Where to for Super Rugby?

[dru]

I agree.. but only if the power that be recognise the need for wholesale changes in the development pathways, it won't happen by ignoring this issue.

Perhaps this will be the annus horribilis that Australian Rugby needed to have, my issue and biggest fear is, that we don't have the right people steering the ship making the crucial decisions.. Pulver has done some great things, but facilitating the improvement in the quality of Australian rugby players isn't one of them.

I would add that IMO there is a confused position on who the ARU is working for. (What comes first, strength in SANZAR or strength in Aus rugby? They are not the same.) It is a tough position for them right now, no "right" answers. Still, they could have and should have done better.

 

[wamberal]

A good mate of mine earned his first Wallaby cap in that Tonga Test, and went on eventually to hold several very senior positions in the NSWRU and then the ARU.



He only stepped down a handful of years ago. The point I am making is that whatever was learned from the Tongan defeat did not disappear after 2001.



I am just guessing, but I would imagine that people like him know what the problems are. But as I have said many times, the solutions to those problems are either out of our hands as a rugby nation, or impossibly expensive to implement, or they rely on competing sports like rugby league disappearing from the face of the earth.

 

[Teh Other Dave]

The rot had well and truly set in by the time Pulver took over, and he's basically had to try and turn things around while limiting the haemorrhaging of money.

In the mean time, we won't see the benefits of the NRC for a while yet, but if it remains sustainable, it will be a fine legacy, particularly given the reluctance of some Shute Shield clubs to participate.

I guess that's why I hope we keep the Force and Rebels, the investment in the Force is only just starting to bear fruit in terms of local talent. If we can give them stability, they may even begin to flourish.

 

[Gnostic]

The rot had well and truly set in by the time Pulver took over, and he's basically had to try and turn things around while limiting the haemorrhaging of money.



In the mean time, we won't see the benefits of the NRC for a while yet, but if it remains sustainable, it will be a fine legacy, particularly given the reluctance of some Shute Shield clubs to participate.



I guess that's why I hope we keep the Force and Rebels, the investment in the Force is only just starting to bear fruit in terms of local talent. If we can give them stability, they may even begin to flourish.

What F^%$%^ benefits. After much argument I finally got an agreement that the competition was not for development of core skills. It basically gives a few club players some games with non-wallaby super players. Whoopee. We will never see the benefits because it isn't structured to produce any.

A grand final last year watched by a few hundred in a traditional country Rugby area.

The ARC and NRC was and is the ARU just "pissing money up the wall".

 

[Quick Hands]

What F^%$%^ benefits. After much argument I finally got an agreement that the competition was not for development of core skills. It basically gives a few club players some games with non-wallaby super players. Whoopee. We will never see the benefits because it isn't structured to produce any.

A grand final last year watched by a few hundred in a traditional country Rugby area.

The ARC and NRC was and is the ARU just "pissing money up the wall".

It's not even played under the same laws as super rugby or test rugby. So how any rational person would see it as a preparation for anything is beyond me.

 

[Micheal]

After much argument I finally got an agreement that the competition was not for development of core skills.

Your belief that it does not serve develop core skills != the NRC doesn't have benefits.

If nothing else it serves as a prolonged trial for the next wave of Super rugby contracts.

Naisarani had a great game on the weekend for the Force. Would he have a contract there if it wasn't for the NRC? Likely not.

It could also be argued that it assisted with Bill Meakes' transition to Super Rugby and the Western Force squad and the transition of Jono Lance to the flyhalf position.

It's an awesome platform to expose new players and, yes, to develop them. The players have emphasised this several times. It puts fringe Super players against rookies, allowing the rookies to test themselves against those with Super Rugby experience and allowing those with Super Rugby experience to gain some confidence and match fitness in the off season.

This is particularly important for Brumbies / Force / Rebels squad players who don't have the quality of competition in their local competitions to really test and hone their skills.

Just look at Matt Phillip, Irae Simone, Jake Gordon, Alex Newsome, Samu Kerevi, Izaiah Perese, Thor, Lukhan Tui, James Tuttle, Tom Staniforth and probably many, many more.

