Scrubber2050
Mark Ella (57)
Yeah and your new look sevens team may have been as successful as the current mob
The Wallabies Thread
- Thread starter KOB1987
- Start date
Yeah and your new look sevens team may have been as successful as the current mob
Jagman
Trevor Allan (34)
With an entire season/world series, I find that incredibly hard to believe. Phipps, Foley, Morohan, Gill and McMahon have already been stars at sevens (the former 4 winning silver in 2010), Hooper is the fittest forward in Aus and perhaps the world (in 15s) and Folau is ... Folau.
From what I put together from the articles that have come out I've come to the conclusion that it was actually Chieka who dissuaded Folau and Foley from going to sevens this year. Our next Wallabies coach needs to sign something that says he will support the mens sevens above the Wallabies in 2020.
There are multiple issues here.
1. There is a huge discrepancy between what the test stars and the Sevens players get paid. It is difficult for the ARU and Super Rugby teams to cover for highly paid players not being available. The players aren't going to be keen to do it if it means reducing their salary greatly.
2. The Super Rugby teams and the Wallabies having poor seasons is a red herring. If you remove a bunch of key players you can guarantee that will happen next time.
3. What happens to members and crowd numbers if you gut Super Rugby teams? If the Waratahs lost Hooper, Folau, Phipps and Foley for the season, there would have been a big backlash from fans.
A more coherent policy is needed but there are certainly a bunch of issues to resolve in order to shift a bunch of key Wallabies to the 7s team in an Olympics year.
1. There is a huge discrepancy between what the test stars and the Sevens players get paid. It is difficult for the ARU and Super Rugby teams to cover for highly paid players not being available. The players aren't going to be keen to do it if it means reducing their salary greatly.
2. The Super Rugby teams and the Wallabies having poor seasons is a red herring. If you remove a bunch of key players you can guarantee that will happen next time.
3. What happens to members and crowd numbers if you gut Super Rugby teams? If the Waratahs lost Hooper, Folau, Phipps and Foley for the season, there would have been a big backlash from fans.
A more coherent policy is needed but there are certainly a bunch of issues to resolve in order to shift a bunch of key Wallabies to the 7s team in an Olympics year.
dru
Tim Horan (67)
Why? (Or to be more expressive, "WTF?!?")
Jagman
Trevor Allan (34)
Found the relevant article
http://www.smh.com.au/rugby-union/u...n-leadup-to-rio-olympics-20150213-13ec47.html
Jagman
Trevor Allan (34)
1. Said stars are paid mostly by the ARU any way. So it would cost the ARU the short fall of what their Super Rugby teams would pay them. What is a Gold medal worth?
2. It's not so much a Red herring, 2007, 2009, 2012, and 2016 all look very similar. You can't guarantee a strong Super Rugby season but particularly 2016 Olympics Gold medal (or any medal) was vulnerable to any nation willing to hedge their bets on it.
3. What happens to the members and crowds and publicity in general when you can parade a Gold medal around the following year? When the entire country (not just NSW Qld) has been exposed to your players, knows their names, faces and achievements?
dru
Tim Horan (67)
Did I say anything doubting this "turf war"?
You propose that not only should 7's be favoured over 15's but also that the WB coach should be bound to it.
I'd suggest that 7's, Viva etc, ultimately must support 15's. Certainly 7's must not be permitted to compete with the Wallabies.
You propose that not only should 7's be favoured over 15's but also that the WB coach should be bound to it.
I'd suggest that 7's, Viva etc, ultimately must support 15's. Certainly 7's must not be permitted to compete with the Wallabies.
Jagman
Trevor Allan (34)
In any case the ARU have already stated that 7s (in an Olympic year) has priority over 15s.
This is what Pulver said in 2014
"I personally take the view that if you look at the objectives for 2016 for Australian rugby, I think winning a medal in the men's and women's events is right up there as our No.1 priority for that year," Pulver told AAP.
"I'm clearly committed to the fact that where players are eager to represent their country in the Olympics and Michael O'Connor wants them to be available, that we will find a way to make that happen. How we do that is to be worked out.
