Where to for Super Rugby?

[Dave Beat]

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.

Dru - 100% Perth, without any doubt at all.
I know of some very good kids that have come out of that pathway over the last 5 years. It would be utterly stupid to neglect that especially given league doesn't really have a pathway over there.

School boy competition, and it might end up being best school in each state competing for the over all prize.

No money is flowing from the ARU to SS, i have not asked for it to go to the SS "ever".

 

[blues recovery]

^^^^^^ 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.

In a former life I was with a company who was a sponsor of the Tahs .
I offered the then Tahs CEO an increase in our sponsorship of 60k a year on the basis that money was pushed into the Waratah Shield and that competition became a state wide comp open to all schools but especially on the basis that all GPS , CAS and ISA schools competed along of course with the CHS schools
He gave the idea complete lip service and asked would I consider instead spending the money as a third party payment to some no name League import .
And this was 10 years ago . And you want to understand when the rot started to set in that's reaching its peak now .
Greed and short sightedness . Two of the great attributes of Rugby Administration in our country handed down from generation to generation

 

[Sully]

Can't believe there is so much angst over a comp that costs nothing.
If it helps players develop and is cost neutral what is the problem?

Sent from my D5833 using Tapatalk

 

[Inside Shoulder]

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

Really?
The results would not suggest so - or is it that we are not realising their potential? and if that is the position why is it the position?
Just take Simoni - I thought he looked fantastic last year. This year he is a disappointment. That may be because he was not playing outside Foley.
But when Foley comes back not only do they drop Heggarty they drop Simoni, move Horne and Folau and Kellaway.
Was the contest to make as many changes to the team as possible in one week?
This is headless chooks stuff by management: funnily enough that is exactly how the players are playing.

 

[John S]

How hard can it be to organise a Super Rugby game at 5.30 and 7.30 on both Friday and Saturday nights for AEST? Surely with all their resources and a few logarithms in the mix they could sort that out. But no, I've got F**King NRL and no Rugby. This is shit house in the extreme. I know, lets cut some Aussie teams and have less local content so I can watch some foreigners play at odd hours - Yes that should do it.

Yeah, and I've only got the Sunday morning, game of the week, and whatever game I can find on Youtube, all because it's locked up on pay TV.

(Not counting the 7 Two SS game)

 

[Braveheart81]

I think the biggest benefit of the NRC is terms of transitioning players from club rugby to Super Rugby contracts is that it gives more players an opportunity to show their wares against professional players and for a lot of players that has led directly to getting a Super Rugby contract they probably wouldn't have otherwise received. Plenty of those guys wouldn't have got a look in otherwise.

There are lots of posts on the forums about the talent identification process and how teams are so willing to sign up schoolboy stars and to a reasonable extent that is true. In my opinion the NRC helps balance that out by identifying players who haven't been in all the junior age rep teams, Australian Schoolboys and Australian Under 20s.

There is no silver bullet here. Every competition is another piece of the puzzle to helping Australian rugby be better. We need to work on improving each of them and ensuring the mix between the competitions works effectively.

I am not sure what those critical of the NRC or club rugby or whatever else expect them to achieve.

 

[Joe King]

Wait, let me guess: attack, defence, and set pieces. Was I right?

Haha. Well played, sir.

I'm sure there are more, but I was actually thinking more specifically about something I've said elsewhere. For the NZ teams:

1. Every player with the ball is almost always looking to offload.

This appears to be a priority for every ball carrier. But these are not risky passes simply to keep the ball alive. If the pass is not on, then a player will take the tackle. But their first thought seems to be to look for the offload to a teammate in support.

In contrast for Oz teams, sometimes even when there is a real opportunity to offload, they don’t. It’s like they are committed to a different game-plan where they have to try and barge their way through the defence and take the tackle. This is especially so among the forwards.

But it’s not about the amount of offloads. An Oz team might complete plenty of offloads, but without much to show for it. It’s also about…

2. Strategic creation of offload chances.

For NZ teams, to create the opportunity for the offload, the player with the ball runs to the line, draws in a defender or two and then offloads. This creates space and opportunity for teammates in support.

