2013 IRB Junior World Championship - France
- Thread starter Hugh Jarse
- Start date
- Status
Tight loose
Bob McCowan (2)
I really hope the likes of Parker, Northam and co get some more ball to show us the express pace and skill they possess and that Aussie backs have been famous for over the years.
Rassie, this is Alice in Wonderland thinking for we Aussies.
You are obviously South African but don't live here. The SAffers who live here know our situation.
We have 18 professional Aussie Rules teams here and 15 professional rugby league teams. We also have five professional rugby union teams. The national interest in these codes of footie, as expressed in TV coverage, is about in the same proportion.
I have ignored the nine professional soccer (football) teams because you probably have them over there too.
In 2007 we tried to start up a national domestic rugby union competition, the "ARC", about the standard of the Vodacom Cup, which we hoped would build into something like the Currie Cup.
It ticked all the rugby boxes but not the financial ones and it failed after one year, because it ate too far into the capital reserves of the ARU.
You talked about "more broadcast rights". Guess how much money Oz rugby got from the TV broadcasters for an ARC game on Saturday and a game on Sunday?
Nothing. We had to pay the broadcasters to show two ARC games a week.
This is not a rugby country as South African is or New Zealand is. In product on TV, it is only rated fourth.
So, don't assume that extra games of Oz rugby will be wanted by Oz broadcasters, because they look at what their advertisers want – and the advertisers want to expose product they are trying to sell to the largest audience possible.
If their customers watch rugby league or Aussie Rules, and not rugby union, that's what will be shown on TV.
The response may be that we should change what the Australian public wants to watch and add extra rugby product of a high standard to change the market.
We already thought of that; always have; but if you know anything about markets, it is that it takes money, a lot of it, to create a market for anything, or to increase the market for anything
And the old refrain prevails: "Show me the money".
PS - just imagine this nightmare:
South Africa has no Currie Cup, no Vodacom Cup, just its national team and it's five Super teams - and below that you have amateur club rugby.
Wait – your nightmare gets worse: you have 18 professional South African Rules teams and 15 professional rugby league teams, all competing for TV revenue with your five rugby union teams – and those other 33 teams are also competing in the sporting gene pool to get the best athletes in the country to play their sport.
What would be your IRB ranking in that nightmare?
.
R
rus
Guest
Yes, this 2 team, but this law is not working. For example, Beco also played for France U20, when she was 2 team, and now plays for Portugal NT. Or a team such as the Pampas and Bucharest Volves by 2 teams. This is nonsense if the player play for the Romanian franchise in Amlin Cap then he has no right to play for another country ...
Zander
Ron Walden (29)
Lee, this is why I have a great admiration for Australian rugby and what they've achieved, their situation is so unique to every other major rugby nation in the world yet they still consistently perform at a high level.
Sidbarret
Fred Wood (13)
The_Brown_Hornet
John Eales (66)
Lee, thanks for that post. It sums up quite perfectly the situation for rugby in this country.
R
rus
Guest
Aurelien Beco
http://www.wru.co.uk/eng/matchcentre/3486.php
I do not know, maybe the IRB with 2 levels of less strictly adheres to this rule.
I am waiting for the Oz v Fiji U/20 game to start.
The team is listed here:
http://www.rugby.com.au/News/NewsArticle/tabid/1699/ArticleID/9513/Default.aspx
It's clear to me that they named what they thought was their best starting team for the Ireland game then tweaked it for the NZ game using three new starting players (plus one for a player suspended.)
Then the plan would have been to give everybody else a run in the Fiji game so that all but a few got to start in one game, at least.
I will do a review blog about the U/20 championships and I want to got back to the questions I raised earlier:
- Which players should have gone to France instead of the lads who are there?
For example: someone mentioned Rhys Dombkins. I imagine that Rhys is a backrower exclusively now and not playing in the 2nd row as he did sometimes at school.
He wouldn't be an opensider; is he better now than Michael Wells or Curtis Browning who have worn the 6 and 8 jersey in France?
Or if he can play 7 now - is he better than Jack Dempsey - or Mark Baldwin who plays there today?
For the blog I need a few names of players who are:
- probably better than such and such in France (who are they better than and why?).
- were healthy when the squad was picked
- and were they part of the original 50 players invited to the first camp, or not.
- which eligible 1st and 2nd graders missed out - are they better than a fellow in France? What level rugby does the fellow in France play, that he is better than?
These are the specifics I need.
Or is the main gripe, not that players X, Y and Z are obviously better than A, B and C in France but that X, Y and Z were disadvantaged because they were not in the National Academy and A, B and C were, and progressed more quickly as a consequence - or if they about the same in ability as A, B and C then A, B and C would have got the benefit of the doubt?
Should any credence be given to assertions that the U20 selectors chose Academy player A over non-Academy player Z just because he had to justify the role of the Academy as a pathway?
I need some material.
Thanks in advance.
The team is listed here:
http://www.rugby.com.au/News/NewsArticle/tabid/1699/ArticleID/9513/Default.aspx
It's clear to me that they named what they thought was their best starting team for the Ireland game then tweaked it for the NZ game using three new starting players (plus one for a player suspended.)
Then the plan would have been to give everybody else a run in the Fiji game so that all but a few got to start in one game, at least.
I will do a review blog about the U/20 championships and I want to got back to the questions I raised earlier:
- Which players should have gone to France instead of the lads who are there?
For example: someone mentioned Rhys Dombkins. I imagine that Rhys is a backrower exclusively now and not playing in the 2nd row as he did sometimes at school.