Even after that, its a solid platform to send injured Wallabies or out-of-shape Wallabies to in order to get them right for higher honours. E.g. Simmons, Quade, Carter, Speight etc.

Despite your beliefs it actually is a good development platform.

Aside from that, I'm 22 and from the Rugby heartland of Sydney. I've seen more NRC games, live and on TV, than I have Shute Shield games since leaving high school.

Why?

The NRC is fast, exciting and has players I recognise against players who I've heard have excelled at lower levels (e.g. Shute Shield). For me and most of the people I know, its a far more interesting competition and has that entertainment factor on its side as well.

 

[TOCC]

I dont agree that the NRC is just pissing money up against the wall, its a necessary inclusion into the development pathways, however like Super Rugby and the U20s Australian Rugby it isn't providing value for money..Coaching and skills development is an issue at all levels of Oz Rugby.

 

[Micheal]

It's not even played under the same laws as super rugby or test rugby. So how any rational person would see it as a preparation for anything is beyond me.

An array of skills drills, touch football, opposed sessions etc. aren't under the same conditions as Super Rugby or Test Rugby.

People use them because they simulate certain environments or situations which can be beneficial for training purposes.

The fact that a try isn't worth the same amount as in a Super Rugby game does not mean the helter-skelter running Rugby of the NRC doesn't force players to develop and implement new skills under pressure and exhaustion.

We've seen a huge improvement in Australian team's offloading ability this season despite our results being abhorrent. I think some of this is due to the NRC.

 

[Inside Shoulder]

The NRC is fast, exciting and has players I recognise against players who I've heard have excelled at lower levels (e.g. Shute Shield). For me and most of the people I know, its a far more interesting competition and has that entertainment factor on its side as well.

So - why dont we turn it into the domestic focus of Oz rugby........oh shit that would cost money........we better tax the juniors some more and send that to Pocock c/- Harare Post Office

 

[Quick Hands]

An array of skills drills, touch football, opposed sessions etc. aren't under the same conditions as Super Rugby or Test Rugby.

People use them because they simulate certain environments or situations which can be beneficial for training purposes.

The fact that a try isn't worth the same amount as in a Super Rugby game does not mean the helter-skelter running Rugby of the NRC doesn't force players to develop and implement new skills under pressure and exhaustion.

We've seen a huge improvement in Australian team's offloading ability this season despite our results being abhorrent. I think some of this is due to the NRC.

That's just ridiculous.

Any changes to the laws of the game affect the way it's played. Go and have a look at RWC 1991 or RWC 1999 when the laws were different.

The way that the laws are stated as well as how they are enforced can change the way the game is played and coached.

As for skills and drills, done properly they should have a direct impact on what occurs on the field. If they aren't, then they probably shouldn't be a part of the training.

 

[Quick Hands]

The NRC is fast, exciting and has players I recognise against players who I've heard have excelled at lower levels (e.g. Shute Shield). For me and most of the people I know, its a far more interesting competition and has that entertainment factor on its side as well.

You musn't know many people if most of the ones that you know find the NRC an interesting competition.

Most of the people that I know (outside of hard core rugby fans) haven't even heard of it.

 

[Inside Shoulder]

You musn't know many people if most of the ones that you know find the NRC an interesting competition.

Most of the people that I know (outside of hard core rugby fans) haven't even heard of it.

Not helped by that buffoon Sean Maloney

 

[Micheal]

So - why dont we turn it into the domestic focus of Oz rugby....oh shit that would cost money....we better tax the juniors some more and send that to Pocock c/- Harare Post Office

Participation fees have been discussed pretty thoroughly on this forum with some good analysis. They are lower or equal to almost all sports for children.

Fair point re: Pocock though.

You musn't know many people if most of the ones that you know find the NRC an interesting competition.

Most of the people that I know (outside of hard core rugby fans) haven't even heard of it.

Not many people I know outside of hard core Rugby fans know that Super rugby now has 18 teams.

