ARU players pool

[RugbyReg]

(1) how many Queensland academy players of those four years who are now genuine S14 players with other teams?

Ben Mowen
Drew Mitchell
Gene Fairbanks
James Stannard
Junior Pelesasa
Luke Doherty
Mark Chisolm
Mitchell Chapman
Pat O'Connor
Richard Brown
Scott Daruda
Tom Hockings

plus

David Pocock
James O'Connor
Matt To'omua

plucked from the QLD Schoolboys teams

Some go back a little before 4 years ago remembering the Force came in 4 years ago

(2) how many Queensland academy players of those four years who are now genuine S14 players with the Reds?

Not entirely sure but will have a crack:

Will Genia
Ben Daley
Greg Holmes (think he was a little over 4 years ago)
Ben Lucas
Blair Connor
Robert Simmons
Dayna Edwards
Scott Higginbotham
Poutasi Luafutu
Brando Vaalu
Quade Cooper (actually skipped the academy)
Digby Ione
Hugh McMeniman
James Horwill

 

[Ash]

Ignoring Biffo's stupid attempt at trolling...

Ash, I think you misjudge Biffo's motives, together with his sentiments about Australian rugby. They're not too different from yours and mine (other than your overly sanguine support of all things Queensland).

I support the Tahs too!

Fairly enough, I was wrong about the trolling and apologise for the stupid part. But the "rigorous analysis" I disagree strongly with. In my mind there is little doubt that the Reds performances on field would have been better without the inception of the Force, or the loss of Moore, Chapman, etc.

But...I thought I was fairly clear in my post that the problem comes from the organisation. The bitching about players is digressing from the topic that something is wrong in the QRU. The loss of players that they desperately need to keep and SHOULD keep like Ioane is symptommatic of the rot that seems to exist. The loss of players to the Force should have been a catalyst for change. On top of that, you have Hardman's comments which infer that some players are adding to the malaise and don't carry their own weight.

Bear in mind that I doubt a draft or whatever system will help the Reds much at all, but it will stop problems like the Tahs have the top 5 props - which is not good for Aus rugby.

 

[Biffo]

I agree it thins depth, but guys move for opportunities.

For the Tahs both Gerrard and Shepherd moved to start, a reason I totally agree with.

Pocock went where he had a good chance of playing earlier, as did Richard Brown (did he ever play a game for the Reds?)

The ones I would be dirty about are the Moores, Sharpes, MMM & Chapmans. 1st 15 players who left in their prime.

Latham got the same type of treatment Bourke got.

Blake was is rubbish

Do you mind my edit?

 

[Biffo]

Ignoring Biffo's stupid attempt at trolling...

Ash, I think you misjudge Biffo's motives, together with his sentiments about Australian rugby. They're not too different from yours and mine (other than your overly sanguine support of all things Queensland).

I support the Tahs too!

Fairly enough, I was wrong about the trolling and apologise for the stupid part. But the "rigorous analysis" I disagree strongly with. In my mind there is little doubt that the Reds performances on field would have been better without the inception of the Force, or the loss of Moore, Chapman, etc.

But...I thought I was fairly clear in my post that the problem comes from the organisation. The bitching about players is digressing from the topic that something is wrong in the QRU. The loss of players that they desperately need to keep and SHOULD keep like Ioane is symptommatic of the rot that seems to exist. The loss of players to the Force should have been a catalyst for change. On top of that, you have Hardman's comments which infer that some players are adding to the malaise and don't carry their own weight.

Bear in mind that I doubt a draft or whatever system will help the Reds much at all, but it will stop problems like the Tahs have the top 5 props - which is not good for Aus rugby.

Apology accepted with thanks. My post which initiated has had exactly the opposite effect of that I wanted. I wanted to focus on INTERNAL things the Reds must do to help themselves.

 

[Newb]

i like the idea of the ARU spreading money equally among teams as a way of "spreading the wealth" when it comes to top of the line players. i also like the idea of unused/unwanted players being open to a type of draft system - use em or lose em. yeah i suppose it would suck to get plucked off to perth when you live in sydney but worse things could happen. all of these things would distribute the talent better and SHOULD give players better opportunities to improve and excel. this is assuming that all positional coaches at each club are equally as good (not true). but that might be more of a minor sticking point.

