Where to for Super Rugby?

[hoggy]

Don't know about your mates etc hoggy, but back in NZ most that I know that have any involvement in rugby would back WOB's statement, I knew before I came and seems most I talk to at home a reasonable amount about Aus rugby.

Maybe I should clarify most Kiwis i know are sympathetic to the Wallabies but generally have little knowledge of the lack of domestic presence the game has here.

The problems have been long in the making and ultimately come from short term vested interests, with those in charge always focused on visions of grandeur, that have never been prepared to make the sacrifice that to move forward they just maybe have to take a step back.

The biggest market that will ever be available to the game here is Australia, basing your whole set up for the benefit of a foreign broadcast entity has paid the bills but the end result is the game we have in Australia now.

 

[Lindommer]

Alan Jones is a rent an opinion...commentator that gives about 2 seconds thought to any subject that contributes to the self-aggrandisement of Alan Jones. Alan Jones is good for helping to stir the pot for change in Oz society but has nfi on changes required.

 

[dru]

re WoB

The problem, for an Aus rugby fan, is that the Kiwi position/facts as put forward by WoB can be perfectly accurate and even benevolent as presented.

And still be completely incompatible with a solid future for future Australian rugby. The comp needs a leveling of quality. Three obvious ways to do this:
1. increase number of Kiwi teams - advised as not possible
2. spread the top (largely Kiwi) talent - Kiwi benevolence does not travel this far
3. reduce Aus teams - is this acceptable for Aus rugby?

Plenty of fans here seem to me not to recognise that basic equation, but for many fans here to step this way requires some radical changes. We also ideally need to add in to the mix a national footprint for pro rugby.

New Zealand is simply not going to step this far. We need to step away or let SANZAR provide some alterative form of Super that does cover Australian requirements. They have not done so. We should step away to a domestic league. There would be no problem at the season end moving into a TT or Super Champions Leauge, though I would suggest that the Aus teams at that point should be selected teams, SOO style or something akin to last Friday.

Will that suit NZ? Doubt it. SO let them continue with SA/Argentina, as the funds from Europe continue to trend down and the comp becomes sufficiently non-sensical that even NZ recognises it.

Our choice is at that point in time, are we working from a further reduced Aus pro rugby from within a further reduced pro rugby, or do we get a start on this nose dive by building now what SANZAR can/will not.

[These conversations are truly circular at this point.]

 

[Dan54]

I don't think WOB is arguing what Aus rugby needs, basically he saying what most know is correct dru, but NZRU's board are appointed and have to act in the interest of NZ rugby first and foremost, it part of their constitution, (as ARU would be for Aus rugby etc etc) and unfortunately the first 2 points you pointed to above I am afraid have the ability to do an awful lot of harm, in financial terms or player terms so it doesn't matter how much they want to do ,they still have their hands tied.

 

[dru]

I don't think WOB is arguing what Aus rugby needs, basically he saying what most know is correct dru, but NZRU's board are appointed and have to act in the interest of NZ rugby first and foremost, it part of their constitution, (as ARU would be for Aus rugby etc etc) and unfortunately the first 2 points you pointed to above I am afraid have the ability to do an awful lot of harm, in financial terms or player terms so it doesn't matter how much they want to do ,they still have their hands tied.

I'm pretty sure I understand what what WoB is saying. But there are repercussions from the NZ position. Especially for Australia. That is all. It's not a tricky concept. And saying "hey, we Kiwi fans feel for you" doesn't cut it.

The very, very obvious response is for Australia to cut from Super. And then Dan, good luck with your trans Indian comp.

NZ will cotton on sooner or later. But it seems the situation must be forced. The real question is if there is anyone of substance in Australia prepared to consider, let alone act on, the obvious.

 

[Gnostic]

IMHO the biggest issue with Australian Super teams is the skill deficit in basic skill execution in game. We have players, superstars who cannot execute the basic skills for their positions. The NRC does F^%$^% all to address that, it is not a development competition, it simply does not have a long enough season and the squads are not assembled long enough to develop any real combination. The only thing it is good at is burning the money supporting it (even if it is cost neutral for RA) and being part of the idea that more product is a good outcome with no regard to the quality.

Until the development pathways are fixed the performance issues of the Australian Professional sides will not be addressed. And by development I do not mean "identifying" potential talent at 16 years old and paying them shit loads or contracting them to EPS or somesuch, that is not the way.

Interesting yesterday I watched the U16 elimination finals for a regional NSW competition and saw a 16 year old kicking goals from outside 40M. making clearing kicks from his goal line to the 40m line and over half way from the 22. Interesting that the current Wallaby 10 cannot execute that skill.

 

[Dan54]

IMHO the biggest issue with Australian Super teams is the skill deficit in basic skill execution in game. We have players, superstars who cannot execute the basic skills for their positions. The NRC does F^%$^% all to address that, it is not a development competition, it simply does not have a long enough season and the squads are not assembled long enough to develop any real combination. The only thing it is good at is burning the money supporting it (even if it is cost neutral for RA) and being part of the idea that more product is a good outcome with no regard to the quality.