I generally think that most people I see with a Shute Shield emblem next to their posts live in an echo chamber.

That being said, I certainly live in an echo chamber as well. I just wanted you to know that others exist outside your own. I know loads of people that share my opinion. Hence my original statement.

What a rubbish comment. It really doesn't add much to discussion.

That's just ridiculous.

Any changes to the laws of the game affect the way it's played. Go and have a look at RWC 1991 or RWC 1999 when the laws were different.

The way that the laws are stated as well as how they are enforced can change the way the game is played and coached.

As for skills and drills, done properly they should have a direct impact on what occurs on the field. If they aren't, then they probably shouldn't be a part of the training.

I'm not sure if you understood what I was trying to say.

Of course changes to the laws of a game effect the way its played. Ultimately, thats the reason there are the deviations from standard law in the NRC and I think the reasons for that are pretty obvious.

They force teams to play a high pace, attacking game that often isn't seen in club-land. This then forces players to practice their offloading etc. so that they can implement it in different versions of the code (e.g. Super Rugby).

You tweak a few rules to incentivises the players to implement core skills they otherwise may not.

That doesn't mean when you change them back they'll suddenly forget how to offload.

As you suggested: "that's just ridiculous".

 

[Gnostic]

You musn't know many people if most of the ones that you know find the NRC an interesting competition.



Most of the people that I know (outside of hard core rugby fans) haven't even heard of it.

And those that have, even hard core ones, some who are still playing aged 45 think its crap. FFS I even know a few players who think its a load of crap but follow through with it professionally and don't say anything too much because they have contracts to think about.

 

[Gnostic]

Participation fees have been discussed pretty thoroughly on this forum with some good analysis. They are lower or equal to almost all sports for children.



Fair point re: Pocock though.







Not many people I know outside of hard core Rugby fans know that Super rugby now has 18 teams.



I generally think that most people I see with a Shute Shield emblem next to their posts live in an echo chamber.



That being said, I certainly live in an echo chamber as well. I just wanted you to know that others exist outside your own. I know loads of people that share my opinion. Hence my original statement.



What a rubbish comment. It really doesn't add much to discussion.













I'm not sure if you understood what I was trying to say.



Of course changes to the laws of a game effect the way its played. Ultimately, thats the reason there are the deviations from standard law in the NRC and I think the reasons for that are pretty obvious.



They force teams to play a high pace, attacking game that often isn't seen in club-land. This then forces players to practice their offloading etc. so that they can implement it in different versions of the code (e.g. Super Rugby).



You tweak a few rules to incentivises the players to implement core skills they otherwise may not.



That doesn't mean when you change them back they'll suddenly forget how to offload.



As you suggested: "that's just ridiculous".

It has to be explained to you time and again, most of those of Shute Shield or other club emblems do so for a vast variety of reasons. I am the ONLY rugby fan left in my group who (1) actually has Fox (2) watches the games including test matches. We were hard core but a decade of mismanagement and underperformance saw them walk away and basically they do other things now, basically all family stuff, no sport not involving their kids is entered into. I have a Randwick logo, despite never being a member of the club and leaving Syndey in the early 80s. Why because it is a nod to the reason why I love Rugby, the Randwick sides of the late 70s through early 90s played a beautiful brand of Rugby. SO my echo chamber exists of myself and my friends in rugby who I largely met through GAGR. Even they are struggling to watch the games.

I actually challenge anybody to demonstrate how the NRC is value for money in terms of developing players, truly developing them in terms of core skills, fitness and preparation for Super (a joke now in itself) or test rugby. How can it given the length of the season and the time the "coaches" have with the players. It is the very definition of pissing the cash up the wall, and worse IMO pissing the opportunity and social capital up the wall. What benefits in terms of long term development and structures is the NRC developing that the Clubs could not as effectively have produced, and not just Shute Clubs, but the clubs in Bris, Melbourne and other capitals?