"But there's a balancing act here because in 2015 the priority, by a long way, is to win the World Cup. Once you're into 2016 it will be to win Olympic gold."
http://corporate.olympics.com.au/news/sevens-no-1-priority-for-aru-in-2016
Jagman
Trevor Allan (34)
Just to add to point 1. If the ARU had landed a mens medal they'd be looking at a lot more government money for 2020 which would easily pay the short fall.
No4918
John Hipwell (52)
Ignoto
John Thornett (49)
I think you're over estimating the public's care factor for our Olympians outside of the 4 year cycle. Without looking at Google, most Australian's wouldn't be able to tell you who won gold in London without guessing at an athlete who medalled in Rio.
As the Rugby guys can only win one medal, the public won't care more than a fleeting moment for them. Unlike an Ian Thorpe who can pull in multiple gold medals and break "world records".
Strewthcobber
Mark Ella (57)
Your problem being that they recalibrate every year using the benchmark events - so if we run with the cheap guys every three years and don't perform that well in the World Series the funding will drop back.
http://www.ausport.gov.au/ais/australias_winning_edge/sports_tally/2016/sports/Rugby_7s_Rugby_Union
Jagman
Trevor Allan (34)
Not sure about that. I remember the faces of the awesome foursome because of the fruit adds they did afterwards, ie the ongoing publicity. They could only win one medal each Olympics.
Sent from my FP2 using Tapatalk
The next question is how much sponsorship the ARU and Super Rugby teams lose in an Olympics year by not having some of their key players available.
What percentage of that gets made up by increased 7s sponsorship given there are limited opportunities for the team to play in front of Australian crowds and no ability for the team to be sponsored at the Olympics.
Did Rowing Australia make any money out of the Oarsome Foursome having a high public profile or did the individual athletes make money from it?
What percentage of that gets made up by increased 7s sponsorship given there are limited opportunities for the team to play in front of Australian crowds and no ability for the team to be sponsored at the Olympics.
Did Rowing Australia make any money out of the Oarsome Foursome having a high public profile or did the individual athletes make money from it?
Jagman
Trevor Allan (34)
The Wallabies and sevens teams are all sponsored by Qantas aren't they? Yes the Super Rugby teams miss out which is precisely why I think Speight was contracted to the brumbues for the first 5 games. This seems ludicrous but by being there at least at the beginning perhaps some potential members won't realize that he's not gonna be around long and he's able to be used to promote the team and wear the sponsored jersey at the beginning.
Sent from my FP2 using Tapatalk
I like to watch
David Codey (61)
What about exposure?
It has a real value to the game.
Had the men been able to match the girls,the hype would have been huuuuge.
The league people would be talking about which players should be poached,and be deciding which League stars would have dominated 7's.
Kids can only covet what they see.
No-one is doubting that Olympic success is something we should try and achieve.
The question is would the damage to Super and Test teams be worth it to achieve this exposure.
I don't think there is an easy answer, but I suspect there would be a lot of concern from regular rugby fans to see Super sides and the Wallabies sapped of star players in the name of achieving Olympic gold.
.
The question is would the damage to Super and Test teams be worth it to achieve this exposure.
I don't think there is an easy answer, but I suspect there would be a lot of concern from regular rugby fans to see Super sides and the Wallabies sapped of star players in the name of achieving Olympic gold.
.
Jagman
Trevor Allan (34)
Yes that's the question and particularly with hindsight of what has transpired so far this year you'd have yo say, yes it would have been well worth it, even if we only got a silver.
Sent from my FP2 using Tapatalk
I don't know that's true, though.
The Super teams have struggled, and it's directly led to us being belted at home in a Bledisloe. It's struck our code a huge blow. A men's gold medal wouldn't help this situation much, IMO.
In 2020 if we actively damage our Super teams in pursuit of gold, it greatly hampers the Wallabies ability to win the big home tests. I'm not sure if an Olympic medal is worth it. Yes it might inspire some new fans, but if the Wallabies are getting belted you'd lose just as many existing ones at the same time.
.
The Super teams have struggled, and it's directly led to us being belted at home in a Bledisloe. It's struck our code a huge blow. A men's gold medal wouldn't help this situation much, IMO.
In 2020 if we actively damage our Super teams in pursuit of gold, it greatly hampers the Wallabies ability to win the big home tests. I'm not sure if an Olympic medal is worth it. Yes it might inspire some new fans, but if the Wallabies are getting belted you'd lose just as many existing ones at the same time.
.
