How to fix the wallabies

[Braveheart81]

Great points Half,

Should we be sinking the funds into the Force and the Rebels? shouldn't the funds be used for player and code development back into the regions that the players and the fans are from?
Do we need 5 Super Rugby teams? Do they need to be National?
Even NRL doesn't have a team from WA?

Should the "NRC" be the basis for the main competition running 26 weeks to match the NRL? and the Shute Shield and Premier Rugby feed the NRC with talent? The current 2 comps e.g. SS and then NRC doesn't make it easy for Rugby fans to watch rugby consistently for 26 weeks as compared to NRL?

We seem to be splitting the rugby fan across 3 teams e.g. Waratahs, Easts and Rams

It can't be forgotten that by fielding 5 Super Rugby teams we get a bigger share of the broadcast deal than if we only field 3 or 4.

What happens to the overall standard of rugby in Australia, particularly at test level if our premier competition is a substantially lower standard than Super Rugby?

 

[Stands]

It can't be forgotten that by fielding 5 Super Rugby teams we get a bigger share of the broadcast deal than if we only field 3 or 4.

What happens to the overall standard of rugby in Australia, particularly at test level if our premier competition is a substantially lower standard than Super Rugby?

Would we be better off having concentrating our top players into 2 or 3 Super teams and perhaps having more teams in the finals or even winning the Super Championship a few years in a row (I know I'm getting way ahead of myself here) the those teams would be worth more in ratings than 5 teams who don't make the playoffs? you would hope that 2-3 Aussie teams would have a better impact on ratings than no teams in the finals?

Then use the current NRC as the basis of the premier comp?

 

[Braveheart81]

Would we be better off having concentrating our top players into 2 or 3 Super teams and perhaps having more teams in the finals or even winning the Super Championship a few years in a row (I know I'm getting way ahead of myself here) the those teams would be worth more in ratings than 5 teams who don't make the playoffs? you would hope that 2-3 Aussie teams would have a better impact on ratings than no teams in the finals?

Then use the current NRC as the basis of the premier comp?

No, I don't think so. Teams performing well doesn't increase the financial success enough to offset teams that have no prospect of performing well.

We will always likely have a discrepancy that the majority of the players come from Sydney and Brisbane and the east coast sides in rugby heartland will be stronger. If you tilted the scales even more it could be disastrous for the Rebels and Force.

The ARU has to try and make all 5 Super Rugby teams as successful and sustainable as possible.

 

[wamberal]

The ARU has to try and make all 5 Super Rugby teams as successful and sustainable as possible.

Which implies a high degree of central control.

 

[Braveheart81]

Which implies a high degree of central control.

Yes. I think adopting that portion of the NZ model makes a lot of sense.

More central control and a concerted direction for the franchises. Hopefully that can result in cost reductions for the Super Rugby teams and better pathways for Australian coaches.

We need everyone rowing in the same direction.

 

[Strewthcobber]

This is probably a reflection of the demographic changes that are happening, particularly in the academically selective state schools which used to be rugby strongholds.

Are those state school players now getting scholarships to the Gps schools like they are in Brisbane?

 

[Lindommer]

Try and get the NSWRU to cede any control to HO. Good luck.

 

[Braveheart81]

Try and get the NSWRU to cede any control to HO. Good luck.

At least it seems they've appointed a CEO who has a holistic approach to rugby in NSW.

Pretty much everything Andrew Hore has said so far sounds good to me.

 

[I like to watch]

Try and get the NSWRU to cede any control to HO. Good luck.

They are totally reliant on the ARU for survival.
It's not hard to attach conditions to any cheques you write.
IF you have the conviction to effect change.

 

[Quick Hands]

Yes. I think adopting that portion of the NZ model makes a lot of sense.

More central control and a concerted direction for the franchises. Hopefully that can result in cost reductions for the Super Rugby teams and better pathways for Australian coaches.

We need everyone rowing in the same direction.

England seem to be going ok with a lack of central control.

I'm not sure that comparing any other rugby country on earth to NZ is really going to achieve similar results. Rugby in NZ exists in a context that exists nowhere else in the world.

 

[Braveheart81]

England seem to be going ok with a lack of central control.

I'm not sure that comparing any other rugby country on earth to NZ is really going to achieve similar results. Rugby in NZ exists in a context that exists nowhere else in the world.

The NZ situation in terms of funds available to run the game is far closer to ours than the RFU with the vast amounts of money they have.