i see one problem with this though. it's great to have parity among the aussie clubs so it seems each has an equal chance. but by breaking up the "brumbies uber group" you lower the ultimate quality of an aussie club in the super14/15/32. so you're changing aussie standards but not league standards. i'm not too familiar with the workings of SARU and NZRU clubs (perhaps draft perhaps not?) but shouldn't all competing clubs be up against the same rules?? i feel like there should be some kind of uniformity to the way ALL super14 clubs are run. so that by watering down the talent at the ponies for instance, you aren't screwing all aussie teams in the overall comp (should the saffers and NZers end up with an organizational advantage). that way teams compete the same on the field and off the field. maybe should apply to overseas players being able to be picked for the national team or not, although that's more of a national team issue.

but getting SANZAR to agree to something like that would be as likely as finding a NZer that hasn't woken up clutching a pillow muttering "richie, richie, richie" :fishing

 

[Biffo]

... would be as likely as finding a NZer that hasn't woken up clutching a pillow muttering "richie, richie, richie" :fishing

class, pure class :thumb :lmao:. enjoy your holiday after the mods read your post.

 

[Newb]

... would be as likely as finding a NZer that hasn't woken up clutching a pillow muttering "richie, richie, richie" :fishing

class, pure class :thumb :lmao:. enjoy your holiday after the mods read your post.

ah just having a laugh. plenty of good NZers in my book. just not king cheat :-X

 

[cyclopath]

... would be as likely as finding a NZer that hasn't woken up clutching a pillow muttering "richie, richie, richie" :fishing

class, pure class :thumb :lmao:. enjoy your holiday after the mods read your post.

You had a quick 2 weeks off, Biff! ;D

 

[Biffo]

... would be as likely as finding a NZer that hasn't woken up clutching a pillow muttering "richie, richie, richie" :fishing

class, pure class :thumb :lmao:. enjoy your holiday after the mods read your post.

You had a quick 2 weeks off, Biff! ;D

enjoyed two days but then got out on appeal. gotta see the parole officer daily.

 

[cyclopath]

... would be as likely as finding a NZer that hasn't woken up clutching a pillow muttering "richie, richie, richie" :fishing

class, pure class :thumb :lmao:. enjoy your holiday after the mods read your post.

You had a quick 2 weeks off, Biff! ;D

enjoyed two days but then got out on appeal. gotta see the parole officer daily.

Scarfy would never get elected as a politician - never heard of truth in sentencing!

 

[Lindommer]

If TYS/G&GR would like to put together a serious paper for a protocol on the allocation of money and players to Australia's Super sides I'd be happy to ensure it gets to the ARU.

There's a precedent for action like this: The Roar put together a paper in 2007 on issues its bloggers felt needed addressing by the ARU and forwarded it to O'Neill via Zac Zavos. JON accepted the paper and allowed himself to be shown on The Roar reviewing it. I have a few contacts at the ARU whom I'd lean on to receive our paper.

Here's a link to The Roar incident: http://www.theroar.com.au/2007/07/12/the-roar-tackles-rugbys-problems/

 

[Ash]

Right now I'm concerned that with the signing of Elsom, Salvi (with the Reds supposedly retaining Braid) and Chapman are overseas bound. Would like to see both remain here.

 

[Langthorne]

If TYS/G&GR would like to put together a serious paper for a protocol on the allocation of money and players to Australia's Super sides I'd be happy to ensure it gets to the ARU.

There's a precedent for action like this: The Roar put together a paper in 2007 on issues its bloggers felt needed addressing by the ARU and forwarded it to O'Neill via Zac Zavos. JON accepted the paper and allowed himself to be shown on The Roar reviewing it. I have a few contacts at the ARU whom I'd lean on to receive our paper.

Here's a link to The Roar incident: http://www.theroar.com.au/2007/07/12/the-roar-tackles-rugbys-problems/

Maybe this could be a new thread altogether?


But, further to my earlier posts:

I did consider the 'but that doesn't encourage development of players' argument regarding an even distribution of ARU top up funds.

A lot of the development of young players happens before they even become "Super" players

(if all the suggested moves to the Brumbies happen) the team getting the most (I suspect) ARU top up funding will be the Brumbies, who did not develop all (the majority?) of the players in question

if teams had to 'suffer' more (financially) in order to have surplus players of a high calibre on the bench, they might pay more attention to how they make use of their resources (assuming, very optimistically, that the administrators in question are sensible)

maybe the Waratahs want to keep the top front rowers in order to keep their nearest rivals relatively weak (a stupid idea but...) - they should try to get more talent across the team rather than specialise in just one area (however important). But on the other hand, they have needed to use the back up they have.


I think a broad spread of talent across the teams is better for Australian rugby than having one team with all (or most of) the talent (OK, maybe I'd actually prefer the Waratahs to have just a bit more than the other teams)


It is hard to discuss the topic of funding with any certainty if we don't have all of the details - does anyone have the details on how exactly the system works? any figures?

