Australia A - Back on the Cards

[RugbyReg]

Do you? How many "rep" players aren't NSW/QLD heritage? Valetini, Leota, Tupou, Vunivalu, Pone?

I think we can do with that many missing.

a couple of years old, but I came up with some 'teams' here.

Taking another look at a Rugby Origin Series - Green & Gold Rugby

Hamish McLennan is the most recent addition to the Rugby Australia this week, and as Chairman-elect, he came out last week to float a few ideas for the sport in this country. Most seem to focus on that troubling middle tier of the sport, but it’s early days, so let’s not judge things yet. One

greenandgoldrugby.com

 

[WorkingClassRugger]

you can't have a QLD Reds team with its 140 years of history representing the best players in the state (even in this wacked out professional age) and then a 2nd team in QLD. Waratah fans can throw out their own team's history - that's for them to decide.

If you want numbers then it's the NRC with

QLD Country
Brisbane City
Western Sydney
Sydney
Central Coast?
Canberra
Melbourne
Perth
Fiji

And maybe you chuck in a South Coast/ Illawarra type team to soak up some of the the Canberra depth

Run that as a two round competition and then finish with an interstate series after that - be it state of origin or whatever. I just can't get my head around the contracting though.

Use something similar to what MLR does. The individual teams sign players but the players are centrally contracted to MLR itself.

 

[WorkingClassRugger]

Right now, that may be the case. ... Or not. But my point is general, i.e. - No blanket ban on more than one pro team.

For me, the Reds should remain as a pro team. The idea of (a) being reduced to a few Templeton Cup rep games v NSW only; and/or (b) rebranding as something else like 'City', doesn't make sense. There is no need.

If a 2nd team is workable (my argument doesn't rely on there being a 2nd team) then it should be allowed - imo, alongside the Reds. Not under the Reds.


I know, right?

But lest we get too aligned on the same page, I don't think 8 teams is a minimum necessity in 2024.**

Reason I say that is the Aus pro comp should still be supplemented by cross-border competition. It's not a black|white, either|or proposition.

**But I do tend to think the Aus-controlled comp would require Fiji, though, as a going concern to start up.

A 2nd team in each of NSW and Qld are very doable in my opinion. One north of the bridge in Sydney makes the most sense from a NSW perspective. Qld I'm not sure about but both the Reds and the Tahs should remain. Start with 8 but have a roadmap forward with planned future teams up to say 12.

 

[The Ghost of Raelene]

You need to keep the Waratah and Reds names. Personally I would love to see a 2nd NSW team be the Country Cockatoos. It's a known brand, colours and history.

I have given zero thought to where they play or set up but if you want extra teams you should use known names in my opinion.

Rae Rae

 

[kiap]

A 2nd team in each of NSW and Qld are very doable in my opinion.

They possibly are. But the follow up questions of whether the extra teams are: (a) Needed, (b) Wanted, (c) Funded... should be answered before getting too far into the where, when, and how.

• The goal is to have competitive pro rugby here that is viable, watchable and of good standard.
• Super isn't ticking all the boxes. There's lack of control over it. But if Super was doing the job we wouldn't be here.

Minimum teams, starting from scratch, for an Au controlled comp is six. That won't be enough on its own for long, but can work for the start-up. From there you'd need to either: (a) add more teams to the Au comp, and/or (b) add the Au teams to some sort of cross-border comp/s such as a champions cup (call it Super Rugby if you like). IMO the latter of the two would be preferable.

If Fiji is not included then an Au comp would need an extra team - in order of likelihood around greater Sydney area first, then Qld - and IMO probably privately backed.

Think I'll leave it there so as not to further hijack the Australia A thread.

 

[qwerty51]

Can I just say one thing about the constant comment that increasing teams reduces the standard. So what?

People watch schoolboys, people watch 1st grade and this might sound fucked and I support women's rugby but people watch women's rugby too. When did the standard ever turn people off? As long it's competitive and professional I don't think the standard dropping below what the current Super Rugby level is matters at all.

The standard only matters if they can no longer compete against NZ teams but if the premise is a domestic comp or TT where NZ's teams become diluted too - who cares?

 

[Derpus]

Can I just say one thing about the constant comment that increasing teams reduces the standard. So what?

People watch schoolboys, people watch 1st grade and this might sound fucked and I support women's rugby but people watch women's rugby too. When did the standard ever turn people off? As long it's competitive and professional I don't think the standard dropping below what the current Super Rugby level is matters at all.

The standard only matters if they can no longer compete against NZ teams but if the premise is a domestic comp or TT where NZ's teams become diluted too - who cares?

All Black selectors.

 

[Dctarget]

I like more teams, what happens when we wanna do the end of season champions cup style stuff with Japan/NZ? Do we combine a team or two?

 

[The Ghost of Raelene]

Can I just say one thing about the constant comment that increasing teams reduces the standard. So what?

People watch schoolboys, people watch 1st grade and this might sound fucked and I support women's rugby but people watch women's rugby too. When did the standard ever turn people off? As long it's competitive and professional I don't think the standard dropping below what the current Super Rugby level is matters at all.

The standard only matters if they can no longer compete against NZ teams but if the premise is a domestic comp or TT where NZ's teams become diluted too - who cares?