 

[Micheal]

It has to be explained to you time and again, most of those of Shute Shield or other club emblems do so for a vast variety of reasons. I am the ONLY rugby fan left in my group who (1) actually has Fox (2) watches the games including test matches. We were hard core but a decade of mismanagement and underperformance saw them walk away and basically they do other things now, basically all family stuff, no sport not involving their kids is entered into. I have a Randwick logo, despite never being a member of the club and leaving Syndey in the early 80s. Why because it is a nod to the reason why I love Rugby, the Randwick sides of the late 70s through early 90s played a beautiful brand of Rugby. SO my echo chamber exists of myself and my friends in rugby who I largely met through GAGR. Even they are struggling to watch the games.

I actually challenge anybody to demonstrate how the NRC is value for money in terms of developing players, truly developing them in terms of core skills, fitness and preparation for Super (a joke now in itself) or test rugby. How can it given the length of the season and the time the "coaches" have with the players. It is the very definition of pissing the cash up the wall, and worse IMO pissing the opportunity and social capital up the wall. What benefits in terms of long term development and structures is the NRC developing that the Clubs could not as effectively have produced, and not just Shute Clubs, but the clubs in Bris, Melbourne and other capitals?

Perhaps its time you walk away then.

Its very rare I see you post anything constructive or positive in these places.

You clearly don't like what you watch anymore, or a lot of the viewpoints here.

I think this constant "us vs. them" mentality is so acidic in Australian rugby. How is the ARU / NSWRU / xxxRU supposed to accomplish anything when they have masses of people that are unhappy with the situation yelling at them in frustration as they make their best attempts, given their resources, to correct the unhappy situation?

Regardless, the notion that NRC isn't value for money or doesn't develop players is largely abstract and unfalsifiable. I can't concretely prove you wrong just as you can't concretely prove yourself right.

a) "truly developing them in terms of core skills, fitness and preparation for Super (a joke now in itself) or test rugby"

I gave you a handful of examples in which I think it had developed players above and no one has since responded to them. Theres undoubtedly many more examples.

b) "What benefits in terms of long term development and structures is the NRC developing that the Clubs could not as effectively have produced, and not just Shute Clubs, but the clubs in Bris, Melbourne and other capitals?"

As I demonstrated, it pools what are essentially representative teams from various club competitions around the country and bolsters these squads with Super players that weren't selected for the Wallabies.

It allows WA/VIC/ACT players and, most importantly, players-to-be to test themselves against a quality of opposition not available in their local comps. Player better players undoubtedly makes for stronger players.

It allows us to directly compare WA talent vs VIC talent vs NSW talent vs QLD talent and so on.

It has numerous uses, outside of its core developmental qualities (which many agree it is), as a recruitment and talent identification pathway. The Club systems, as they are so fragmented, do not and can not allow for this.

 

[The torpedo]

Rule 10

 

[The torpedo]

Also the point of the NRC - as was stated (IIRC) when it was first started was to get players used to the pace of Super Rugby

 

[Ulrich]

For what it's worth, participation and cash will dry up when there isn't any success at the top level - particularly in a country where there are bigger sports.

Have a look at this and tell me what's wrong with this picture.

Australia have three winners and a total of 4 titles. South Africa 1 winner with three titles. That's only 7 that has not gone New Zealand's way.

I don't know what's gone wrong with the Waratahs since only 3 years ago when they won the competition but surely the players couldn't have gotten that bad so it must come down to coaching.

We should really harden up because that's just terrible and interest does wane when in SA for example our last title was won 7 years ago.

At the moment at least we should focus on winning our home games against all comers before we even start thinking about having any success on the road and not even that is happening. At least give the fans a reason to go out and see their team play at home and build from there.

 

[RugbyReg]

What F^%$%^ benefits. After much argument I finally got an agreement that the competition was not for development of core skills. It basically gives a few club players some games with non-wallaby super players. Whoopee. We will never see the benefits because it isn't structured to produce any.

A grand final last year watched by a few hundred in a traditional country Rugby area.

The ARC and NRC was and is the ARU just "pissing money up the wall".

it's now produced 70 odd Super Rugby players. Not a bad start.