Tier 3.5 - An Alternative NRC

[Train Without a Station]

Since you're a Randwick man I thought I'd take a look at some Ella highlights.

Now maybe my glasses don't have the right rose shadevso I can't see it but it's hardly polished skills.

Half the passes over 10m bounce of are at the recipient's feet. I don't see this super boot kicking that apparently was the norm either. Plenty of basketball throwing made easier by lack of defensive positioning to cut off support options though.

I'm not sure who all these old amateurs who were kicking 60+m were. I will say from my experience I can kick a Sherrin further than a Gilbert. Though since moving to the forwards a decade ago I've never kicked the ball in a game so maybe that's changed. Again, part of the accuracy is pressure. Your technique is rushed in less time. The amateurs weren't playing against professional defences.

On your comments on the NRC. No I won't agree, like almost anybody else that watched. But I'll just take your word that Hanes played by better quality players wasn't any better.

As for AAC (Adam Ashley-Cooper). It's all relative. He can pass both sides but in the modern game any weaknesses are exploited much more. As a result because his weak side passing was weaker he was probably encouraged to do it less to minimise errors in skill execution as if he passed it around like some in the video, defences would have exploited it.

 

[Strewthcobber]

So organised defence stops you from kicking from each foot?
If anything less time makes versatility more important.

Players are better tacklers,and they are much stronger at the breakdown,cos that's all they practise in their high performance squads.

the kiwis can do all these impossible things in today's environment
Fitter,faster smarter defences notwithstanding.

So either their genetics are better than ours,or their program is.

There's a third option - around the calibre of athlete each country is getting into their development programs isn't there?

 

[Train Without a Station]

ILTW it's the same as the AAC (Adam Ashley-Cooper) issue.

I doubt these players in the past could kick equally well. They'd have their stronger and weaker foot.

With more time your weaker kicking side doesn't get exploited as much. Against modern defenders there's less time for your weaker side.

If things were done so much better then why hasn't somewhere decided to buck the trend and just train like players used to. Supposedly they'd just dominate then wouldn't they?

The All Blacks don't go and ignore gym work, conditioning, etc. if anything they are one of the biggest, fittest and strongest teams out there. On Saturday Timani was probably the only player with a bulk advantage over their opponent whilst Todd (smaller than Cane) and Kaino had decent size advantages.

 

[Gnostic]

I'll just leave it TWAS. Its impossible and a waste of energy to debate with somebody with a closed mind.

Our players today are basically as good as the calibre of the NZ players but the skills of NZ players are executed fundamentally better and continuously so. that should be easily identifiable even for somebody not willing to even consider reasons that Australian players do not execute the skills as well apart from the excuses that the game is faster and stronger and defences so much better..........

With modern fitness training (and dietetics) and professional time I'd back Ella, Campese, Lloyd Walker, Horan, Little, Burke et al to still be world class and stand out from the pack.

I also do not forget that it was Australia with innovative and thoughtful coaching that brought the "modern" defence to Rugby in 1998-99 with Les Kiss, but that might be a bit inconvenient for you.

 

[Gnostic]

ILTW it's the same as the AAC (Adam Ashley-Cooper) issue.



I doubt these players in the past could kick equally well. They'd have their stronger and weaker foot.



With more time your weaker kicking side doesn't get exploited as much. Against modern defenders there's less time for your weaker side.



If things were done so much better then why hasn't somewhere decided to buck the trend and just train like players used to. Supposedly they'd just dominate then wouldn't they?



The All Blacks don't go and ignore gym work, conditioning, etc. if anything they are one of the biggest, fittest and strongest teams out there. On Saturday Timani was probably the only player with a bulk advantage over their opponent whilst Todd (smaller than Cane) and Kaino had decent size advantages.

Last time but could let this one go, its just too easy an example to expose the fallacy in your arguments and lack of basic research.

Kaino 196cm and 113Kg
Mumm 196cm 109kg
Hooper 182cm 101Kg
Todd 185 104Kg

as listed by player profiles.

Decent size advantage??

 

[I like to watch]

ILTW it's the same as the AAC (Adam Ashley-Cooper) issue.

I doubt these players in the past could kick equally well. They'd have their stronger and weaker foot.

With more time your weaker kicking side doesn't get exploited as much. Against modern defenders there's less time for your weaker side.

If things were done so much better then why hasn't somewhere decided to buck the trend and just train like players used to. Supposedly they'd just dominate then wouldn't they?