 

[Tip]

How to fix the Wallabies?

I don't like this thread. The Wallabies aren't broken. Our coach is. Do we really think that the WALLABIES, do not have 15 players that can play and beat the All Blacks? Codswallop if you ask me.

The England series was a result of feeble, amateur era coaching. Chieka had 9 months to prepare for this series, and it honestly looked like an Under 11's team playing "tire our halfback out" from side to side to side. Then it continued for the next two games. Never a more appropriate definition for insanity. The NZ loss was just a little bit of icing on the cake.

If we want to fix the Wallabies, I'm starting to think that an independent board of selectors could be the way to go. The past.... decade has left me with little or no faith in Australian coaches. It's either been a personal agenda that's gotten in the way of their job (Cheika, Deans) or players refusing to change the "me-me-me" culture of the Wallabies and shafting our most promising coach in 2 decades. (Yeah, McKenzie had a whole lot more than just 1, easy to read gameplan)

 

[Quick Hands]

The NZ situation in terms of funds available to run the game is far closer to ours than the RFU with the vast amounts of money they have.

NZRFU have no Aussie Rules opposition, a tiny league demographic and a tiny soccer demographic. Rugby in NZ permeates every level of society. They may have similar funds to us, but we live in a more populous country and the ARU has to spend money (or would if it had any) fighting off three other football codes.

No other country in the world can be compared to NZ in terms of how the game is run.

 

[The torpedo]

NZRFU have no Aussie Rules opposition, a tiny league demographic and a tiny soccer demographic. Rugby in NZ permeates every level of society. They may have similar funds to us, but we live in a more populous country and the ARU has to spend money (or would if it had any) fighting off three other football codes.

No other country in the world can be compared to NZ in terms of how the game is run.

That and their only other major competing sport (cricket) is played in the summer

 

[Rock Lobster]

I've just read through this entire thread & FINALLY, thank you Tip, someone addresses the real problem here which is HOW WE PLAY THE GAME!

The Wallabies and all our Super Rugby sides, bar the 2011 Reds, have continued to play this over-coached, super structured, possession style game that Rod McQueen made fashionable and Eddie Jones continued. Sure it has been tweaked a bit over the last 10 years or so but it is still the same predictable crap.

I've been saying to anyone who will listen to me that the ONLY way we have any chance of beating the AB's and the NZ Super Rugby sides consistently is to start bloody well playing like them! The first argument I normally get is "We don't have the skills to do that." BULLSHIT! How the AB's & NZ sides play has far more to do with attitude than skill. Offloading in contact, drawing and passing down a short blindside, counter-attacking off turnover ball are not difficult skills. You just gotta want to do it. Yes it involves a bit of risk but without risk you can't win and I think it has been proven pretty conclusively that the formula works, so why not give it a crack? Look at the Lions this year. They were the ONLY side outside NZ who made an attempt at playing the NZ style and it took them all the way to the Final. You can't tell me that squad list was the most "skillful" in the comp, they simply had a go at something different and it paid off, ATTITUDE!

You will not beat the AB's trying to shut them down or playing a possession game, geez even the Poms beat us with 30% pill, and you give yourself absolutely no hope continually kicking the ball back to them. Christ if I see turnover ball kicked away again I'll have to replace another television. You simply have to fight fire with fire. The Lions proved the quality of your players is not the most important factor, it is HOW YOU PLAY THE GAME and I live in hope that we wake up to this fact sooner rather than later.

 

[Braveheart81]

NZRFU have no Aussie Rules opposition, a tiny league demographic and a tiny soccer demographic. Rugby in NZ permeates every level of society. They may have similar funds to us, but we live in a more populous country and the ARU has to spend money (or would if it had any) fighting off three other football codes.

No other country in the world can be compared to NZ in terms of how the game is run.

So are you saying that you think a more centralised model for running the game is a bad idea?

That trying to create pathways for coaches to progress through the ranks in Australia rather than having to go overseas is also a bad idea?

I'm in no way trying to argue that the situation is similar in Australia to NZ. I am arguing that the way the NZRU operates appears to have plenty of positives the ARU can try and replicate and seemingly they are heading that way.

 

[I like to watch]

If the ARU just copied the NZRU annual reports, it would be a massive improvement.
The first pages of their annual report lists their KPI's, and their performance measured against these indicators.
That would be a good start.
Anyone know BP's KPI's?

 

[Quick Hands]

So are you saying that you think a more centralised model for running the game is a bad idea?

