1. 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

Discussion in 'Rugby Discussion' started by Dave Beat, May 21, 2013.

  1. Brumby Runner Rod McCall (65)

    Likes Received:
    5,424
    I can easily imagine it would have been a worse outcome for both Beale and the author of the text on the second image if Patston had made an official complaint at the time. Very likely, both would have been ejected from the Wallabies' squad at that time, and probably that should have been the right and proper outcome.
  2. Braveheart81 Rocky Elsom (76)

    Likes Received:
    24,275
    That's not what I was saying at all. In fact, I didn't say anything like that.

    I think it was a mistake that McKenzie involved himself in so many areas of the ARU. I agree it was done with entirely noble purposes but it created the potential that McKenzie would likely be in the middle of any dramas that unfolded anywhere within the ARU.

    Ultimately, that's what eventuated. A scandal that was unrelated to on field matters developed and McKenzie was smack bang in the middle of it.

    Let's say that the same scenario happened where a team manager had been appointed by Pulver rather than the coach and they were having issues integrating with the team and players had voiced their concerns about it to the coach. Later, the same events unfolded where Beale sent an abusive message to that staff member and a major scandal unfolded.

    Do you think McKenzie would still resign? I doubt it.
    chasmac likes this.
  3. Braveheart81 Rocky Elsom (76)

    Likes Received:
    24,275
    I agree completely.

    Barring another bombshell, McKenzie would have retained his position, Patston might have been able to keep a job within the ARU (I think her position at that point was probably untenable to continue working closely with the team through no fault of her own).

    Pulver would have also remained CEO (which I'm guessing isn't going to be the case now).
    chasmac likes this.
  4. Brumby Runner Rod McCall (65)

    Likes Received:
    5,424
    Yes, I see your point as it relates to Link. But in your scenario, assuming the staff member accepted Beale's tearful apology at the time and the matter wasn't referred to Pulver as the appropriate manager, then matters would probably have escalated again just as they did only with Pulver in the middle. Then, still just speculating, if Pulver required or suggested to Link that heads (or in particlar Beale's head) should roll by being excluded from the squad the apparent split in the camp probably would have still come to the fore and Link may still have walked for the very same reason that he had lost the respect of the team.
  5. Train Without a Station Steve Williams (59)

    Likes Received:
    6,030
    I disagree strongly with this statement.

    If Cheika selects a player with a history of repeated trouble and That player causes trouble I'd personally be looking squarely at Cheika. He knew his record and likelihood of causing off field issues and chose to select him despite that.

    NRL and AFL coaches have to consider all these factors when recruiting players. Wallabies coaches should when selecting their squads.
    Paradox, No4918, Bairdy and 5 others like this.
  6. TahDan Cyril Towers (30)

    Likes Received:
    415
    Getting back to the original point of this thread, regarding the ARU and how they measure success, I think it's a multi-layered answer. I apologise if the length is a bit much but:

    The first two are obvious -
    - on field success: the teams that compete on the provincial and international stage (Super sides and Wallabies) need to be doing well.
    - financial success: teams need to be getting bums on seats and eyes on screens. The former has been going pretty well at the provincial level thanks to good management at the reds and success combined with better management at the Tahs. The Force maintain a solid core, but support for the Brumbies seems a little down, and the Rebels are still fairly new. The Wallabies meanwhile are down on pretty well all counts - poor crowds and ratings.

    But for me, one of the other key indicators is HOW we sell the game in Australia; a critical ingredient in how we succeed in the first two. Now, it's been common for Pulver, McKenzie, Cheika and other coaches and administrators to all talk about the realities of Australia's incredibly complex and competitive football market and the need therefore for the most entertaining style possible.

    I understand this, but also fundamentally feel it is your classic example of confusing the signal for the noise and is actually partially why we find ourselves where we are.

    What I mean by that is the focus on style seems to be predicated on the notion that we'll attract more AFL, or League fans, and I just don't think that's true. Doing it also means we tend to neglect our area of tradition weakness; scrummaging and forward play in general.

    What we ought to be doing is focusing on these areas as a point of difference rather than simply agreeing with the chorus of nay-sayers in other codes. Now, I really don't like soccer, but they do this rather well. The other day I was listening to Triple M and they had an A-League pro-mo in which one of the examples they used to describe the types of "thrilling" matches on display was a "heart-stopping nil all draw".

    I laughed, but also thought to myself "now THAT is how rugby should sell itself." What they're doing is turning a traditional weakness of the game and selling it as a strength, and with good reason - soccer fans have no trouble with nil all draws the world over, it's only non-soccer countries that do. People like me who will never like the game will scoff, but what it does is turn it into a debate, as soccer isn't just conceding the point to its competitors.

    The same can be said for rugby and our scrums and penalties. We need to stop letting the opposition frame the debate of our code, and take charge of the narrative ourselves. And on that measure, the ARU have failed - they have followed the agenda set by others and tried to conform to a market they can't win.