Until the development pathways are fixed the performance issues of the Australian Professional sides will not be addressed. And by development I do not mean "identifying" potential talent at 16 years old and paying them shit loads or contracting them to EPS or somesuch, that is not the way.

Interesting yesterday I watched the U16 elimination finals for a regional NSW competition and saw a 16 year old kicking goals from outside 40M. making clearing kicks from his goal line to the 40m line and over half way from the 22. Interesting that the current Wallaby 10 cannot execute that skill.

Geez Gnostic it funny you say that, I have just started watching GPS college rugby, and mate was saying why is it these kids can play so well, it is a joy to watch, kids all show the required skills in rugby, and particularly the team we watching Southport , are a team that almost never die with the ball, but continue to use their skill of passing etc to beat players. They also have a 10 who has all the skills, can kick ,pass and know how to play heads up rugby. We really wonder what is happening further up the line and suspect the Academy system is maybe coaching too many systems?

 

[Dan54]

I'm pretty sure I understand what what WoB is saying. But there are repercussions from the NZ position. Especially for Australia. That is all. It's not a tricky concept. And saying "hey, we Kiwi fans feel for you" doesn't cut it.

The very, very obvious response is for Australia to cut from Super. And then Dan, good luck with your trans Indian comp.

NZ will cotton on sooner or later. But it seems the situation must be forced. The real question is if there is anyone of substance in Australia prepared to consider, let alone act on, the obvious.

Perhaps dru it is what is required, because surely you don't really expect the NZRU to bankrupt themselves to save Aus rugby, though I don't think it is the answer anyway.

 

[lou75]

Geez Gnostic it funny you say that, I have just started watching GPS college rugby, and mate was saying why is it these kids can play so well, it is a joy to watch, kids all show the required skills in rugby, and particularly the team we watching Southport , are a team that almost never die with the ball, but continue to use their skill of passing etc to beat players. They also have a 10 who has all the skills, can kick ,pass and know how to play heads up rugby. We really wonder what is happening further up the line and suspect the Academy system is maybe coaching too many systems?

That is exactly what I was getting at a few posts ago - the Reds have organic growth capacity, talented school boys and lots of depth to choose from, so why do the Reds end up the way they did this year? Where do the talent go? Do all of them go to AFL and NRL? and if so, why?

 

[neilc]

That is exactly what I was getting at a few posts ago - the Reds have organic growth capacity, talented school boys and lots of depth to choose from, so why do the Reds end up the way they did this year? Where do the talent go? Do all of them go to AFL and NRL? and if so, why?

Reds talent goes to the Brumbies and Rebels and Force (pre WSR and after) as well as overseas and other codes.

 

[kiap]

^True enough.

Having a well of talent playing nearby won't mean a lot if the joint is run by time serving big-notes and half-arsed jobsworths.

The playing talent is mobile. It moves out to find opportunities and can be moved in to meet needs.

 

[Rebels3]

That is exactly what I was getting at a few posts ago - the Reds have organic growth capacity, talented school boys and lots of depth to choose from, so why do the Reds end up the way they did this year? Where do the talent go? Do all of them go to AFL and NRL? and if so, why?

A large portion of the top line talent will have incentive deals with NRL clubs, either financial, tuition based or high performance opportunities.

 

[Dan54]

That is exactly what I was getting at a few posts ago - the Reds have organic growth capacity, talented school boys and lots of depth to choose from, so why do the Reds end up the way they did this year? Where do the talent go? Do all of them go to AFL and NRL? and if so, why?

You do wonder don't you Lou, though the rumour is the No 10 I mentioned is off to Crusader's academy, not sure how true it is. Though he is from a kiwi family (going by name) so may well be true!

 

[Dan54]

I'm pretty sure I understand what what WoB is saying. But there are repercussions from the NZ position. Especially for Australia. That is all. It's not a tricky concept. And saying "hey, we Kiwi fans feel for you" doesn't cut it.

The very, very obvious response is for Australia to cut from Super. And then Dan, good luck with your trans Indian comp.

NZ will cotton on sooner or later. But it seems the situation must be forced. The real question is if there is anyone of substance in Australia prepared to consider, let alone act on, the obvious.

Ok dru, I understand what you saying but I would correct one statement where you say it not a tricky concept, for NZ I think it is, you are suggesting they risk their financial position to have an extra team, did it do Aus any good?
Or otherwise you suggest they release players to play for Aus teams, they already can, ie Mike Harris , Daniel Braid etc. I not saying nothing should be done to assist Aus rugby, (or Samoan, fijian etc etc) but to say it not trickuy is perhaps incorrect.
Seems there is certainly no shortage of Rugby unions around here that feel they are owed by NZ to keep them going!!

