The_Brown_Hornet
John Eales (66)
We've had the Drua in the NRC before
Understand that and didn't they win it? All I meant was you can't have Drua in a domestic comp (if they would want to join it) if you want a guaranteed Aussie winner.We've had the Drua in the NRC before
I would suggest that could possibly be why Jaguares have been offered a spot supposedly from 2026?
I don't think it will come to that, but I suspect could have something to do with in case? Also if Aus did go domestic, and expanded by a couple of teams I honestly think without reform the weakened teams could well be finding they struggle against Drua? And if the the problem is no Aus team being guaranteed winning comp they would have to shed Drua.
we have great schoolboy systems
Get back to the juniors,
‘I thought he was going to glass me’: Wallabies fan confronts McLennan at restaurant
The Rugby Australia chairman said his family were shocked by the “ugly” and “embarrassing” exchange, which occurred the night after Australia’s defeat to Wales at the World Cup.www.smh.com.au
I know we aren't exactly thrilled with McLennan's leadership, but that crossed the line.
Interesting the article referenced Nucifora being part of the review, when he has flat out refused to have anything to do with Australian Rugby after 2012
I appreciate this postHey Bullrush.
1. NZ will have their own drivers for their pro-rugby and your thinking is not an outlier - NZ is welcome to it and understandably will chase their own requirements. The challenge becomes when that self imposed restriction runs against an ability to field a professional competition (insufficient teams). At that point it is transferring NZ drivers onto others. It would be rational to treat your partners with the same respect that you reasonably ask for yourselves.
2. I don't think it is well argued that characteristics taken out of historical context are necessarily relevant to the current. Your view appears to be that the strength exists within existing Australian structures to successfully maintain a professional competition and a competitive International representation - by "condensing" talent. Many of us in Australia doubt this. (If you are unwilling to accept things that have been said on G&GR by now you aren't changing thinking any time soon.) We also confuse necessary commercial success with an optional drive to quality where "quality" means standard of rugby not standard of the competition itself. Reality is these things must be balanced, though our current predicament leaves little to balance with. Yes, if we set a polemic, my primary driver is to rebuild.
3. If your rationale is to lock-in historical context to weight possible pathways forward, why wouldn't this default to when Australian international success was at it's greatest? Players from club rugby (4th tier when the NRC was operating?) straight into the Wallabies. In deed, occasionally from club reserve grade. To be fair I am struggling to see an immediately competitive Wallabies under any of the proposals, including mine. Though I'd hope a domestic rebuild would ultimately see an improved Wallabies in comparison to the current trend via Super.
It isn't just a down-trend east of the Tasman, though you seem to imply success in NZ, fair enough. The reality where I see it, is that Super has failed both NZ and Australia. NZ solution to this seems to be to dictate Australian rugby, which is presumptive. The result from NZ-centric view is that Australia has failed to live up to their side of the agreement which isn't working for NZ. Also fair enough, reasons can be argued, results are correct, or not.
My view is clearly Aus-centric, but I think I reach the same conclusion in reverse (not working for Australia). The reality is that we are locked now in Super for a while. I suspect that if this is to be torn up it is more likely to happen from NZ than from Australia. Right now it would be surprising if this wasn't under discussion within NZRU, perhaps not publicly, but under discussion.
IMO NZ should be looking to how they hold a rugby season together in the absence of the Australian teams. An improvement would be crossing the Tasman at the end of the two seasons. And I'm happy if you insist on some form of condensing talent into 2 or 3 teams at that point.
“I don’t see reducing the number of Super Rugby teams as the answer,” he said.
“Everyone’s pointing to when we were successful with three Super Rugby sides. But do you really need to go that far to try and give a sense of when we were successful, it’s not about when we were, it’s about addressing the needs of our environment right now and what is best to move forward in a productive manner.
“I still don’t understand how people in our game can’t get their heads around the fact that we’ve got a Super Rugby program that is not being supported by strong competitions.
“I still think the answer in that underbelly lies within our current club structures where they have all their traditions and cultures and all that sort of stuff in place.”
“The easy answer is to say we need to reduce the number of Super Rugby teams, but that’s not the right answer,” he said.
“The right answer is to go and develop the talent that’s coming through schoolboy rugby and into 17s and 18-year-olds and develop them into Super Rugby players and get their skill-sets right."
“If we’ve got to fill up five Super Rugby teams, well, we have to go hard in our development of 16- and 17-year-olds. And you can. You can develop players, you can develop their skill sets, you can make people better.
“That’s what every other sport in the world does it. Every other sport in the world grabs a 17-year-old kid and turns him into a great player. Players aren’t really made in any code.”
because Super Rugby was a far better competition when Australia had at least 1 competitive team.
You mean evidence besides the largest crowd in years and record tv ratings lol…Apart from pointing to a Covid-effected Super Rugby Au final, where is the evidence that 'going it alone' is a pathway to a successful professional rugby code and where are it's credentialed proponents?
Outside of Covid?You mean evidence besides the largest crowd in years and record tv ratings lol…
I was trying to be nice by saying 'competitive'So, this year?
I was trying to be nice by saying 'competitive'
I'll re-phrase for you
"because Super Rugby was a far better competition when Australia had at least 1competitiveteam fans believed could win it."
Outside of Covid?
BAHAHAHAHAHAHA….nice one!Yeah, this year.
BAHAHAHAHAHAHA….nice one!
<snip>
The people who advocate for getting rid of Super Rugby don't provide any examples of any other country whose pro teams play domestically only. They don't show how a 3rd rate rugby competition will compete with the NRL and AFL in terms of revenue or popularity. Let alone how you compete on the international level with a player base built solely on this insular focus.
Apart from pointing to a Covid-effected Super Rugby Au final, where is the evidence that 'going it alone' is a pathway to a successful professional rugby code and where are it's credentialed proponents?
If one big crowd a year is the answer you are bang on! And mnake it clear, I don't in anyone advocate dropping any teams, if anything was that easy would be great. I do believe arguments for cutting and not cutting are all going well off the track. If you in a comp you should probably field as many competitive teams as you can afford.You mean evidence besides the largest crowd in years and record tv ratings lol…