 

[formeropenside]

I'd like a transfer system, so if a player has played Schoolboy or age rugby for a State, there is a (significant) transfer fee for then being poached within (say) 3 years. After that its up to State squad and/or academy development to keep the players you want.

This would allow States to focus on their top line team secure in the knowledge there remains players developing below that level, and also means our S14 rookies might be a little more experienced when they do get on the field.

This would comparatively advantage Qld and the Tahs, but as they produce all the players anyway, thats not really a problem.

I'd also like to see the States gambling on longer term contracts for their players: once you are a proven S14 performer, why not offer a 3yr plus contract as a rule rather than a 2-year contract?

 

[Scarfman]

Lindommer - great work, some people here should get onto it. If not for this issue, then one of the other various bugs we have up our collective arses.

For myself though, I'm happy with the status quo which is a partial salary cap, with partial central contracting. Let's look at the Super rugby results for evidence of a systemic problem:

2009
Waratahs 5th
Brumbies 7th
Force 8th
Reds 13th

2008
Waratahs 2nd
Force 8th
Brumbies 9th
Reds 12th

2007
Brumbies 5th
Force 7th
Waratahs 13th
Reds 14th

2006
Waratahs 3rd
Brumbies 6th
Reds 12th
Force 14th

2005
Waratahs 2nd
Brumbies 5th
Reds 10th

2004
Brumbies 1st
Waratahs 8th
Reds 10th

Since 1994, the Reds have won twice and the Brumbies twice. The Waratahs and Force haven't won.

Apart from the Reds collapse since 2003, I don't see there being any kind of systemic problem. And I believe the way to fix the Reds is through the ARU/QRU, not through a draft, player pool or salary system.

 

[rugbywhisperer]

I'd like a transfer system, so if a player has played Schoolboy or age rugby for a State, there is a (significant) transfer fee for then being poached within (say) 3 years. After that its up to State squad and/or academy development to keep the players you want.
This would allow States to focus on their top line team secure in the knowledge there remains players developing below that level, and also means our S14 rookies might be a little more experienced when they do get on the field.
This would comparatively advantage Qld and the Tahs, but as they produce all the players anyway, thats not really a problem.
I'd also like to see the States gambling on longer term contracts for their players: once you are a proven S14 performer, why not offer a 3yr plus contract as a rule rather than a 2-year contract?

What about those kiddies that have no intention of playing say for the Tahs as they just love to death the thought of rugby purgatory up north or visa versa. Why should these well intentioned talented players be subject to a transfer fee if they do not want to play with their state of development - and please don't try and tell me that state has invested bucket loads of money on their development.

 

[formeropenside]

I'd like a transfer system, so if a player has played Schoolboy or age rugby for a State, there is a (significant) transfer fee for then being poached within (say) 3 years. After that its up to State squad and/or academy development to keep the players you want.
This would allow States to focus on their top line team secure in the knowledge there remains players developing below that level, and also means our S14 rookies might be a little more experienced when they do get on the field.
This would comparatively advantage Qld and the Tahs, but as they produce all the players anyway, thats not really a problem.
I'd also like to see the States gambling on longer term contracts for their players: once you are a proven S14 performer, why not offer a 3yr plus contract as a rule rather than a 2-year contract?

What about those kiddies that have no intention of playing say for the Tahs as they just love to death the thought of rugby purgatory up north or visa versa. Why should these well intentioned talented players be subject to a transfer fee if they do not want to play with their state of development - and please don't try and tell me that state has invested bucket loads of money on their development.

They can go overseas or go play club rugby in that other State for the 3 year period, or decline selection if they wish.

And RW - $$$ might not have been spent on that player in particular, but they have been spent on rugby in that State. Providing fields, competitions, training, coaches, referees, injury insurance. I'm sure you know more than me what exactly is done (and it may not be all of that) but each State is developing all players in the State, while not all of them (and indeed most of them) wont rise to the top.

In short: without the player development done by Qld and NSW, the Brumbies and Force would be gone within moments. That needs to be properly recognised.

 

[Ash]

Agree about not "forcing" players where to play - the some sort of "draft" might be about making the player "available", but not forcing the player to go. I think that might be illegal anyway under Australian law. Have no problem with the ARU with holding top ups though - e.g. Dunning or Kepu loses a top up due to both staying at the Tahs, yet the Tahs have too many top props for one of them to make the 22 most weeks.

