• Welcome to the Green and Gold Rugby forums. As you can see we've upgraded the forums to new software. Your old logon details should work, just click the 'Login' button in the top right.

Australian Rugby / RA

Bullrush

Bullrush

John Hipwell (52)
hoggy said:
No its just that we can never have a genuine discussion about the game here because as soon as it is mentioned we get

".keep your quaint little, 3-rate domestic competition"
Click to expand...
Bullshit. I wrote a genuine post making reference to rugby experts and the needs they see in rugby - players including keeping 5 Australian teams.
Bullrush said:
I have no problem with how many professional teams Australia wants to have so long as we have the talent to fill them.

The issue isn't so much having enough teams, it's having proper talent ID to try and retain the best talent early.

Personally, I've become rather indifferent to how many Super Rugby teams Australia has. After reading articles with Steve Anderson and David Nucifora who think that 5 teams are sustainable, I'm happy to listen to people who have way more experience and knowledge about these things. But what those guys also stress is the coaching ability that has to improve in the grades below Super.

Perhaps the focus on how many Super Rugby teams Australia has is a little misguided and 'apple cart before the horse' type of thinking?
Click to expand...
The hatred for anything NZ is so strong that the reply was

‘Cool story bro…’

So please don’t give me this bullshit about ‘genuine discussion.’

If you want genuine, show me which of the top countries have their professional teams play only domestically? Point me in the direction of the rugby experts who say this is the best way to make Australian rugby better.
 
hoggy

hoggy

Trevor Allan (34)
Bullrush said:
Bullshit. I wrote a genuine post making reference to rugby experts and the needs they see in rugby - players including keeping 5 Australian teams.

The hatred for anything NZ is so strong that the reply was

‘Cool story bro…’

So please don’t give me this bullshit about ‘genuine discussion.’

If you want genuine, show me which of the top countries have their professional teams play only domestically? Point me in the direction of the rugby experts who say this is the best way to make Australian rugby better.
Click to expand...
Of course, we have suggested we only play domestically. That means the wallabies will not play 14/15 Tests a year.

And of course that means we will ban our domestic teams from playing other countries domestic teams, because we will only play domestically, we will retreat to our great North Korean kingdom and wallow in our brilliance.
 
noscrumnolife

noscrumnolife

Jimmy Flynn (14)
Derpus said:
Darwin's work never seemed that amazing to me. It's basically - if you have two great players that play together regularly they will be better than two great players that don't. It's not exactly revolutionary.
Click to expand...
I've never come across someone so sure of his opinion. The conviction with which he states some things that comes out of his mouth is a little absurd.
 
Bullrush

Bullrush

John Hipwell (52)
hoggy said:
Of course, we have suggested we only play domestically. That means the wallabies will not play 14/15 Tests a year.

And of course that means we will ban our domestic teams from playing other countries domestic teams, because we will only play domestically, we will retreat to our great North Korean kingdom and wallow in our brilliance.
Click to expand...
You guys have absolutely nothing. On one hand you guys want to get rid of NZ, the closest international playing partner you have, but on the other hand, you still want your pro teams playing internationally?

Before pointing out that having your pro teams play internationally is exactly what Super Rugby is, who will you play? Just the teams you’re confident of beating? Or is it your contention that the current Australian Super sides just need to play each other more - in fact, spread the talent out to make more teams to play against- that will make your teams better contenders for some kind of cross-over competition against Super Rugby Aotearoa teams?

It is forever being trotted out that Super Rugby is terrible for Australia, NZ are only in it for themselves (as if RA has only ever had the greater good of rugby at heart LOL) and the path forward includes the absolute need to dump Aotearoa.

For what? This 3rd rate domestic comp that is apparently so appealing and high quality that broadcasters will be falling over each other trying to rain money on rugby?

You can’t name one country in the Top 5 rugby nations who do this and you cannot point to any notable rugby expert who can provide a plan of shrinking rugby to a mainly domestic game and still producing a Wallaby side that is a realistic RWC contender.
 
N

NoName

Herbert Moran (7)
Tomthumb said:
One could argue this Super Rugby comp has brought us to 10th, as I don't remember Super Rugby being a thing when we won the World Cup in 1991
Click to expand...
It did, it just wasn't called super rugby.

SPC, followed by super 6, then super 10.

Absolutely was the very pinnacle of rugby outside of tests and super rugby would have taken longer to start if those weren't already in place.
 
sunnyboys

sunnyboys

Bob Loudon (25)
i've been trying to think of some more unique ways of dealing with our pro teams/SRP (Super Rugby Pacific)/cohesion/wage costs/attractive tv product etc....

Now i'm walking into some murky areas here so no blowing up at me. this whole topic is full of landmines and emotions.

so Aus should only have two teams in SRP (Super Rugby Pacific). its the concentration of talent we need to build successful Super Rugby teams that can re-energise the two key rugby markets. and it means more of our test players are spending far more time playing together. the pay for players in these teams will be a separate "pay grade" to the next level down. this can assist with managing wages. The teams are Reds and Tahs. These two teams will be largely overseen by RA for high performance matters - S&C, coaching appointments etc.

