• Welcome to the Green and Gold Rugby forums. As you can see we've upgraded the forums to new software. Your old logon details should work, just click the 'Login' button in the top right.

Australian Rugby / RA

dru

dru

Tim Horan (67)
Dan54 said:
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.
Click to expand...

Hey Dan, I thought I'd add to a thumbs up. I had suggested that some of the apparent NZRU thinking on Australian rugby was presumptive. It is presumptive in Australia to think the Drua would choose Australian rugby over NZ - even with the Foreign Aid rugby budget. Penny Wong is hardly likely to cease funding if the rugby world gets a little stormy.

Another presumption btw, is that Australia lock-in some kind of competition interface with Japan. Note that NZ would also be placing their offers on the table. When it comes to international competition, we are clearly better off working with NZ than not, preferably with a combined package.

If you take NZ Franchises + Fiji + Jaguares for an expanded NZ comp. And Australian domestic with 8 teams. I leave Fiji out of the Aus matrix not from desire, but for my purposes here to match seasons on either side of the Tasman. Let Australia then step to representational by condensing into 2 teams for a shorter "Super". Could that be expanded to include a pair of Japanese teams?

Back in Aus, ARC can pick up during the Super duration, looking at qualifying clubs hopefully being aligned to the 8 franchises building on the pathways. We get to follow those pathways and the building players on their journey from club to Wallabies.

We are not going to be able to achieve this is one step. A plan would be needed to move in phases from where we are now. Probelms with that plan are immense, but a bloke can dream.
 
Dan54

Dan54

Tim Horan (67)
@dru , can see the upsides etc (as well as downside) ,just wonder if they all contracted until 2030 what will actually happen. I honestly trying to look at all possibilties and pros and cons.
 
  • Like
Reactions: dru
L

Linerunner2023

Jimmy Flynn (14)
The games at the moment are going in different paths with nrl and rugby
Atm nrl is more attractive to watch as the ball is in play, the game is speeding up and ref staying out of it - hardly noticed the ref in the gf
Compare to rugby and the refs have taken over - good set piece sides win off that
The game has got boring - scrum / penalty /
Yellow card for nothing
Watching club rugby is more attractive them prof and intertional atm
Rugby will never become afl or nrl now
But how do we at least compete?
we have great schoolboy systems but need to sharpen up keeping them, then through the under 20s systems
And certainly need more competitive teams - Gettimg rid of teams will only make more players head overseas or go to other codes for more opportunity
Get back to the juniors, get back to western Sydney
The only reason afl has 18 teams is they don’t compete with any nation so as athletes they are not compared to anyone
Even nrl with 17 sides only other prof comp is England super league which isn’t as strong and Aus still the best nation
Rugby is a world game only under football - tbh Aus / Nz / and SA should have their own 10-15 team comps as there is more players in Europe and Japan from these nations playing then prof back home
 
John S

John S

Chilla Wilson (44)
www.smh.com.au

‘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 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
 
Adam84

Adam84

Nick Farr-Jones (63)
John S said:
www.smh.com.au

‘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 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
Click to expand...

that’s pathetic behaviour by that man
 
Bullrush

Bullrush

John Hipwell (52)
dru said:
Hey 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.
Click to expand...
I appreciate this post :)

I’m not someone who stubbornly stays rooted in an opinion regardless of argument or evidence. I used to be staunchly on the side of ‘condensing talent’ because Super Rugby was a far better competition when Australia had at least 1 competitive team.

But listening to guys like Mick Byrne and Steve Anderson, I don’t think it’s necessary. I'm all for listening to and taking advice from people who are far more knowledgeable an have huge experience in what we are talking about.

Steve Anderson:
“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.”
Click to expand...

Mick Byrne:
“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.”
Click to expand...

My question is, where are the professionals and the individuals with experience and knowledge who are advocating for getting out of Super Rugby altogether and ditching NZ? Listening to the people I'm referencing, it's not that Super Rugby hasn't worked for Australia, it's Rugby Australia who hasn't worked for Super Rugby and ultimately, hasn't worked for rugby in general.

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?
 
dru

dru

Tim Horan (67)
Bullrush said:
<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?
Click to expand...

Cheers Bullrush. [Digression: my irritation through these discussions is the shrill emotive responses to counter thinking. Both sides of the equation, but without pointing fingers (apols) it is difficult to separate emotion from trolling where it is pushes by un-avowed AB or NZ rugby supporters.]

Some logical fallacies worth considering: sunk cost fallacy; causal fallacy; appeal to ignorance; bandwagon fallacy; false dichotomy. There are others that are relevant, naturally on both sides of the discussion and I doubt I am clear of them either.

I'd argue that those international club competitions have risen in a drive to improved commercial success which is the over-rider for me. That is not happening in Australia with Super rugby. The down trend in commercial success seems well established here. Also note that as at least some of those international club comp mature, along with their impact on the former club comps - we are seeing problems beginning. Unless their are wealthy benefactors involved, such as France. Or perhaps within a massive winner/loser scenario where the club base is strong enough to have at least some winners - England.

It is hard to find a truly commercially successful dominant sport in Australia that is internationally based. So the counter argument isn't hard to make.

How many successful club comps, internationally based, come from poor grass roots? From afar it seems to me England, France and South Africa have huge grass roots. Ireland has turned, it can be argued, through rebuilding the pathways. Both Wales and Scotland have struggled with less than desired commercial strength to invest adequately through the grass roots.

Part of the challenge in Super is a skew in the commercial results to NZ. No that isn't right, not "skew" but reasonable reward for success. Still that trend ensures the Australian teams are always in catch up. It isn't something that NZ should be apologetic about, but it isn't necessarily something that Australia should desire to continue.

What seems evident to pretty much everyone, Super as it has been operating is not working. NZ is unhappy. Australia is unhappy and die-ing, NZ down-trend has become more apparent. Irrespective of this, the survival of Australian rugby, for the last 10 years, is far more about holding (then developing) a niche within domestic competition. We survive I believe if we hold strength within a domestic grass root. We do not, I believe, if we continue to ply limited resource into Super to the detriment of the domestic situation.

"False dichotomy" dictates that may not be limited in our choices to a polemic of either Super or re-build. Unfortunately in the absence of a rational plan to achieve this, I begrudge any further investment in Super. It doesn't mean that I can't see the problems created for NZ, but we have hit survival just shortly ahead of NZ and the priorities seem clear to me.

And as I have mentioned a lot recently, it doesn't matter given we have locked-in to Super. Except that being in Super does not mean necessary capitulation on quantity of teams or adjustments in the competition to level playing quality or a refocus administratively to pulling together the club scene with a future in mind.
 
Dan54

Dan54

Tim Horan (67)
Adam84 said:
You mean evidence besides the largest crowd in years and record tv ratings lol…
Click to expand...
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.
By the same reasoning about it killing the game in areas etc, brother who was a long time resident in Melbourne claimed that rugby was no bigger in the city after the Rebels were formed. (And out of interest he wasn't a rugby nutter or anything, just from hos observations and talking to mates who are rugby people.)
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top