In contrast for Oz teams, very often players pass way too early, or too deep, and before drawing in any defenders. This happens especially among the backs. This does not create space or opportunity for support players.

3. Players without the ball are supporting and expecting a pass.

For NZ teams, every player without the ball appears to be looking to be in support, expecting the pass from their teammate with the ball.

In contrast for Oz teams, it seems supporting players often have no expectation of receiving an offload in broken play.


It sounds pretty simple and obvious, but I’m sure these skills take time and focus to be mastered. And I’m sure the Oz teams work on these skills too, but we just don’t seem to be very good at them, or very focused on mastering them.

NZ teams seems to implement these three skills among the forwards when playing a tight game. And they do it among the backs when playing an expansive game. I’m not a coach, but from my observation, this is what makes New Zealand teams so potent in counter-attack and broken play.


And not only does their ‘style’ seem to be an effective way to win rugby, it’s also the most attractive way to play. This is why New Zealand derbies are so thrilling to watch.

This is just my observation. I'm sure there are people here who could pin-point the problem with Oz skills better than me...

 

[zer0]

It sounds pretty simple and obvious, but I’m sure these skills take time and focus to be mastered. And I’m sure the Oz teams work on these skills too, but we just don’t seem to be very good at them, or very focused on mastering them.

Offloads, draw-and-pass and other related ball skills are the bobby basics that are taught from high school onward in New Zealand. So most would've been practicing them for a decade by the time they make their Super Rugby debut. But yes, even at professional levels a large amount of time is devoted to basic ball handling drills.

 

[TOCC]

Really?
The results would not suggest so - or is it that we are not realising their potential? and if that is the position why is it the position?
Just take Simoni - I thought he looked fantastic last year. This year he is a disappointment. That may be because he was not playing outside Foley.
But when Foley comes back not only do they drop Heggarty they drop Simoni, move Horne and Folau and Kellaway.
Was the contest to make as many changes to the team as possible in one week?
This is headless chooks stuff by management: funnily enough that is exactly how the players are playing.

Yes really, playing against higher quality opposition is a better measure of a players ability.

Ive only watched parts of the Tahs this season, and Simone isn't the only one playing below expectation. Conversely you have guys like Paia'aua who have carried on their good form from the 2016 NRC.

This argument is all completely subjective and open to any number of variables

 

[ACT Crusader]

Joe King - Graham Henry really pushed this high pace keeping the ball alive style. Traditionally a higher risk style of attack. Some ABs were found wanting and fell from grace under Henry because they had neither the fitness or skill set to execute it. Some had a good base that Henry and co could mould. What happened across NZ Super teams was that teams began to train and then play with that same style. They maintained a level of uniqueness, but because of Henry's relative success, it became contagious.

Now it is common place to just back up, throw the 'miracle' offload. Albeit when if it's not executed well it is still criticised from fans heavily, but it has become the norm these days.

 

[wamberal]

But the fact remains, for all the glitz of high paced footy, offloads, et al, the New Zealanders are just better than us at the basics of the game.

 

[Joe King]

[Mick] Byrne said the reason why New Zealand win all the little moments is seen best with a big picture view.

“Take one areas, let’s say S & C,” Byrne said.

“In New Zealand the NZRU appoint the S & C coaches for all the teams. There is a head guy in New Zealand rugby called Mike Anthony and he sits at the top of that, and he also has age-grade development under him.

“But the All Blacks S & C coach Nick Jewell, and Mike Anthony, get on the same page at the start of the year and they work the research, what’s going to work and what’s not, and they put that out there to all the teams. And there is a consistent approach.

“The same philosophy is it there and there it is being driven through all the teams...

That collaborative approach is mirrored in skills, scrummaging, style of play, medical management and general rugby knowledge. All Black coaches visit franchises constantly, sharing ideas with their Super Rugby counterparts.

It is the reason why when one Kiwi star goes down, a no-name replacement comes in and has the same size, skill and confidence as the big name.

“Consistent messages give you confidence and greater security and things like that,” Byrne said.

Australia is not centralised like the NZRU, but under Cheika and Byrne, there is now far more collaboration among Australian Super franchises. They may not all be on the same page yet but they’re reading the same chapter...

