Rebels3
Jim Lenehan (48)
The proposal in the Roar wouldn’t work, as the tier below the 2 teams would require players to disperse every year to other areas of the country, packing up their lives and families each time and then moving back to Sydney and Brisbane. It would be a nightmare from a player perspective and lead to more players moving overseas looking for stability.
On another topic, I am amazed how many people now believe less teams = greater cohesion = better wallabies. Like in anything there is a level where too many teams ruins cohesion but equally too few teams ruins opportunity. So you might get greater cohesion but retaining less talent. Back in 2008 when Ireland were looking at their governance model they seriously thought about cutting Connacht, however the report commissioned came back with the following recommendation.
“At any given time, 25 to 30% of those players are injured in the pro game. At any given time, each team is allowed six international players max, non-Irish qualified players who are absolutely vital to the success. But four by six is 24 players. And then with your 25% out injured, if you have 100 players and 24 foreign, that’s 76 to choose from.
“So if you have only got 100 players, which effectively is three squads of 30, your Irish team base comes down to 50 fit players from which to run your international programme. Add another few people that aren’t on form and then you are heading into Scotland territory, of trying to run a game with two teams. Very simply, if you go from four to three, at any given time, you are going to have in the order of 50 to 60 players that your national coach can select from. There is very little room for error to have a squad. That assumes those 50 players are on form, and it also assumes that we have got depth with those players and the right players are available.
“When you do the maths, Ireland needed four squads of 30 in the professional game, because that gives you the wriggle room to play at the level.
We have clear proof in the Jaguares that less isn’t more and cohesion at the expense of opportunity isn’t ideal. Argentina btw during the Jaguares era have just experienced their longest losing streak in history. South Africa (who’s Super Rugby results are pretty similar to Australia’s) has just won the World Cup since expanding their professional base to 6 teams.
Here is the article on the report and the guy involved in it. The Australian system is even mentioned in it, stating the the Irish used to have a system very similar to Aus and it needed to change because of the issues with it. It’a a very relevant piece on reform at a professional level. I’d also say if RA wanted a consultant to work with, he might be the guy given his history across numerous countries in the game
https://amp.irishexaminer.com/sport...onnacht-433578.html?__twitter_impression=true
On another topic, I am amazed how many people now believe less teams = greater cohesion = better wallabies. Like in anything there is a level where too many teams ruins cohesion but equally too few teams ruins opportunity. So you might get greater cohesion but retaining less talent. Back in 2008 when Ireland were looking at their governance model they seriously thought about cutting Connacht, however the report commissioned came back with the following recommendation.
“At any given time, 25 to 30% of those players are injured in the pro game. At any given time, each team is allowed six international players max, non-Irish qualified players who are absolutely vital to the success. But four by six is 24 players. And then with your 25% out injured, if you have 100 players and 24 foreign, that’s 76 to choose from.
“So if you have only got 100 players, which effectively is three squads of 30, your Irish team base comes down to 50 fit players from which to run your international programme. Add another few people that aren’t on form and then you are heading into Scotland territory, of trying to run a game with two teams. Very simply, if you go from four to three, at any given time, you are going to have in the order of 50 to 60 players that your national coach can select from. There is very little room for error to have a squad. That assumes those 50 players are on form, and it also assumes that we have got depth with those players and the right players are available.
“When you do the maths, Ireland needed four squads of 30 in the professional game, because that gives you the wriggle room to play at the level.
We have clear proof in the Jaguares that less isn’t more and cohesion at the expense of opportunity isn’t ideal. Argentina btw during the Jaguares era have just experienced their longest losing streak in history. South Africa (who’s Super Rugby results are pretty similar to Australia’s) has just won the World Cup since expanding their professional base to 6 teams.
Here is the article on the report and the guy involved in it. The Australian system is even mentioned in it, stating the the Irish used to have a system very similar to Aus and it needed to change because of the issues with it. It’a a very relevant piece on reform at a professional level. I’d also say if RA wanted a consultant to work with, he might be the guy given his history across numerous countries in the game
https://amp.irishexaminer.com/sport...onnacht-433578.html?__twitter_impression=true