Next step down - SRAu if you want to call it that - teams are QLD, NSW, Brumbies, Rebels, Force. and maybe a sixth from somewhere if it makes sense. pro contracts at a lower pay grade. but still enough jobs to keep our talent in the country. of course they wont be paid like OS but it will mean there's a clear separation between remuneration at this level and the very elite international teams in SRP (Super Rugby Pacific) and the Wallabies. These teams will have strong support from RA for high performance matters, but will be largely run by the state bodies. as will the U16 and U19 Super Rugby teams. these comps are all clearly development comps with the top level teams still having a level of prestige in winning an Australian GF. But its undoubtedly about building a player for the two international levels of the game. This comp can also be the right size for its market. smaller stadiums if need be etc... more community based than big stadium sheep stations stuff.

I dont think we can have success in SRP (Super Rugby Pacific) with 5 teams. but neither do i think we can cut pro rugby jobs. this is an attempt at navigating that.

Timing of the SRAu, U19, and U16 can then be decided. but SRAu should be during the traditional "footy season" - and you'd hope it would get a decent amount of eyeballs on it.
 
Slim 293

Slim 293

Stirling Mortlock (74)
sunnyboys said:
i've been trying to think of some more unique ways of dealing with our pro teams/SRP (Super Rugby Pacific) (Super Rugby Pacific)/cohesion/wage costs/attractive tv product etc....

Now i'm walking into some murky areas here so no blowing up at me. this whole topic is full of landmines and emotions.

so Aus should only have two teams in SRP (Super Rugby Pacific) (Super Rugby Pacific). its the concentration of talent we need to build successful Super Rugby teams that can re-energise the two key rugby markets. and it means more of our test players are spending far more time playing together. the pay for players in these teams will be a separate "pay grade" to the next level down. this can assist with managing wages. The teams are Reds and Tahs. These two teams will be largely overseen by Rugby Australia for high performance matters - S&C, coaching appointments etc.

Next step down - SRAu if you want to call it that - teams are QLD, NSW, Brumbies, Rebels, Force. and maybe a sixth from somewhere if it makes sense. pro contracts at a lower pay grade. but still enough jobs to keep our talent in the country. of course they wont be paid like OS but it will mean there's a clear separation between remuneration at this level and the very elite international teams in SRP (Super Rugby Pacific) (Super Rugby Pacific) and the Wallabies. These teams will have strong support from Rugby Australia for high performance matters, but will be largely run by the state bodies. as will the U16 and U19 Super Rugby teams. these comps are all clearly development comps with the top level teams still having a level of prestige in winning an Australian GF. But its undoubtedly about building a player for the two international levels of the game. This comp can also be the right size for its market. smaller stadiums if need be etc... more community based than big stadium sheep stations stuff.

I dont think we can have success in SRP (Super Rugby Pacific) (Super Rugby Pacific) with 5 teams. but neither do i think we can cut pro rugby jobs. this is an attempt at navigating that.

Timing of the SRAu, U19, and U16 can then be decided. but SRAu should be during the traditional "footy season" - and you'd hope it would get a decent amount of eyeballs on it.
Click to expand...


No...
 
HogansHeros

HogansHeros

Syd Malcolm (24)
Bullrush said:
You guys have absolutely nothing. On one hand you guys want to get rid of NZ, the closest international playing partner you have, but on the other hand, you still want your pro teams playing internationally?

Before pointing out that having your pro teams play internationally is exactly what Super Rugby is, who will you play? Just the teams you’re confident of beating? Or is it your contention that the current Australian Super sides just need to play each other more - in fact, spread the talent out to make more teams to play against- that will make your teams better contenders for some kind of cross-over competition against Super Rugby Aotearoa teams?

It is forever being trotted out that Super Rugby is terrible for Australia, NZ are only in it for themselves (as if Rugby Australia has only ever had the greater good of rugby at heart LOL) and the path forward includes the absolute need to dump Aotearoa.

For what? This 3rd rate domestic comp that is apparently so appealing and high quality that broadcasters will be falling over each other trying to rain money on rugby?

You can’t name one country in the Top 5 rugby nations who do this and you cannot point to any notable rugby expert who can provide a plan of shrinking rugby to a mainly domestic game and still producing a Wallaby side that is a realistic RWC contender.
Click to expand...
Take it down a notch.

I'm sure you're aware that no one is completely ruling out our teams ever playing NZ or other overseas clubs.

I have replied to you in the past, almost all the successful nationas also run a successful domestic comp along side an intermational comp. Currie Cup, T14, Premiership Rugby, your own NPC.

Australia is in a different position as we don't have a domestic comp but only an international comp, which currently we are struggling in.

I am genuinely interested what your idea is to get Aussie teams to perform better, for the good of Rugby in NZ and Aus, instead of just shitting on people who are trying to discuss the pros and cons of leaving super rugby.

It makes sense to me that using existing brands and building a domestic comp where Australian teams are competitive will sell better than a comp where Australian teams are currently not competitive. Might be a quick fix but I havent really heard anything else that adds up.
 
Pfitzy

Pfitzy

George Gregan (70)
Tomthumb said:
One could argue this Super Rugby comp has brought us to 10th, as I don't remember Super Rugby being a thing when we won the World Cup in 1991
Click to expand...

1697084043947.png
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top