    I still think it's admirable to aspire to play "positive" rugby, but we should also take pride in the areas of the game that our detractors are so keen to belittle. By not doing so, we only make the target on our backs bigger.
    dejo and Hugie like this.
  7. Hugie Ted Fahey (11)

    Likes Received:
    164
    Tahdan,

    I think you're absolutely right here, the ARU's inability to promote the game is cronic and is the difference between enthusiastic rugby elites and professional sports management.

    The other area you didn't cover (I'm sure because you wanted to keep it shorter) was the inability to get more kids into the sport, particularly from non traditional rugby areas. If you look at who are the bums on the seats they are ex-rugby players and their kids. By failing to build participation they are also failing to build the future spectator base, continuing the decline.

    Most Australians think that "rugby is a boring game, played by toffs, run by toffs for the benefit of the toffs". The first bit is ignorance (and you have set out a way forward) the rest has a large element of truth to it which has to be aggressively addressed, if rugby is to stop its' decline in Australia.
    Quick Hands likes this.
  8. TahDan Cyril Towers (30)

    Likes Received:
    415
    Yes absolutely. Development deserves its own article, and given the lack of funding available and being set-aside for development I thought I'd leave it for now. But you're absolutely right; the perception of the game by wide sections of Australian society is that it's a game for the 'elbow patch brigade' - something not helped by derogatory (and frankly stupid) name calling of League fans/players as "mungos".

    The reality is that something like half the schools that play rugby are public, but the system isn't well supported and local clubs outside the strongholds rely almost exclusively on volunteers and good will.
  9. daz Guest

    Likes Received:
    0
    No KB/Link/Patson discussion here please. That thread and that topic is done for the time being.
    Quick Hands likes this.
  10. Jagman Trevor Allan (34)

    Likes Received:
    329
    Very good point TahDan. When someone complains to me about scrums in Rugby (my own family) one of the most common replies I make is that the scrum has 3 tonnes of pressure at it's centre and that the front rowers have to direct that pressure correctly or several bad things could happen. I actually have no idea if this correct but somehow when you ascribe a measurement to the scrum (that just translates to lots and lots of pressure) respect is gained. I wish the commentators would hype up scrums more than make excuses for them.
    Muglair and TahDan like this.
  11. Biffo Ken Catchpole (46)

    Likes Received:
    242
    the ARU was reported a couple of weeks ago to have hired a PR-type company to brush up its image, help it to avoid bad media and promote the game.

    does anyone know:
    - what is the ARU's in-house PR and publicity capacity and capability?
    - just what the newly hired PR company has been asked to do?
    - which is the newly-hired company?
  12. Strewthcobber Mark Ella (57)

    Likes Received:
    3,592

    http://www2.rugby.com.au/Media.aspx

    In house capability listed there Biffo - and you could use the handy contact form on the site to see if they'll answer your other two questions...
  13. Biffo Ken Catchpole (46)

    Likes Received:
    242
    thanks very much.
    i'll give it a try.
  14. Mullos Stan Wickham (3)

    Likes Received:
    7
    Thanks Daz plenty of good oil on the Planet Rugby forum for those interested.
  15. Train Without a Station Steve Williams (59)

    Likes Received:
    6,030

    Yeah I edited it after reading your comment. I had only used his name as an example and it really wasn't relevant to the point.
    daz likes this.
  16. Hugie Ted Fahey (11)

    Likes Received:
    164
    I've always felt that Rugby should not compete with AFL, NRL and football at all but should carve out its' own segment where scrumaging, lineouts, rucks/mauls etc. are appreciated and admired. Whilst we try to enter AFL, NRL, Football in the "simple is best" market then we are going to fail, rugby is complex and full bodied, and that's its' great selling point.

    It's like Grange Hermitage taking on VB, Tooheys new and XXXX in litres sold by trying to be less full bodied less complex and less balanced, it will only end by us not having a Grange Hermitage and VB, Tooheys new and XXXX will still rule the market.
    formerflanker, RugbyReg and TahDan like this.
  17. Inside Shoulder Nathan Sharpe (72)

    Likes Received:
    9,495
  18. Strewthcobber Mark Ella (57)

    Likes Received:
    3,592
    There's something in that, but the problem these days is that the ARU is also in competition with the European and Japanese competitions for the players, so unless they get into a bit of populism and generate the money that comes with it, then the standard of your Grange won't be what it used to be. The best players Australia produces won't be on display here. And the downward spiral will continue
  19. Chris McCracken Jim Clark (26)

    Likes Received:
    469
    I was 100% with you until Grange Hermitage.
  20. TahDan Cyril Towers (30)

    Likes Received:
    415
    Not quite the analogy I'd have gone with - we don't exactly want to just have a few hundred multi-millionaires as the only people attending games each paying $20,000 a ticket.
    I'd say the analogy was almost there - rugby is wine in general, whilst Rugby League is beer. Both have overlap in market terms, but have different characteristics and appeals. The trick is recognising and appreciating those differences.
    Hugie likes this.

Share This Page