• 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

hoggy

Trevor Allan (34)
AJ at it again in the oz:
“Already, if you go to some of these schools in Brisbane and Sydney, private schools, they are fielding more soccer teams and AFL teams than they are fielding rugby teams.”
Anyone know of a rugby playing school in Sydney where there are more AFL teams than rugby teams?
In generally terms I sympathise with what he writes each Friday but, as ever, there’s some gilding of the lily when he gets going - I can sense the foam at the corners of his mouth as the truth is escorted quietly to the wings.

He colors a few facts Jones, but this week he has got a reply from RA CEO Castle, which is classic PR CRAP.. But without Jones we wouldn't have even have got that.

I say good on him, we need more people challenging the status quo. because it is quite clear that unless forced nothing is going to change.
 

wamberal

Phil Kearns (64)
He colors a few facts Jones, but this week he has got a reply from RA CEO Castle, which is classic PR CRAP.. But without Jones we wouldn't have even have got that.

I say good on him, we need more people challenging the status quo. because it is quite clear that unless forced nothing is going to change.

Facts? Jones? He does not know the meaning of the word.
 

Strewthcobber

Mark Ella (57)
He colors a few facts Jones, but this week he has got a reply from RA CEO Castle, which is classic PR CRAP.. But without Jones we wouldn't have even have got that.

I say good on him, we need more people challenging the status quo. because it is quite clear that unless forced nothing is going to change.
I agree with the sentiment, but unfortunately Jones is completely the wrong person to be "leading" this. Because he can't be trusted not to twist things to suit his own agenda, the powers that be will never engage genuinely with him, or deliver anything to him but PR CRAP.

Need a different figurehead. But who?
 

Gnostic

Mark Ella (57)
Could you enlighten us as to why you think that its not? It seems to be a genuine third tier for me, albeit not a perfect one.



It seems that the only people complaining about the NRC are from within the Sydney Shute Shield camp. Sure, it's not 100% aligned with the interests of that area, but it serves the people of: Melbourne, Perth, the ACT and Brisbane pretty well.



You don't see many complaints from those areas. Perhaps Sydney needs to become comfortable with the fact that the Shute Shield is no longer the only thing that matters domestically.



As I have posted before regarding this and the ARC before it:-

It was supposed to be a development sphere. Tell me how it improves core skills in players and coaches?

My mates in Brisbane and Sydney think pretty much as I do about it and no I don't live in Sydney and have not done so for 30 years apart from a brief 4 year stint.

Nobody I know who is an active participant (player, official, admin or supporter) in the local rugby competitions watches or follows teams or results. It has generated zero interest outside of a select few and as shown at the final held in Tamworth two years ago the attendance is limited to family and friends and few stragglers.

So to summarize, it is not sustainable, it does not meet the development point that was initially floated as a prime reason for its existence (though this has been quietly pushed to the background), and there has been very limited buy in. That is before we even talk about the quality of the actual games, which are no better than the top club sides.
 

barbarian

Phil Kearns (64)
Staff member
I thought Raelene's article in the Oz today was OK. You can never expect much out of those sorts of articles, but I did learn a few things from it - mainly about their approach to schools rugby, which is welcome.
 

Rock Lobster

Larry Dwyer (12)
It is an absolute load of corporate dribble that looks like it's come straight from some PR playbook. I was half impressed with her after watching her on Kick & Chase last week but after that pile of garbage published in the Oz today that estimation has gone straight down the toilet.
 

barbarian

Phil Kearns (64)
Staff member
What would you have like to have seen RL?

Easy to sit back and throw stones on this one. How would you have played it?
 

neilc

Bob Loudon (25)
I think the NRC is good as a step up but is not well marketed. IMO they should start by promoting it through all of the clubs in the regions - my experience being involved with juniors at a Premier club in Brisbane that contributes players to the Qld NRC sides - when it first started they had interaction with the club but since there is nothing - I think the players etc should be down at the clubs promoting the matches and build it up from there, get the buy-in from the club supporters to feel that they are part of it.
 

RedsHappy

Tony Shaw (54)
As I have posted before regarding this and the ARC before it:-

It was supposed to be a development sphere. Tell me how it improves core skills in players and coaches?

My mates in Brisbane and Sydney think pretty much as I do about it and no I don't live in Sydney and have not done so for 30 years apart from a brief 4 year stint.

Nobody I know who is an active participant (player, official, admin or supporter) in the local rugby competitions watches or follows teams or results. It has generated zero interest outside of a select few and as shown at the final held in Tamworth two years ago the attendance is limited to family and friends and few stragglers.

So to summarize, it is not sustainable, it does not meet the development point that was initially floated as a prime reason for its existence (though this has been quietly pushed to the background), and there has been very limited buy in. That is before we even talk about the quality of the actual games, which are no better than the top club sides.