Byrne is a process-driven pragmatist, and if you want encouraging news, here it is: he’s optimistic about Australian rugby. Australian teams will turn the Kiwi record around, it’s just going to take hard work, open minds and time.

“There are a lot of green shoots, and you just have to persist. You water them, you develop them and you don’t stamp on them,” Byrne said.

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/sp...e/news-story/5c3a8709c7ad46d72d8f1deccb2b18f7

 

[Joe King]

A friend of mine picked up on the way the RUPA survey suggested that Australia should either go it alone or pursue a Trans-Tasman comp and wrote to them directly to ask whether a domestic competition would really be financially viable. Apparently RUPA told him that they think a domestic competition would be more commercially viable in the long term.

I guess, if we could somehow up-skill and make our teams more competitive, then a Trans-Tasman comp could be quite exciting and mutually beneficial after the current broadcast deal ends in 2020.

But one of the problems with a Trans-Tasman comp, if we fail to up-skill fast enough, is that constantly being beaten by NZ teams does not help gain media attention and build a larger fan base in Australia, etc.

This is one reason why going it alone (at least for a spell) could be more attractive (assuming it really is financially viable). The benefits that come with teams winning would stay within Oz and help build rugby here. The ARU could put Australian rugby first in a way that is directly obvious to fans.

So just trying to think outside the box for 2020 onwards, I reckon something like this could be a bit exciting:


March-May: A revamped NRC* with all the test players available

May-June: State of Origin involving a real NSW Waratahs, Queensland Reds, and a ‘Best of the Rest’ representative team.

June: Offer the winner of State of Origin to play the winner of Super Rugby or any other such champion from whatever competition that exists at that time.

July: Inbound Tests

August-October: the Rugby Championship

November: End of Year Tour


*The revamped NRC could include the following teams:

ACT Brumbies
Western Force
Melbourne Rebels
+
2-3 teams created by the NSWRU
2 teams created by the QRU


I haven’t suggested what a ‘third tier’ could look like during July-October, but I reckon a set-up like this would suit fans in Oz, with all the pathways being kept alive. It also provides a mixed-bag of goodies for the broadcasters.

The ‘Best of the Rest’ team in State of Origin would work because it’s not a regular team playing week in and week out without a home. It would be a select representative team made up of the best players outside of NSW and Qld (there are other such equivalent teams that work in other sports).

The end result would be: Australia would have a national domestic comp with the best players available. It would have a great State of Origin concept. And the winning State of Origin team would have the potential opportunity to play the best team from another top level competition each year.

The other SANZAAR countries could establish a similar set-up if they wanted to, or continue with a form of Super Rugby. But whatever happens, Australia would be attempting to do what’s best for Australia, and take charge of its own future.

 

[waiopehu oldboy]

^^^^^^^^^ what makes you think that if Australia walks away from SANZAAR the successor body (SANZJAR?) would include Australia in whatever TRC evolves into? NZRU would probably be keen on keeping the Bledisloe Test/s but I'm not sure SARU etc would bother.

 

[dru]

No money is flowing from the ARU to SS, i have not asked for it to go to the SS "ever".

Dave, did I say you did? You proposed that money redirected from WA could do a lot of good in the Sydney grass roots. I responded by suggesting you could start by finding funds much, much closer.

I am by now completely on board with suggestions to get behind community rugby and I'm not convinced that Super rugby as it is being offered is any better than a club based national domestic comp might be.

But each time these discussions use Shute Shield junior rugby (where it exists) as a claimed appropriate space to direct funds, I just can get past the fact that it ignores Sydney Subbies juniors, NSW Country juniors, NSW community rugby generally.

And of course rugby development in ACT, Victoria and Western Australia.


So to follow your logic, and "not to have a dig at the SRU", but if NSWRU license funds from Waratahs Ltd, which presumably aren't required when an anti Super, anti-ARU stance is put froward, if those funds were redirected to WA, hell, couldn't they do something with that for grass roots development!