That trying to create pathways for coaches to progress through the ranks in Australia rather than having to go overseas is also a bad idea?

I'm in no way trying to argue that the situation is similar in Australia to NZ. I am arguing that the way the NZRU operates appears to have plenty of positives the ARU can try and replicate and seemingly they are heading that way.

I'm naturally suspicious of centralised control in any area of society. If I look around the world at successful sporting teams, I don't see the governing body exerting centralised control over coaching. In fact quite the opposite, Spanish, Italian, German and Brazilian soccer, NFL in the US to name a few.

Coaches progressing through the ranks and centralised control are two different and unrelated concepts.

And having viewed the ARU in action over the past decade, I'd be highly sceptical of that organisation's ability to successfully control anything.

We can certainly learn some things from NZ rugby and it's the technical aspects of coaching rugby teams and developing young players rather than political control over who coaches where. Rugby administration in this country is rife with nepotism and political horse-trading - have a look at the 20s programme or the Aust schoolboys selection process.

 

[Quick Hands]

I've just read through this entire thread & FINALLY, thank you Tip, someone addresses the real problem here which is HOW WE PLAY THE GAME!

The Wallabies and all our Super Rugby sides, bar the 2011 Reds, have continued to play this over-coached, super structured, possession style game that Rod McQueen made fashionable and Eddie Jones continued. Sure it has been tweaked a bit over the last 10 years or so but it is still the same predictable crap.

I've been saying to anyone who will listen to me that the ONLY way we have any chance of beating the AB's and the NZ Super Rugby sides consistently is to start bloody well playing like them! The first argument I normally get is "We don't have the skills to do that." BULLSHIT! How the AB's & NZ sides play has far more to do with attitude than skill. Offloading in contact, drawing and passing down a short blindside, counter-attacking off turnover ball are not difficult skills. You just gotta want to do it. Yes it involves a bit of risk but without risk you can't win and I think it has been proven pretty conclusively that the formula works, so why not give it a crack? Look at the Lions this year. They were the ONLY side outside NZ who made an attempt at playing the NZ style and it took them all the way to the Final. You can't tell me that squad list was the most "skillful" in the comp, they simply had a go at something different and it paid off, ATTITUDE!

You will not beat the AB's trying to shut them down or playing a possession game, geez even the Poms beat us with 30% pill, and you give yourself absolutely no hope continually kicking the ball back to them. Christ if I see turnover ball kicked away again I'll have to replace another television. You simply have to fight fire with fire. The Lions proved the quality of your players is not the most important factor, it is HOW YOU PLAY THE GAME and I live in hope that we wake up to this fact sooner rather than later.

Almost every player in the Wallabies has been through our elite coaching programmes since their mid teens. They play the way the do because they've been coached that way over a long period of time - it's not just Michael Cheika.

 

[Braveheart81]

I'm naturally suspicious of centralised control in any area of society. If I look around the world at successful sporting teams, I don't see the governing body exerting centralised control over coaching. In fact quite the opposite, Spanish, Italian, German and Brazilian soccer, NFL in the US to name a few.

Coaches progressing through the ranks and centralised control are two different and unrelated concepts.

And having viewed the ARU in action over the past decade, I'd be highly sceptical of that organisation's ability to successfully control anything.

We can certainly learn some things from NZ rugby and it's the technical aspects of coaching rugby teams and developing young players rather than political control over who coaches where. Rugby administration in this country is rife with nepotism and political horse-trading - have a look at the 20s programme or the Aust schoolboys selection process.

We aren't like those leagues. The teams aren't privately owned and are all from organisations that are subsets of the ARU.

I am not saying that they exert centralised control over coaching appointments but trying to help create a situation where coaches can be developed and promoted inside Australia so they don't need to go overseas seems like a good plan. We are losing a lot of our talented coaches to foreign clubs (like our players) and often getting stuck with substandard ones here. Giving them more development opportunities in a more structured progression from club to NRC to Super Rugby to the national team seems like a good idea to me.

I think the ARU is being run in a much better fashion now than it was in the past. The state unions aren't exactly showering themselves in glory around the country. I guess the hope is that by having a more centralised model we have better governance at all levels with less duplication and waste given how little money there is to go around.

The improvement in the pathways and selection tournaments up through the age groups to the under 20s makes it better than it ever has been and gives a far better opportunity to select the teams in a more professional manner with less nepotism etc.