The All Blacks don't go and ignore gym work, conditioning, etc. if anything they are one of the biggest, fittest and strongest teams out there. On Saturday Timani was probably the only player with a bulk advantage over their opponent whilst Todd (smaller than Cane) and Kaino had decent size advantages.

The only reason to kick with your weaker foot is because you are under pressure on your good foot!
Nowhere have I suggested kiwis neglect gym work.
The problem with our program is that they are picking winners at 16, so they are all strong ball runners,good in contact.
There are no ball players,cos big strong fast kids never needed to develop them.
And there is no desire to improve their skills, AAC (Adam Ashley-Cooper) is a good example.
No one wants to change things cos they all have short term KPI's.
They just want the AAC (Adam Ashley-Cooper)'s to do the things they are good at,and NEVER do the things they need to improve on.

And by the way,there was only one long ball that was grassed.
Go and find a leather ball they were using and try it yourself.
The balks have changed dramatically since then.

 

[Train Without a Station]

Well just I do aspire to have a mind as open as yours one day Gnostic.

You're open mindedness on the NRC is probably world class level of open mindedness after all.

Your comment about Kiss somewhat highlights my point. When Australia were innovative and superior in their defensive coaching they look more skilful in comparison to their opponents whose skills they shut down.

I also forgot to mention Arnold, but his extra 5kg may be offset by over 2 inches of height compared to Whitelock.

I'd call 4kg a decent size advantage. Hence why I said it. It's only a slight size advantage?

Either way we are not getting beaten by smaller teams who forgo gym work. If anything they are probably bigger overall.

 

[Gnostic]

Australian Pack outweighed the ABs TWAS. Bigger centres inconvenient things facts. Anyway, lost cause.

 

[NTT]

If you want to see the benefits of playing in national semi/professional competition vs amateur club players look at the Wallaroos. NZ had an 8 week Womens NPC to prepare. Australia had a 3 day national carnival for selection then only a training camp before their first test in over a year. The skill levels and instincts were a long way above ours.
Say what you will but having a dedicated and, most importantly, unified approach to their Rugby development and high performance programs produced both results for NZ.

The other problem for going back to a Sydney/Brisbane centric model is it does Sweet F**k all for anyone outside of those places. It completely ignores the 75 000 players not in those comps and the some 200 000 family/volunteers who keep rugby alive outside of those comps.

Australias pathways (Super 20s, dedicated academies and a semi professional national comp) have had bugger all time to start producing the volume of talent necessary to satisfy some people. The NRC also provides our best talent with extra games each year. Instead of playing 15 pro games then dropping down to club rugby where the support programs and training drop off considerably, they now stay in the high performance set up and play in a higher than club level competition. Thats another 8 or 9 games of professional rugby. Thats around 23 or 24 games of very high intensity rugby for our best players and around 15 high quality matches for our best U/20s to push each other to get better. (I think the Super U/20s should be a two round comp) That is all the best talent from across Australia being developed in a unified, dedicated pathway. It also helps to avoid situations like what arise in Perth Club Rugby, and other comps, where a team that finishes in the finals all of a sudden parachute in 3 or 4 Super Rugby players to propel a team to a premiership at the expense of the competitions integrity.

Club rugby is no doubt an integral part of the pathways of players. They are just not as big a cog as they used to be in the overall machine.

The perceived lack of skills is false. The players are playing in a level of rugby exceedingly better and faster than ever before. Yes more practice makes better skills but that doesn't mean dropping to a lower level of training would benefit in this case. Going from a professional full time environment to a semi amateur environment makes no sense. That translates to doing less training at a lower level. The ARU has just appointed Mick Byrne to overlook the skills aspect of our pathways. This means for the 1st time ever our professional arm will be unified in its approach in this area. We have seen what a unified, collective approach to high performance has done for so many sports worldwide. It is a proven approach whether in sport or business. And it is absolutely the correct approach for Australian Rugby to not only stay one of the best 3 teams in the world but to one day soon be the best in the world.

 

[Rugbynutter39]

If you want to see the benefits of playing in national semi/professional competition vs amateur club players look at the Wallaroos. NZ had an 8 week Womens NPC to prepare. Australia had a 3 day national carnival for selection then only a training camp before their first test in over a year. The skill levels and instincts were a long way above ours.
Say what you will but having a dedicated and, most importantly, unified approach to their Rugby development and high performance programs produced both results for NZ.