Whatever one's personal enjoyment or otherwise of the NRC, it's indisputable that, upon inception, it's core rationale was billed as a '3rd tier essential to building a bridge of rugby skill and broad player development between Club and Super Rugby'.

After multiple NRC seasons now, and as we objectively assess the state of our Super teams in 2018, is there any evidence whatsoever that the above mission for the NRC is even the slightest fulfilled?

I'd welcome all views, but personally I see little evidence of a clear NRC 'bridging' contribution to 2018's base Australian Super skills or individual player development.

My own view as to why this is is simple and long-held (and, in various ways, long-expressed here): if the calibre of elite rugby coaching is not of a high-enough order and not enough applied in depth, no manner of 'more quantity of rugby playing time' will in any way improve core rugby skills, rugby intellect and sustainable player development. Without a matching uplift in coaching capability and the application of successful rugby coaches, all the extra playing time in comps like the NRC is essentially...........just exercise without growth.

Thus IMO is the deep flaw at the heart of NRC's original conception and later execution is simply that, yet again, the ARU did not have the personnel or matured rugby ideology to invest in, supply, recruit, or even realise the central criticality of high levels of rugby coaching capability to parallel the type of expansion of playing time and playing format that was to be the NRC.

This flaw is of course buried far deeper in all the crevices of Australian rugby than is the case with the NRC. It is the gravest flaw of all in the history of the last two decades of ARU/RA rugby ideology in this country, the total misunderstanding of the overwhelming importance of investing in (or externally recruiting) the pervasive elite rugby coaching skills and capabilities to necessarily parallel any expansion in the quantity and scale of new (or even existing btw) pro or semi-pro competitive formats.

This flaw is materially behind the failure of the Force and the Rebels for just these reasons. And there's more.
 

hoggy

Trevor Allan (34)
I thought Raelene's article in the Oz today was OK. You can never expect much out of those sorts of articles, but I did learn a few things from it - mainly about their approach to schools rugby, which is welcome.

My issue with the response, was that it highlighted just what little options they have. Yes she spoke regards Schools & sevens, but in reality not much more than a PR response with very little substance.

The issue is Jones highlighted a 10 point plan, and agreed its easy to sit back and critique, but this was no rebuttal. The article stated this was my vision, but to me just reinforced just how little control they have of the future.

It just highlights how little prepared or desire they have to address the core issues.
 

Rock Lobster

Larry Dwyer (12)
What would you have like to have seen RL?



Easy to sit back and throw stones on this one. How would you have played it?



The article is clearly a response to what Jones has been writing in the same paper over the last few weeks and IMO is a pretty poor effort. For a start the headline is "How I plan to revive Australian Rugby". Now of course she doesn't write the headline but her name is on the article, it's not Wayne Smith covering an interview he had with her, so let's have a look at it.

The main take out of the first four paragraphs is "
not all elements within the game are working in unison and our organisations are not aligned as effectively as they could be in their thinking or delivery. "
She then goes on to say there are "
structures that need reshaping and hard decisions that need to be made if we are to see success at every level of the game."
Her next point is we are doing shit at Super Rugby but we're working really hard on our fitness and skills and off the field we are still working with SANZAAR to concoct another comp beyond 2020.
Participation rates for men's and women's 7's are up and we've got a "Get into Rugby" program going into public schools getting kids to basically play touch footy. Oh and let's not forget we are getting lots and lots of girls participating in this little program.

They've introduced a size and age dispensation program for the kids and brought in the blue card system for concussion. Also "
Rugby Australia has developed a national schools strategy to improve areas of safety, growth, competition structures, governance, and resourcing."
If you've got this far through all the corporate bullshit in the article you're doing well.

She recognises the challenge of keeping talented schoolboys in the game and says "
We are reviewing our contracting system specifically to address this issue and will announce some changes in this area shortly,"

She then summarises by stating "
Our priorities for the immediate future include, first and foremost, strengthening the partnership between our national, state and territory organisations to create greater alignment on strategy and the delivery of community and professional rugby programs, with a focus on building winning teams."
What was that I said about corporate BS? Oh but it gets better "
We are taking advantage of the global strength of rugby through a new international strategy to capitalise on the fact that our national teams spend more time out of Australia, playing in our major trade and export hubs." WTF is that??

So to sum up she says, yeah we're shit at Super Rugby but we're trying really really hard, we've got lots of boys and girls playing touch in the schools, we're making it safer for the kiddies and we're coming up with something to keep the good kids in the game.

How ANY of that can be interpreted as any sort of plan, that hasn't been tried before, to "REVIVE Australian Rugby" is beyond me.
 

barbarian

Phil Kearns (64)
Staff member
So to sum up she says, yeah we're shit at Super Rugby but we're trying really really hard, we've got lots of boys and girls playing touch in the schools, we're making it safer for the kiddies and we're coming up with something to keep the good kids in the game.

