide an avenue for them via club rugby, for the benefit of Australian rugby in the future.

'Like' this times a million. Lots of public & small denominational private schools like Catholic, Anglican, etc have kids that would prefer a system favouring club rugby. Many juniors outside of Sydney would rather eat rat poison then go to a boarding school, others will say it is their loss, it isn't - they go to league & usually do well. The only loser is Rugby. I believe we don't have the depth of NZ but at the same time I don't believe we utilise the numbers we have of those currently playing Rugby - this is due to the narrow pathway.

I like the idea of joining the ITM cup but can't see it happening.

 

[Scotty]

While the top-tier first choice Wallaby team may be competitive with a new coach, would that address the depth issues that seem to be hurting Australian rugby?

I understand that logistically and financially it might not be at all viable but it would be damn interesting.

The only way it would be feasible is if SA left the super xv, and the new comp replaced that. Yes it would drastically lower the revenue initially, but it is my opinion that it would lead to an increased interest and participation in rugby in Australia.

All games would be at prime viewing time and the average punter (ie the fringe rugby followers) would relate more to a game of aus vs aus or aus vs nz. Eventually, I believe it would be a good thing and lead to growth of the game in aus and underpinning of the game in nz.

7-8 nz teams, 5-6 oz teams.

 

[qwerty51]

Just to be clear, that Shute Shield game was terrible played by two teams that are 8-10 in the comp. Manly/Eastwood/Uni would give most ITM cup teams a run for their money, especially late in the season with a lot of Super rugby players.

 

[thierry dusautoir]

The current sunny bank line up would be up there as well. Gill, schatz, tapuai, kingi and alo-Emile running around

 

[disco]

I think the Kiwis owe it to us because we've let Kiwi teams into the NRL, NBL & Z League. I think they should allow a Brisbane & Sydney team at the very least.

 

[Waylon]

I read this comment on a story in the NZ Herald and I wondered how Aussies would take to this:



While I am totally loving the NZ dominance over the Wallabies for the last 10 years, I have to agree that 'strong Australian rugby is better for everyone'

It's spot on