 

[NTT]

Dave Beat,
Why is it the ARUs fault alone to be pushing into high schools? What does NSWRU contribute to high schools? Do they even fundraise and invest they're own time and resources into the schools or do they only do the bare minimum on what the ARU provides and uses that as an excuse not to do any more?
I know in Perth our Development Officers go to schools from Kununurra to Albany and out to Kalgoorlie. They cover and run programs over an area the size of NSW, QLD and VIC combined and have reached over 50 000 school kids over the last 6 months alone. And that is while receiving less money than NSW in funding. We raise our own funds to cover the shortfall.
As for the NRC, most of the detractors are missing some key points. Firstly it gives the best club players the chance to test themselves against super players. As super rugby is levels above club it is only logical to play against them to improve.
Secondly it gives our professional players somethong they need, more high level matches. Playing in Super Rugby then going back down a couple of tiers to club rugby just undoes the skill and instinct built up playing at Super level. Yes its good because x team wins a premiership with a stacked team but it also brings playets back to the lower intensity and skill levels at semi amateur levels. 1 step forward 2 steps back.
Thirdly, it has the potential to be another source of revenue for Australian rugby in the future. Contracted players from Super Rugby are covered by existing contracts so there is no extra cost there. The club players sign a per match contract. No real significant costs added there. Travel costs is the only significant cost which canbe absorbed into sponsorship and a small fraction of the tv money.
Fourthly, it develops the player bases in WA and Victoria. Whilst some pine for the glory days of the 90s, a simple but inevitable fact of life is that times have changed and we must change with them. Its like saying VHS was the best, lets go back to VHS. All the while our competitors have moved on to Bluray discs and streaming services. They have moved onto superior ways of doing things. The majority of detractors want us to go backwards to an out dated system.
Fifthly, The Shute Shield does not produce the level of talent it used to. The common argument is that Sydney produces some 80% or 90% of our Super players. This just proves the point that the Shute Shield is not developing players of a necessary standard as the same players that are produced in the Shute Shield are our current Super players. I mean the best of the Shute Shield still hasnt won the NRC, yet they are considered our best players by some.

To be a strong rugby nation you need depth, not just at the top level but in the development levels. Providing as many opportunities as possible to as many kids as possible is how we achieve that. We have seen players like Haylett-Petty, Godwin and Naivalu unearthed in the non traditional heartlands. We must continue to look for these diamonds in the rough regardless of which state they're in. There are more to come from these states, all of which will come through the pathways are consolidate the player pool. It will take some time, a couple more years, but it is happening. We can all remember when a WA or VIC under 20s side would get pummeled by NSW or Qld. The situation now is that instead of 2 competitive teams we now have 5. Instead of having 60 or 70 for the Aussie 20s to select from we now have 180 guys playing top level under 20s rugby. Expand that again with some Country sides and all of a sudden we have 250 guys pushing for selection and Super contracts and NRC contracts. Telling our best players they must choose between taking a huge gamble and moving state to maybe get a contract is silly. It just make the decision for those kids giving up on rugby and going to other sports a lot easier. Then rugby loses twice, less depth and a lower standard of athlete.

 

[wamberal]

My two bobs' worth on the question of getting our game into high schools would be that the only chance we have is if the headmaster and/or the sports master is a rugby tragic we might have a slight chance.


Other than that, I just do not think we have the dosh. We used to be in a lot of pretty good high schools, but that was because the game was considered to be the gentlemen's game, and of course sport generally was a fixture in the life of schools. I am talking about CHS schools here, by the way.

 

[Quick Hands]

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.

Neither ARU nor the NSWRU provide any funding to SS anymore. You can stop flogging that horse, it's well and truly dead.

 

[Quick Hands]

Can't believe there is so much angst over a comp that costs nothing.
If it helps players develop and is cost neutral what is the problem?

Sent from my D5833 using Tapatalk

It's also a little odd that we're even talking about the NRC on this thread.

 

[Quick Hands]

I know in Perth our Development Officers go to schools from Kununurra to Albany and out to Kalgoorlie. They cover and run programs over an area the size of NSW, QLD and VIC combined and have reached over 50 000 school kids over the last 6 months alone. And that is while receiving less money than NSW in funding. We raise our own funds to cover the shortfall.

As I said back in post #1772, from my obervations and enquiries the Force/WARU to a far better job at grass roots development than any of the state unions.

Keep it up over there.