How ANY of that can be interpreted as any sort of plan, that hasn't been tried before, to "REVIVE Australian Rugby" is beyond me.


Well I do agree she's been a bit stitched up by the headline, which wasn't her choice.

But if you're expecting a conclusive plan in a 500 word piece in the Friday paper you need to adjust your expectations.

What the article did was focus on the two areas where there is the most angst at present - Super Rugby and schools.

What more could she have said? They are trying to fix the problem. They have strategies in place that may fix each problem. And then she gave some information about each strategy.

I'll reiterate my original question RN - what would you have liked her to say? Because really she said all she could, without making sweeping statements or promises she can't keep.
.
 

cyclopath

George Smith (75)
Staff member
You mean.........
a2d9f095b6b3e907f08bc11b7f5334dc.jpg
 

wamberal

Phil Kearns (64)
Jones is presently appearing in a trial at the Supreme Court of Queensland, being sued for $4 million for defamation.


Should be $40 million, frankly.
 

Braveheart81

Will Genia (78)
Staff member
People seem to expect that unless RA make a public announcement that they are considering withdrawing from Super Rugby or pushing for a Trans Tasman comp then they can't possibly be considering it even though there is still more than two years to go on the present agreement.

It would be an unbelievably stupid decision commercially to telegraph that sort of thinking publicly particularly so far ahead of time.

There was the future Super Rugby planning document that came out a couple of weeks ago that had five options and of course everyone latched onto the least likely and most outlandish option as the reason to rubbish the plan.

Clearly big change is needed in the coming years but it is lunacy to expect that all those options are going to be spelt out in advance when there are current agreements still in place and multiple commercial partners to consider some of which won't be happy with certain decisions.

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk
 

Gnostic

Mark Ella (57)
Whatever one's personal enjoyment or otherwise of the NRC, it's indisputable that, upon inception, it's core rationale was billed as a '3rd tier essential to building a bridge of rugby skill and broad player development between Club and Super Rugby'.



After multiple NRC seasons now, and as we objectively assess the state of our Super teams in 2018, is there any evidence whatsoever that the above mission for the NRC is even the slightest fulfilled?



I'd welcome all views, but personally I see little evidence of a clear NRC 'bridging' contribution to 2018's base Australian Super skills or individual player development.



My own view as to why this is is simple and long-held (and, in various ways, long-expressed here): if the calibre of elite rugby coaching is not of a high-enough order and not enough applied in depth, no manner of 'more quantity of rugby playing time' will in any way improve core rugby skills, rugby intellect and sustainable player development. Without a matching uplift in coaching capability and the application of successful rugby coaches, all the extra playing time in comps like the NRC is essentially.....just exercise without growth.



Thus IMO is the deep flaw at the heart of NRC's original conception and later execution is simply that, yet again, the ARU did not have the personnel or matured rugby ideology to invest in, supply, recruit, or even realise the central criticality of high levels of rugby coaching capability to parallel the type of expansion of playing time and playing format that was to be the NRC.



This flaw is of course buried far deeper in all the crevices of Australian rugby than is the case with the NRC. It is the gravest flaw of all in the history of the last two decades of ARU/RA rugby ideology in this country, the total misunderstanding of the overwhelming importance of investing in (or externally recruiting) the pervasive elite rugby coaching skills and capabilities to necessarily parallel any expansion in the quantity and scale of new (or even existing btw) pro or semi-pro competitive formats.



This flaw is materially behind the failure of the Force and the Rebels for just these reasons. And there's more.



The loss of Rugby IP when we "professionalised" and first Macqueen and then Jones directed Australian Rugby along lines that deskilled players first by the endless phase play/pressure building model we still see today and compounded by the play by numbers ultimate structure game of Jones is still a very big factor. Over two generations of players and coaches seeking higher honours they have learnt these systems and essentially been de-skilled. Unfortunately the first foreign coach they brought in was a bloke who did not play well with others who held any strong views and surrounded himself with mediocrity.

From my viewing the Tahs have produced by far the best "skill execution" improvement in the current crop of players, but I question if the current Pro players really are able to or even want to improve their core skills. As for current coaches, unless RA gets some coaching direction which prioritises skills over "structure" and "phase play" results will not change and we will keep throwing away coaching potential as well as playing potential.
 

formerflanker

Ken Catchpole (46)
AJ at it again in the oz:
“Already, if you go to some of these schools in Brisbane and Sydney, private schools, they are fielding more soccer teams and AFL teams than they are fielding rugby teams.”
Anyone know of a rugby playing school in Sydney where there are more AFL teams than rugby teams?
In generally terms I sympathise with what he writes each Friday but, as ever, there’s some gilding of the lily when he gets going - I can sense the foam at the corners of his mouth as the truth is escorted quietly to the wings.

I'm being pedantic here (yes, I used to be a ref) but Jones is saying AFL PLUS soccer teams, not AFL only as you infer.
 
Top