Where to for Super Rugby?

[Ulrich]

The biggest difference the las few years has been fitness. How many times have we seen teams stay in it for 50-60 mins or even 70 mins against their kiwi counterparts and then get run off their feet?

 

[half]

Over drinks and BBQ with two other couples today, where one of the women plays in the same soccer team my wife does.

We starting talking about sport and the husband of the soccer playing lady who also plays soccer pointed out a Roy Masters article on A-League expansions plans last week. Roy was none to keen and used Super Rugby as an example of failure, and how it can all go wrong.

But in an otherwise i guess click bait type article the one thing he did say that could be having a major bearing on recent discussions.

Masters said Fox have product now and are not desperate for product.

It suddenly dawned on me back in the 90's we help build Fox. Today they have heaps of product at the same time we play.

Are the broadcasters really playing hard ball and this is what is causing the delay. The rating while not bad are not that good either.

Have by opening the discussion with broadcasters are we struggling to keep existing media deals.

 

[Upthenuts]

from the look of the table with all the kiwi sides havin more points than the best aussie team it is time to put the sunwolves and kings in the aussie conferance

 

[KOB1987]

Regardless of your opinion of the parrot it's hard to argue with any of this, it pretty much encapsulates the views of most on here.

http://www.foxsports.com.au/video/rugby/super-rugby/jones-slams-state-of-rugby!616026

 

[Dave Beat]

Produced 70 - 90 Soup players - I'm not sure if that is good or bad?

Our 5 Soup teams have won 6 games.
Crusaders alone have won 6 games.

That tells me the players we are producing under our current systems and process are not really Soup players but the best we have.
So we have to improve the systems and process, and as i have said before build at the foundations level.

Yeah i think Australian Rugby will get there faster at looking better on the scoreboard if we canned 1 or 2 Soup Teams - but that is the soft option and at the end of the day we will loose players. We need to get in there, work harder, improve systems and processes rather than look for excuses and point fingers.

What I find interesting;
At the moment we cant field 1 strong soup team, and how many soup teams are reliant on money from the ARU? But lets expand the NRC and spend money by including Fiji..........
Not being critical of this - just asking questions.
Who is funding that?
Is that developing rugby in Australia?
Is that increasing the participation levels?
The NRC is still very young, the Stars are no longer there after making the Semi Finals in 2015, they were gone in 2016 - why?
Expanding to Fiji could that money be better spent on the foundations.

Interesting fact
NRC started in 2014
Since then our Soup teams have sort of struggled.
Prior to that we were often competing at the pointy end
2014 Tahs won
2013 Brumbies went down in GF
2011 Reds won
Currently all 5 NZ teams sit above any Australian team (our best is 10th), so has NRC really produced any Soup players?

 

[Inside Shoulder]

^^^^^heres part of the reason: NSW AAGPS - The Next Generation - U16 Competition, and Presidents XV Rep Team
The sad reality is that the main "breeding ground" is schools and schools don't care how lopsided thry make the contest because it's a marketing point.
So when one school beats another supposed breeding ground by 70 points instead of the hose kids playing 5 hard games a season they are now down to 4. And when you allow for the fact that, in that comp (AAGPS), the third competitive school ain't - then in that comp you are down and o, maybe, 3. I am just using this comp to illustrate he point - it seems to happen everywhere.
3 hard games a year is not going to teach players how to play hard games.
When hey leave school and hey are f ted as superstars and join u20s where they play, at best, a similar number of hard games.
And then the best of them train train and train with a super franchise by which stage they might have played 10 hard games in 3 years.
In NZ they have played 40 plus hard games in the same time. Plus Their school games were hard too.

 

[Quick Hands]

did I say that?

I would suggest that the NRC has escalated the development of around 80% of the players to make their Super Rugby debut after playing NRC.

Which doesn't include players like Kerevi, Hunt, McMahon to further their development.

You implied it with the post that I quoted.

 

[Quick Hands]

It has certainly helped to identify those who are a level above others and with greater potential to step up.

Indeed it has, which is completely different to people asserting that it has "produced" players.

 

[Dave Beat]

^^^^^^ that is right.
imagine if our governing bodies got involved in the high school system and created a competition so all kids could compete.
make it prestigous so the all the alphabet schools want to be involved. That will develop players for our game and spit out more quality at the top.
Have those boys at highschool who play league also wanting to play union.

this is in NO way a dig at the Force.
But if the money handed to the Force each year was spent on a school boy competition there would be change left over and we would have more players feeding into our Soup teams.

 

[Quick Hands]

Interesting fact
NRC started in 2014
Since then our Soup teams have sort of struggled.
Prior to that we were often competing at the pointy end
2014 Tahs won
2013 Brumbies went down in GF
2011 Reds won
Currently all 5 NZ teams sit above any Australian team (our best is 10th), so has NRC really produced any Soup players?

I was goinig to make the much the same point.

It doesn't mean that I don't think that the NRC is a worthwhile concept, just that people linking it to improved super rugby performances are on very shaky ground. In fact the only evidence available would seem to suggest tha opposite.

I don't believe that it's had any significant impact at all on our elite rugby (positive or negative).

What's happening to our super rugby teams is the end point in a 15 year (or more) decline in the number of young people playing the game at both club and school level. Until that issue is addressed succcesses wil come, but they'll be few and far between.

Our talent pool is shrinking while the talent pools of our main competitors are all growing - there's only one way that is going to end, and it's in tears.

 

[Quick Hands]

^^^^^^ that is right.
imagine if our governing bodies got involved in the high school system and created a competition so all kids could compete.
make it prestigous so the all the alphabet schools want to be involved. That will develop players for our game and spit out more quality at the top.
Have those boys at highschool who play league also wanting to play union.

this is in NO way a dig at the Force.
But if the money handed to the Force each year was spent on a school boy competition there would be change left over and we would have more players feeding into our Soup teams.