Can I perhaps suggest that also I not sure this idea of NZ needing to dilute their talent really holds a lot of substance, Aussie teams have won the Super title before, and in my opinion will again. I really don't think rugby strength in this country is as woeful as a number seem to think.

 

[dru]

Perhaps dru it is what is required, because surely you don't really expect the NZRU to bankrupt themselves to save Aus rugby, though I don't think it is the answer anyway.

NZ are bankrupting themselves. They just haven't worked it out yet. They are doing better than both Aus and RSA so it may take longer to bite. But income will fall for NZ as elsewhere.

But no I don't expect anything from NZ. I expect something from RA.

 

[lou75]

A large portion of the top line talent will have incentive deals with NRL clubs, either financial, tuition based or high performance opportunities.

Hello Raelene, are you listening?

 

[Gnostic]

Geez Gnostic it funny you say that, I have just started watching GPS college rugby, and mate was saying why is it these kids can play so well, it is a joy to watch, kids all show the required skills in rugby, and particularly the team we watching Southport , are a team that almost never die with the ball, but continue to use their skill of passing etc to beat players. They also have a 10 who has all the skills, can kick ,pass and know how to play heads up rugby. We really wonder what is happening further up the line and suspect the Academy system is maybe coaching too many systems?

Many of these blokes don't get a run at any level because the system is such that those with contracts get the run first because the cash has been spent on them. A bit like the argument about leaving the investment to rot by not selecting Cooper for Qld even though there has been no offences that we know of. My issue with the whole system is it is not really merit based, so many of these blokes get selected in rep sides and higher on the basis of potential, taking up space and cash on contracts without ever really realising that potential or improving their skill set. That is my point, and I think yours as well, we are seeing better skills execution from amateurs, and it is not just in terms of execution outcomes, it is in terms of base techniques. I make that qualifier because the argument will certainly be used that the "pressure" is less at lower levels and hence the time to execute is greater, though I would argue that is relative when you consider amateurs training and fitness in the equation, but in any event that argument is rendered moot in considering the fundamental execution techniques and not just the outcomes.​

 

[half]

NZ are bankrupting themselves. They just haven't worked it out yet. They are doing better than both Aus and RSA so it may take longer to bite. But income will fall for NZ as elsewhere.

But no I don't expect anything from NZ. I expect something from RA.

NZ are bankrupting themselves. They just haven't worked it out yet. They are doing better than both Aus and RSA so it may take longer to bite. But income will fall for NZ as elsewhere.

But no I don't expect anything from NZ. I expect something from RA.

NZ are operating under a couple of false premises, and the biggest is an RA self-inflicted wound.

RA / ARU have been crying wolf for decades about we need help or rugby will die. Essentially this time it’s real the other times was to get more money to cover Australia’s inefficiencies.

Second to assist RA / ARU asking for more, RA / ARU have been over selling to NZ rugby the size and influence rugby has in Australia, again creating an “”O here we go again they want more money””

Third, being aware of an issue, until you live it. It’s impossible to appreciate what it means and this applies to NZ rugby. They are so strong and have been for over 100 years that warning coming from Australia are “””meh””.


Without a well through out plan “B” we along with NZ are captive of SA remaining in Super Rugby. If SA pull the pin then both Australia & NZ are in for a world of pain. If not prepared for it and without a change in management who could work their way through such an event, a collapse of Super Rugby is very possible . Meaning professional rugby anywhere close to existing levels is doubtful.

 

[Dan54]

Without a well through out plan “B” we along with NZ are captive of SA remaining in Super Rugby. If SA pull the pin then both Australia & NZ are in for a world of pain. If not prepared for it and without a change in management who could work their way through such an event, a collapse of Super Rugby is very possible . Meaning professional rugby anywhere close to existing levels is doubtful.

And there we see the problem, we have some here saying Aus and NZ need to get out of Sanzaar because it hurting the game,(and games are not right time for them) and others like yourself saying well we need to stay in because of money that comes from SA in TV deals. I actually would say a lot of in between is the case, NZ rugby actually sells reasonably well in Europe and Asia (my son in Italy often watches ITM cup games live), but I really believe that all 3 Unions know there really is more strength in the 3 being together!

 

[Dan54]

NZ are operating under a couple of false premises, and the biggest is an RA self-inflicted wound.

RA / ARU have been crying wolf for decades about we need help or rugby will die. Essentially this time it’s real the other times was to get more money to cover Australia’s inefficiencies.

Second to assist RA / ARU asking for more, RA / ARU have been over selling to NZ rugby the size and influence rugby has in Australia, again creating an “”O here we go again they want more money””

I don't think ARU ever really begged money from NZ, in the 80s most of it was just bringing teams over to keep rugby relevanthere, I know talking to some old heads that used to be on QRU and them saying that they always felt that the NZ provinces (and I think Canterbury was main one here in Qld, basically rescued the game here by bringing teams over to play at Ballymore.