Say, the Tahs (as Lindommer has pointer out so many times) with Dunning, Kepu, Robinson, Baxter, Palmer; and TPN and Freier whilst the Force cries out for front row stocks. The "draft"/whatever should be about providing opporunities to established S14 players to move clubs (like Lealiifano / To'omua) if circumstances mean that they will not get game time, yet would be starters in other provinces. The players get the choice if they wish to move.

Similarly, say, Higgenbum not getting time at the Reds if 3M had stayed, but the Tahs need a blindside, then perhaps he should get the choice to play somewhere that he would start and get the game time. Or if Salvi/Chapman were not off contract, then this would give them the opportunity to move.

Provisions would have to be provided to perhaps protect Academies - such as requiring a two or more years in a top squad?

Over all, I doubt this would help the Reds (who have a "decent" enough team on paper), but more help Australian rugby as a whole so that our best players are on the park every week. Also, it might stop players heading OS as frequently we see second string players who might be starters at another franchise choose to head OS rather to another team.

 

[Biffo]

Say, the Tahs (as Lindommer has pointer out so many times) with Dunning, Kepu, Robinson, Baxter, Palmer; and TPN and Freier whilst the Force cries out for front row stocks.

Errr, hang on. There is a cry that states which "develop" a player should have some sort of long-lasting rights to them. Four of those props and one of the two hookers are pure NSW "products" - those who cry NSW doesn't "develop" players please note. The Tahs have exported a lot of props in the past few years - Cowan, Alexander, Hardy, Whalley, Weeks, Blake, Edwards for starters.

The Force crying out for front row stocks? Next year the Force will have a Wallaby and a Wallaby in waiting as front line props with LongBum, Whalley and Hardy as back-up. That the Force brains trust couldn't work out McIsaac's age and start building the line behind him is the fault of itself alone. The solution is not the bantam pom but to make Hardy, Holmes and Fitzpatrick their three hookers and look for numbers 4 and 5 in line. What's that you say? Mitchell is already doing just that? Oh dear, oh dear.

Seems the Force is quite capable of taking care of itself, doesn't it?

 

[Ash]

Errr, hang on. There is a cry that states which "develop" a player should have some sort of long-lasting rights to them. Four of those props and one of the two hookers are pure NSW "products" - those who cry NSW doesn't "develop" players please note. The Tahs have exported a lot of props in the past few years - Cowan, Alexander, Hardy, Whalley, Weeks, Blake, Edwards for starters.

The Force crying out for front row stocks? Next year the Force will have a Wallaby and a Wallaby in waiting as front line props with LongBum, Whalley and Hardy as back-up. That the Force brains trust couldn't work out McIsaac's age and start building the line behind him is the fault of itself alone. The solution is not the bantam pom but to make Hardy, Holmes and Fitzpatrick their three hookers and look for numbers 4 and 5 in line. What's that you say? Mitchell is already doing just that? Oh dear, oh dear.

Seems the Force is quite capable of taking care of itself, doesn't it?

So the 4 top Wallaby props all play for one franchise. Without injury, either at least one of them will suffer in terms of game time, or all will by having to rotate each week.

Your argument regarding NSW export of props is irrelevant to this discussion.

Regardless of who developed them, how does having the 4 best props (Baxter, Robinson, Dunning, Kepu) at one franchise work in the best interests of Australian rugby? With Palmer as an able backup, how would NSW have suffered this year if Dunning and Kepu had been fit and one went to the Force and played tight head all season instead of Castle?

The end result is that one of those 4 will lose a Wallaby contract due to lack of game time and likely head overseas. I personally believe that a player is more likely to stay if they are given the option of transferring to another team earlier and they become a starter at the new team.

BTW, next year the Force may have a frontrow of Dunning, Fitzpatrick, Fairbrother with Whitaker and Cowan on the bench. If that's the case, admittedly there's no problems there apart from the inexperience in their hooking role (but Fitzpatrick and Whitaker are two of the more talented young hookers in Aus). All are NSW products apart from Fairbrother, but that's not unusual as (I'm guessing) around 95%+ of players would come through the high school and club systems in NSW and Qld. Regarding hookers, the Force have repeatedly chased and failed to sign players from other regions - Moore, TPN (and I am guessing Freier too last year).

It's probably fair to say that teams may be "punished" for suddenly "developing" incredible depth in one position - for example, the Brumbies with Gits, Lealiifano and To'omua at 10. The loss of, say, Lealiifano or To'omua to the Force a year earlier than otherwise might better develop the player, stop them going overseas and develop more depth in Australian rugby.