The other problem for going back to a Sydney/Brisbane centric model is it does Sweet F**k all for anyone outside of those places. It completely ignores the 75 000 players not in those comps and the some 200 000 family/volunteers who keep rugby alive outside of those comps.

Australias pathways (Super 20s, dedicated academies and a semi professional national comp) have had bugger all time to start producing the volume of talent necessary to satisfy some people. The NRC also provides our best talent with extra games each year. Instead of playing 15 pro games then dropping down to club rugby where the support programs and training drop off considerably, they now stay in the high performance set up and play in a higher than club level competition. Thats another 8 or 9 games of professional rugby. Thats around 23 or 24 games of very high intensity rugby for our best players and around 15 high quality matches for our best U/20s to push each other to get better. (I think the Super U/20s should be a two round comp) That is all the best talent from across Australia being developed in a unified, dedicated pathway. It also helps to avoid situations like what arise in Perth Club Rugby, and other comps, where a team that finishes in the finals all of a sudden parachute in 3 or 4 Super Rugby players to propel a team to a premiership at the expense of the competitions integrity.

Club rugby is no doubt an integral part of the pathways of players. They are just not as big a cog as they used to be in the overall machine.

The perceived lack of skills is false. The players are playing in a level of rugby exceedingly better and faster than ever before. Yes more practice makes better skills but that doesn't mean dropping to a lower level of training would benefit in this case. Going from a professional full time environment to a semi amateur environment makes no sense. That translates to doing less training at a lower level. The ARU has just appointed Mick Byrne to overlook the skills aspect of our pathways. This means for the 1st time ever our professional arm will be unified in its approach in this area. We have seen what a unified, collective approach to high performance has done for so many sports worldwide. It is a proven approach whether in sport or business. And it is absolutely the correct approach for Australian Rugby to not only stay one of the best 3 teams in the world but to one day soon be the best in the world.

Most here who are arguing for a professional pathway between super rugby and amateur club rugby like nz with its mitre cup and sa with its currie cup are arguing for this plus the need for club rugby - not an either or. Why won't people accept we need both as not hard concept to grasp on weight of evidence.

However, it seems those entrenched in the Sydney club scene see it as either or. Which evidence shows is completely illogical as how can we compete with nz or sa who have this extra professional pathway or big Nh tier 1 who have bigger domestic professional comps.

If people think we can just survive with amateur clubs and 5 or mooted soon to be possible four professional rugby sides and not see rugby decline further then those people really need professional help as it is completely illogical. Why won't club die hards accept we need a strong amateur club environment and more professional pathways as most people can see this and don't see it as a either or. Most club supporters see the need for both but it is the one eyed die hard club supporters who only see clubs as rugby's salvation who seem to hijack the agenda as last weeks circus shows.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Rugbynutter39]

Most here who are arguing for a professional pathway between super rugby and amateur club rugby like nz with its mitre cup and sa with its currie cup are arguing for this plus the need for club rugby - not an either or. Why won't people accept we need both as not hard concept to grasp on weight of evidence.

However, it seems those entrenched in the Sydney club scene see it as either or. Which evidence shows is completely illogical as how can we compete with nz or sa who have this extra professional pathway or big Nh tier 1 who have bigger domestic professional comps.

If people think we can just survive with amateur clubs and 5 or mooted soon to be possible four professional rugby sides and not see rugby decline further then those people really need professional help as it is completely illogical. Why won't club die hards accept we need a strong amateur club environment and more professional pathways as most people can see this and don't see it as a either or. Most club supporters see the need for both but it is the one eyed die hard club supporters who only see clubs as rugby's salvation who seem to hijack the agenda as last weeks circus shows.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

And should add more importantly how can we compete with other domestic codes like league with less professional pathways.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Strewthcobber]

And should add more importantly how can we compete with other domestic codes like league with less professional pathways.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The die hard don't accept that the clubs should be amateur

 

[Rugbynutter39]

The die hard don't accept that the clubs should be amateur

Well Sydney uni tried to go alone in nrc and were least successful in terms of crowd support.

Clearly all clubs can't be pro so what they are actually still saying is there should be a professional pathway between super rugby and amateur clubs.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Strewthcobber]

Well Sydney uni tried to go alone in nrc and were least successful in terms of crowd support.

Clearly all clubs can't be pro so what they are actually still saying is there should be a professional pathway between super rugby and amateur clubs.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The position is that the SS could be that pathway - if the ARU directed the resources of the NRC etc to the top clubs.