Although in fairness to the Force, they're probably doing a better job than most state unions to promote the game at grass roots level.

 

[RugbyReg]

Indeed it has, which is completely different to people asserting that it has "produced" players.

Refer to my subsequent post where I acknowledged that produced was incorrectly used.

 

[TOCC]

Indeed it has, which is completely different to people asserting that it has "produced" players.

who actually produces players in Australia?
If it's not the NRC, Shute Shield/Premier Rugby?
What purpose does Representative Rugby, Shute Shield, NRC and Super Rugby then serve?

 

[Rugbynutter39]

Gnostic makes some valid points as does those defending the NRC in where it is at as a fledgling competition. A short form competition will always have its limits as to what it can do...but got to start somewhere. Could it be better - absolutely because always want to continue to develop and evolve new products as can't stand still but that is what they are trying to do - e.g. add Fiji - does it add to what we had as a pathway - absolutely.

Ideally if NRC or ABC mark 1 (whatever it is called) can develop a Currie Cup equivalent semi pro product that lasts a whole season that would be fantastic but realistically got to start small and grow from there in financially sustaining way unless something can change that to accelerate quicker (e.g. a All Sports throwing in a couple of hundred million to support a new competition).

I agree about the whole skills thing - we need some sort of national skills initiative that built into rugby training programs at grass roots levels so that say x amount of training focusses on that. But yes that would take some money and apparently we don't have a lot of that.

 

[TOCC]

.

this is in NO way a dig at the Force.
But if the money handed to the Force each year was spent on a school boy competition there would be change left over and we would have more players feeding into our Soup teams.

It's not that simple though is it...
Broadcasters are paying for live content of a professional sporting comp, they aren't paying $millions to broadcast schoolboy rugby.

 

[Rugbynutter39]

While we all agree a great opportunity was lost with pissing away of 2003 world cup windfall and associated social capital was not ideal. We have to move on as we can't get that back and just got to look at what we can do from here.

So when can we next host a world cup to help re-fill our coffers as in all seriousness one of the big constraints for new initiatives is lack of funds and bleeding of Super Rugby franchises not helping this. Ironic isn't it....as if had better product then we would not be in this precarious financial situation.

 

[TOCC]

Produced 70 - 90 Soup players - I'm not sure if that is good or bad?

Our 5 Soup teams have won 6 games.
Crusaders alone have won 6 games.

That tells me the players we are producing under our current systems and process are not really Soup players but the best we have.
So we have to improve the systems and process, and as i have said before build at the foundations level.

Yeah i think Australian Rugby will get there faster at looking better on the scoreboard if we canned 1 or 2 Soup Teams - but that is the soft option and at the end of the day we will loose players. We need to get in there, work harder, improve systems and processes rather than look for excuses and point fingers.

What I find interesting;
At the moment we cant field 1 strong soup team, and how many soup teams are reliant on money from the ARU? But lets expand the NRC and spend money by including Fiji....
Not being critical of this - just asking questions.
Who is funding that?
Is that developing rugby in Australia?
Is that increasing the participation levels?
The NRC is still very young, the Stars are no longer there after making the Semi Finals in 2015, they were gone in 2016 - why?
Expanding to Fiji could that money be better spent on the foundations.

Interesting fact
NRC started in 2014
Since then our Soup teams have sort of struggled.
Prior to that we were often competing at the pointy end
2014 Tahs won
2013 Brumbies went down in GF
2011 Reds won
Currently all 5 NZ teams sit above any Australian team (our best is 10th), so has NRC really produced any Soup players?

There is also a correlation between global warming and Australian Rugby..
Yet correlation does not imply causation...

And let's not vilify Fiji in all this, their inclusion in the NRC is been funded by World Rugby on a 4 year deal.

 

[Quick Hands]

who actually produces players in Australia?
If it's not the NRC, Shute Shield/Premier Rugby?
What purpose does Representative Rugby, Shute Shield, NRC and Super Rugby then serve?

A lot of people play a part and it's probably different in different parts of the country.

In Sydney, it's junior village clubs where most people start their rugby experience. Junior clubs in Sydney are affiliated with their SS district club and some are also part of a subbies club (the minority). Different SS clubs support their local juniors to different degrees. I know that in both Manly and Warringah there is a very strong relationship between junior clubs and the senior SS club. I'm told that some other clubs don't put as much effort in and some not too much effort at all.

So in the case of people coming through the Manly or Warringah systems, I'd say that they would have a fair case to say that they "produce" players.

In Sydney, a larger porportion of the rugby demographic now goes to private schools and this has an impact on junior club numbers. Private school players have nearly always played junior club rugby before high school. When I was involved in colts one of the things I made sure of was that I would work with registrars of our junior clubs to contact boys who had played club rugby and then stopped when they went to high school. We had a fairly good return rate when those boys hit colts as they remembered their junior experience.

I don't underestimate the role of the private schools at the top end of the talent pool, as those boys receive a high level of coaching particularly in their older years at school.

 

[Quick Hands]

correlation does not imply causation.

Which is why it's folly to link NRC and super rugby in either a positive or a negative way. (I know that you haven't, but some have)

 

[dru]

this is in NO way a dig at the Force.
But if the money handed to the Force each year was spent on a school boy competition there would be change left over and we would have more players feeding into our Soup teams.

Yes it is.

And a typically Sydney centered view - which svhools are you refering to? Not in Perth presumably whete you just destroyed the pathway.

Here in NSW, hunting for funds to schools, why not start with sustanable funding already arranged by the ARU - the annual fees. And look to remove the skew where the majority of that funding is to the SS and not available for community rugby.