He wouldn't be an opensider; is he better now than Michael Wells or Curtis Browning who have worn the 6 and 8 jersey in France?
Or if he can play 7 now - is he better than Jack Dempsey - or Mark Baldwin who plays there today?
For the blog I need a few names of players who are:
- probably better than such and such in France (who are they better than and why?).
- were healthy when the squad was picked
- and were they part of the original 50 players invited to the first camp, or not.
- which eligible 1st and 2nd graders missed out - are they better than a fellow in France? What level rugby does the fellow in France play, that he is better than?
These are the specifics I need.
Or is the main gripe, not that players X, Y and Z are obviously better than A, B and C in France but that X, Y and Z were disadvantaged because they were not in the National Academy and A, B and C were, and progressed more quickly as a consequence - or if they about the same in ability as A, B and C then A, B and C would have got the benefit of the doubt?
Should any credence be given to assertions that the U20 selectors chose Academy player A over non-Academy player Z just because he had to justify the role of the Academy as a pathway?
I need some material.
Thanks in advance.
Nusadan
Chilla Wilson (44)
Was gutted they didnt show on Sky here the Oz match!
The NZ v Ireland match was one of the best I've seen, the Irish staged a great fightback to score two tries half way thru 2nd half to be within 8 points and then a pen goal brought them closer, alas, it was not to be when they gave away a penalty for holding onto the ball when only about 20m from the goal line after many well executed and supported phases.
The Kiwis certainly showed on their faces great relief when the bell went.
Rassie
Trevor Allan (34)
Lee Grant
Cmon don't be a negative nancy. Australia will pimp out any team if they hear a increase network deal with a bigger piece of the pie.
You are posting problems. It have been a problem for Australia for years where is the solutions! Negative attitudes will keep one down. Australia just need someone who can hype up things. Turn the most one sided contest and make it look like a fierce a battle for supremacy like they are doing with the Vodacom and Currie Cup and Varsity cup lately. Think this time while you cricket team is struggling is a great opportunity to get those fans over watching rugby.
(Big quotes of LG posts deleted)
Cmon don't be a negative nancy. Australia will pimp out any team if they hear a increase network deal with a bigger piece of the pie.
You are posting problems. It have been a problem for Australia for years where is the solutions! Negative attitudes will keep one down. Australia just need someone who can hype up things. Turn the most one sided contest and make it look like a fierce a battle for supremacy like they are doing with the Vodacom and Currie Cup and Varsity cup lately. Think this time while you cricket team is struggling is a great opportunity to get those fans over watching rugby.
(Big quotes of LG posts deleted)
There has been a bit of a rant on the Shute Shield thread about the "process" for the Under 20's and etc, etc - the same old chestnuts that crop up every year.
A similar challenge to name names and be specific about who has missed out on a gig in France because they didn't go to the right school, or missed out on NGS, Academy selection etc has been issued on that thread.
No response yet. If there is one that is objective and specific, I will cross paste the details here.
I'm struggling to think of any healthy and eligible Rugby Union players who have been dudded.
I would have preferred to see Wessels start at #9, but I think that this is an individual team selection issue rather than him being dudded by "the process". I did not see his performance at the various selection camps or at training sessions leading up to the tournament, so my preference is but one grain of sand on the Bondi Beach of the selection process.
A similar challenge to name names and be specific about who has missed out on a gig in France because they didn't go to the right school, or missed out on NGS, Academy selection etc has been issued on that thread.
No response yet. If there is one that is objective and specific, I will cross paste the details here.
I'm struggling to think of any healthy and eligible Rugby Union players who have been dudded.
I would have preferred to see Wessels start at #9, but I think that this is an individual team selection issue rather than him being dudded by "the process". I did not see his performance at the various selection camps or at training sessions leading up to the tournament, so my preference is but one grain of sand on the Bondi Beach of the selection process.
Blackers13
Syd Malcolm (24)
OK, I'm the one who raised this so I've joined this thread. To correct Hugh's prelude, I do not begrudge any player currently representing Australia in France and I will not name any individual I believe has been 'dudded'. My point is around the process of selection. The squad, I'm told, is invitational based upon players from last years Schools team and the various Academies. That precludes any player who for whatever reason wasn't selected at the Schools level or drafted to an academy. In the Sydney, Brisbane and ACT Colts and Grade Comps as well as SA, WA and TAs, there may be players who due to whatever reason have only reached maturity this season. Those players are not given an opportunity to participate in a fair trial and selection system and so are overlooked. That lack of transparent and open process leads to a belief that it's somewhat of a closed shop. Rugby needs to open up more opportunities to keep emerging but as yet unrecognised talent in the game, not discourage them from trying.
I guess a lot of it comes down to the resources you have available to select the squad in the first place.
I am sure they run the U20 team on the smell of an oily rag and their budget would be well and truly used up on the various camps they have prior to the squad being announced.
I'm only guessing but I would think that it would cost a large amount of money to substantially broaden the selection scope whilst only providing a minor or modest improvement to the quality of the squad.
Blackers13
Syd Malcolm (24)
You're right about the cost but surely the development of the game is worth the investment. My point is not about making this current squad better it's about an open and transparent process of selection. What would you say to a player not in the squad who asked 'how do I make the Australian 20's?'. The answer 'you had to be in the selection group last year', is baffling and discouraging. It underlines the belief among many that unless you are 'recognised' by the age of 17 your chances of going far in the game are greatly diminished.
- Status