Declining participation and ARU plans for the future

[Quick Hands]

Manly Roos ran a training camp today for 6s-14s. 150 kids, some Marlins and NSWRU DOs. A great day had by all apparently. Grass roots rugby working with coaches supplied by the governing body and SS 1st graders. All stakeholders working together for the common good.

Sadly, I don't have Dave's photographic skills to upload shots of the day.

 

[half]

^^^^^^^^^

Good to see encouraging .........

 

[Braveheart81]

Maybe I am totally wrong however I see expansion by League to 18 teams and soccer to 12 within 5 years with league having and end of season annual four nations. Aus, NZ, PNG & a PI side.

The AFL I think offer now over 20 something round plus finals about 210 games and league a similar number of games. Soccer when it goes to 12 teams and finals will offer even more and if you add their FFA Cup matches and Asian Champions League they could have well over 250 games.

They all have far more players than us and by and large better TV broadcast deals.

We struggle today for quality player in the future if you add a cashed up cricket and Basketball as well then we will struggle for the best sports people.

Do you in all seriousness believe we can compete with whats coming.

The answer to your drop in revenue is essentially simple and means taking a bitter pill maybe a pill to hard to sallow. We need to lower the competition and like soccer select the national team from overseas based players.

To continue as we are is to repeat what is failing.

We need to have faith in our game. We need to essentially believe we can build a national competition.

My sides.

East Sydney
West Sydney
Brisbane
Canberra
Melbourne
Perth
Northern Sydney
Newcastle/Hunter / Central coast

Eight teams 27 rounds + Finals into if on offer a NZ/SA / AU playoff serious.

I don't think the answer to our problems will ever be to drop the salary levels to a degree that almost all of our top tier players will head overseas.

NRL and AFL don't have that overseas competition. NRL players can get paid well overseas but it really only ends up being a better salary for players who are in the twilight of their career or are struggling for offers here.

Soccer isn't trying to compete with the overseas market. There will always be a level of player they can acquire both in terms of foreign players who our league suits and local players who are either hoping to get an overseas opportunity or happy to play at this level and the money that comes with it. They are also working with a sport that has a huge following in Australia and trying to leverage off that.

I just don't understand how you have so much faith that a national competition with 8 teams that would be dramatically weaker than our current 5 teams would grow and flourish. Rugby is struggling for viewers in Australia already. Why would more people watch it if suddenly it was a much lower standard? Why wouldn't viewers just switch en masse to the overseas leagues where the majority of our good players would not be playing?

I fail to see how an 8 team domestic competition with far less of our quality players is going to be wildly more attractive to fans than our 5 Super Rugby teams.

 

[dru]

My sides.

East Sydney
West Sydney
Brisbane
Canberra
Melbourne
Perth
Northern Sydney
Newcastle/Hunter / Central coast

Eight teams 27 rounds + Finals into if on offer a NZ/SA / AU playoff serious.

I cant imagine a more Sydney-centric view of the world!

A simple position of placing Sydney on a pedestal beyond the rest of Australian rugby. Silver spoon much? 4 teams couldnt make it in Sydney in the NRC. What has suddenly changed?

The finals scenario you suggest would self destruct almost immediately as the quality of Aus those teams would simply fail in gargantuan proportions agin NZ/SA. And Im not talking their Super franchises but ITM/Curry Cup quality would flog an Aus comp as described if the talent spread was even close to even.

Honest, think Crusaders v Rams and reach a conclusion.

 

[Gagger]

A reflection from the recent podcast discussion on this: The poms create 2000 new Grade 2 coaches, the Kiwis have cross province unified skills development, and our strategy to rescue union is development officers and club 7s.

Spot the flawed thinking

 

[Braveheart81]

Coaching is our biggest issue in my opinion. They are the volunteers that drive playing numbers particularly at junior level (and in schools) and the more training they receive, the better they will be and the better the players they coach will be at the game.

The ARU should be pouring money into that segment of the game knowing that it is a sound investment. Perhaps offer a system whereby fees are either refunded or partially refunded for each year of coaching someone does.

 

[Gagger]

Coaching is our biggest issue in my opinion. They are the volunteers that drive playing numbers particularly at junior level (and in schools) and the more training they receive, the better they will be and the better the players they coach will be at the game.

The ARU should be pouring money into that segment of the game knowing that it is a sound investment. Perhaps offer a system whereby fees are either refunded or partially refunded for each year of coaching someone does.

I'm not sure which part of "smart running rugby" with a small and declining talent pool doesn't point to superior and consistent coaching at all levels.

 

[Braveheart81]

I'm not sure which part of "smart running rugby" with a small and declining talent pool doesn't point to superior and consistent coaching at all levels.

Good coaches will keep kids playing rugby longer as well. Junior club teams generally stay together from age group to age group and the coach(es) will probably be one or two of the parents. If they're good and the kids are improving and going well they'll almost certainly have more fun and want to continue for longer.

A qualified coach is essentially an unpaid development officer who is doing their utmost to keep a group of 20-30 kids playing the game for as long as possible. The better the coach is, surely the better chance of them succeeding with player retention.