I agree with part of what you say. I think a lot of people like those levels of Rugby because of the style of play. Many watch School Boy and Club but not Super rugby because of the style.

I know a lot of people that love the Premier League Soccer but have zero interest in the A League because of the perceived standard. I'm in no way trashing the idea but the standard of play is important.

Rae Rae

 

[qwerty51]

That's fair and it's the same story of the NBA and NBL but I think the EPL and NBA are so accessible and big they're easy to support. Are people really going to support a Top 14 or Premiership club over a local one though?

They might support a NZ team in a domestic comp over ours (especially if they have Kiwi heritage) so another reason I think it's important to include them rather than go alone.

I like more teams, what happens when we wanna do the end of season champions cup style stuff with Japan/NZ? Do we combine a team or two?

Well in the two cases, firstly a domestic comp, they'd go full NPC too so their teams would be just as "weak" if they continue with 14 teams.
If it's a TT comp, they'd have more teams than us so should be just as diluted and competitive against theirs. I don't see why we'd combine them. The only combo teams would be rep State of Origin style teams or a city v country potentially.

 

[kiap]

Can I just say one thing about the constant comment that increasing teams reduces the standard. So what?

No, you can't...

But it's always a matter of degree (how far and how fast). The standard is a valid concern but increasing teams does more than impact standard. It also increases financial risk.

Add Fiji first. Once there is an Au comp then there's control over when (and if) to expand. Wait and watch. Only expand if warranted.

what happens when we wanna do the end of season champions cup style stuff with Japan/NZ? Do we combine a team or two?

For me, the same team/s that play here play in the cup (or challenge)

 

[qwerty51]

I know people in the NRL are already hesitant to expand because of the standard-issue but to me that more stems from unevenness in the competition, there are teams with much more stacked talent compared to the bottom clubs. Competitiveness is a much more important issue than standard.

 

[kiap]

they'd go full NPC too so their teams would be just as "weak"

NZ won't do that.

They will stay at 6 (incl Moana) or 7 (if they get Fiji) and look to play Champs as well.

BTW, that can be interleaved.

 

[qwerty51]

Not a chance imo. During Super Rugby Aoetoroa 2020 and 2021 their ratings and crowds started dropping, and players complained (intensity-wise) and the general consensus was it was boring as batshit playing the same teams all the time.

 

[kiap]

Not a chance imo. During Super Rugby Aoetoroa 2020 and 2021 their ratings and crowds started dropping, and players complained (intensity-wise) and the general consensus was it was boring as batshit playing the same teams all the time.

Nup. You don't understand NZ's priority which is the ABs and (now) Sliverlake.

Covid was different. It will be 6 or 7 teams instead of 5 and they will be wanting to play Jpn and Au teams, etc as well

Obviously they wanted to control the Au teams in their comp first of all, but that's become less likely.

 

[Doritos Day]

Can I just say one thing about the constant comment that increasing teams reduces the standard. So what?

People watch schoolboys, people watch 1st grade and this might sound fucked and I support women's rugby but people watch women's rugby too. When did the standard ever turn people off? As long it's competitive and professional I don't think the standard dropping below what the current Super Rugby level is matters at all.

The standard only matters if they can no longer compete against NZ teams but if the premise is a domestic comp or TT where NZ's teams become diluted too - who cares?

Rugby is one sport where the 'standard' arguably makes it worse to watch.

Semi-professional level like the Shute and NPC is arguably the best from an entertainment perspective because the game isn't as technical, cynical and slow from TMO etc.

 

[Braveheart81]

Rugby is one sport where the 'standard' arguably makes it worse to watch.

Semi-professional level like the Shute and NPC is arguably the best from an entertainment perspective because the game isn't as technical, cynical and slow from TMO etc.

Broadcasters don't pay for it though and fans aren't willing to spend more money on tickets.

 

[hifflepiff]

Broadcasters don't pay for it though and fans aren't willing to spend more money on tickets.

That's down to marketing as much as anything.

If you sell something as the highest tier in the country people will be more interested in watching it.

Whereas, if you sell something as a development league or second tier (ala NRC/Shute) people will be less interested.

The only 'standard' that matters to most people is if the games are competitive and tries are getting scored. They're not going to care if the scrummaging or ruck speed isn't up to current Super levels.

 

[qwerty51]

Oh 100%. The main reason the NRC never worked is why should people support a lesser competition??? They're already supporting Super Rugby.

Shute Shield (and QLD Premier) would be 10x as big if it was the only club rugby in the country.

 

[Braveheart81]

That's down to marketing as much as anything.

If you sell something as the highest tier in the country people will be more interested in watching it.

Whereas, if you sell something as a development league or second tier (ala NRC/Shute) people will be less interested.

The only 'standard' that matters to most people is if the games are competitive and tries are getting scored. They're not going to care if the scrummaging or ruck speed isn't up to current Super levels.

I agree with that. That wasn't the detail I was replying to though.

It would be the highest level available so everything that was lamented about professionalism comes into it except if you spread it too thin and the standard is lower you get the worst of both worlds.

Ultimately the desires of Stan Sport will have a huge impact on whatever happens because whatever the path forward is requires them on board with a significant financial investment.