I don't agree with that position but let's at least be clear what the thinking is

 

[Rugbynutter39]

The die hard don't accept that the clubs should be amateur

Yes what people like Papworth are saying is I want my club (replace Papworth for poido and Eastwood for Randwick) to be in the professional pathway between super rugby and amateur clubs. But I have not figured out how that will work so until someone else does I am going to throw my toys out and criticise anything that does not involve my amateur club being part of a professional pathway in its own right.

Self interest at its best!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[I like to watch]

Most SS diehards don't support this rebel comp that will compete with NRC.
But they still see the SS as being an important part of the fabric of the game.

For those that diss it,as being a low level amateur comp, they should come down,watch a few games and play pick the pro.
There are a dozen or so squad members that play each week scattered throughout the comp.
They are not head and shoulders above the rest,so the standard can't be that low.
In terms of the pathways being a replacement to the SS, it sounds better in theory than it works in practice.
And is hyper dependant on having the right people doing the development.
I firmly believe that high performance squads are important(done correctly)
But it shouldn't be one in isolation,but in tandem with the Premier Leagues.

 

[Rugbynutter39]

Most SS diehards don't support this rebel comp that will compete with NRC.
But they still see the SS as being an important part of the fabric of the game.

For those that diss it,as being a low level amateur comp, they should come down,watch a few games and play pick the pro.
There are a dozen or so squad members that play each week scattered throughout the comp.
They are not head and shoulders above the rest,so the standard can't be that low.
In terms of the pathways being a replacement to the SS, it sounds better in theory than it works in practice.
And is hyper dependant on having the right people doing the development.
I firmly believe that high performance squads are important(done correctly)
But it shouldn't be one in isolation,but in tandem with the Premier Leagues.

I don't think many diss Shute shield at all - it is rather I think that a small minority struggling with the concept of a third tier that does not directly include their club or just struggling with the concept of another pathway between them and super rugby. It is called resistance to change which other codes have had like old nsl days for soccer, old nrl days and old vfl days. Rugby still struggling to make the change compared to other codes for few different reasons.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Train Without a Station]

ILTW I think importantly to be noted, most SS clubs don't support this proposed Rebel comp.

It's merely a vocal minority.

With regards to how much you notice the pro players, I agree you don't notice them. But expecting to is somewhat of a flawed exercise.

They don't train with the teams, they come from more structured environments where they can expect their team mates to do their job, and then come into another team, put themselves in the right position, only to find themselves out of position compared to the rest of the team.

Tight five players will be much less noticeable doing their bread and butter, but also very reliant on the rest of the pack in their set piece work.

Back 3 players are often reliant on getting reasonable quality ball from players inside of them.

It's probably only midfield and back row players that have much of their own destiny in their own hands. And most fringe players in these positions have stood out haven't they?

You could argue this year that someone like Simone stood out more than Horwitz (did he play 12 though at SS?). And that would likely be correct, but that's because he already was a better player and he's not in the system because he was in another code's system.

Ultimately it's a change in dynamic where now the SS (and equivalent) system is more about incubation of already identified talent between Super Rugby duty, and NRC season, and the identification and development of the late bloomers.

As a result it's less critical as it's not responsible and really can't be responsible for the bulk, and when things are tight it's the first to get funding cut off as it's a less efficient means because it's responsible for the harder to identify and develop talent.

Best case scenario you want players being identified and developed everywhere you can. The more the better.

Financial limitations determine which you support financially though.

 

[I like to watch]

They do actually train with the team each week.
If you are right about the tight 5,how are they ever awarded MOM ???
I actually believe that one of the tight 5 is superior to his team mates it sticks out like dogs balls.
Back 3 players still get plenty of opportunities from kick returns.
There are plenty of gun back rowers in the comp,fringe pro players or not.
There is no argument that Simone stood out more than Horwitz, it's because he's two levels above him,nothing about what systems they might be in.

 

[barbarian]

This is the debate we should be having, the one that is at the core of this whole thing and where the SS has a big role to play.

Where is the best place for a 18 year old kid to learn the game? Is it on the muddy fields of Eastwood, or at Waratahs training?

I think Papworth is right on this one, broadly speaking. Our development pathways are too reliant on running around cones and lifting weights, on 'development squads' and the like.

But I readily admit I'm not sure what the answer is. It has to be a positive for our young players to train alongside established pros- to scrum against Scott Sio, kick with Quade Cooper, get pointers from Nathan Grey. But they also need time honing their craft against people their own age, and people their senior.
.