 

[Train Without a Station]

Gagger in 2011 (first data source I could find), England had 1.9M registered players.

Australia had 86,000.

You're essentially saying we should try and have as many apples as England have oranges.

2000 new Grade 2 coaches means getting just over 0.1% of the rugby playing population certified.

For us that would be 86 people.

Did Australia get 86 new level 2 coaches last year?

 

[Gagger]

Gagger in 2011 (first data source I could find), England had 1.9M registered players.

Australia had 86,000.

You're essentially saying we should try and have as many apples as England have oranges.

2000 new Grade 2 coaches means getting just over 0.1% of the rugby playing population certified.

For us that would be 86 people.

Did Australia get 86 new level 2 coaches last year?

Try this from World rugby in 2014:

England have 340k registered players, Australia has 230k.

http://pulse-static-files.s3.amazon...-8b71-74bed89a8d7c/WR_2014_Player_Numbers.jpg

Then apologise and delete your account







(just jokes)

 

[Strewthcobber]

Try this from World rugby in 2014:

England have 340k registered players, Australia has 230k.

http://pulse-static-files.s3.amazon...-8b71-74bed89a8d7c/WR_2014_Player_Numbers.jpg

Then apologise and delete your account
(just jokes)

If we really have 230k players this thread is a complete waste of time and should be deleted too!

 

[Gagger]

If we really have 230k players this thread is a complete waste of time and should be deleted too!

If the poms have more than a MILLION they should do their own Brexit

 

[half]

In 1998 a client expressed a desire because of a product he had of approaching sporting bodies and marketing direct to players via there governing bodies.

He asked me to find the actual playing numbers in each code .

My research in 1998 was we had 79K registered players, that took part in a 15 a side game and played more than 10 times over a year.

Figures NSW 39 K, QLD 35 K, other states made up the difference. My guess is the 86 K and 230 K are measuring two totally different things. The 86K I believe would be correct with the definition of a registered player in a 15 person side playing more than 10 games per year. The 230 K would add to the 86 K, school [of which there is a huge double up], tag matches, and registered people for training events.

Both are correct if read in context of what they represent, just some marketing types take the 230K and kinda indicate its the 15 a side play more than 10 games.

The same applies to Football as well, 2 million or 835K, its the same they have 835 K registered players that play but 2 million if you count 5 a side, 6 a side, indoor, beach, school {another huge double up]

 

[half]

Could not help but read one of a number of media stories put out by FFA re the appointment of their new head of the A-League.

He [the new head] made a statement that was so simple it almost made me cry and should IMO be attached as a Footer to all ARU and Super Rugby outgoings in the future. Simply change FFA to ARU in the statement.

“There’s no use the FFA having a strategy that’s not aligned with the clubs, and the clubs being aligned to the fans.”

 

[WorkingClassRugger]

Gagger in 2011 (first data source I could find), England had 1.9M registered players.

Australia had 86,000.

You're essentially saying we should try and have as many apples as England have oranges.

2000 new Grade 2 coaches means getting just over 0.1% of the rugby playing population certified.

For us that would be 86 people.

Did Australia get 86 new level 2 coaches last year?

There's a better way of doing it that can conceivably reach each and every coach and minimal to no cost to them. I've brought it up several times before. A consolidated and interactive player and coaching resource that emphasises both coaching and player skills development. A resource that also has a collaborative platform to allow coaches to share knowledge, what works and what doesn't as well as even establish a best practice standard.

 

[Braveheart81]

There's a better way of doing it that can conceivably reach each and every coach and minimal to no cost to them. I've brought it up several times before. A consolidated and interactive player and coaching resource that emphasises both coaching and player skills development. A resource that also has a collaborative platform to allow coaches to share knowledge, what works and what doesn't as well as even establish a best practice standard.

The ARU have been working recently to put a lot of their reference material online so it can be accessed more freely.

 

[half]

Good to see that online you reference

 

[Pfitzy]

The ARU have been working recently to put a lot of their reference material online so it can be accessed more freely.

Smart Rugby is now fully online. Thank fuck, because, I've been coaching all year without it

 

[7083]

Let's examine this from a $$$ perspective as that's what the ARU are all about. AFL are throwing money at schools to take on their programme. They send players to schools without being asked and $0 expected. The NRL also throw money at schools as well as promote tournaments through schools. The NRL rep programmes are FREE.... as in kids don't pay a cracker. Players are doing school visits EVERY day during the week.
Now for the ARU..... they throw $0 at schools except for maybe a few private schools. When schools ask for players to come out they're lucky if they get one and they're usually injured so can't interact with the kids. The JGC "rep" programme costs the kids anywhere between $700 and $1500. We allow kids from other codes to come in and play and then return to their chosen sport. As for the public school kids that can't afford to pay that money it's "Oh well sorry mate we'll just get someone that can afford it"

So numbers are decreasing and we don't know why? Really?

 

[dru]

Let's examine this from a $$$ perspective as that's what the ARU are all about.

Horse shit.