Back to the future.

[WorkingClassRugger]

I know it's only early in the new season and there's still a long way to go. I also realise that this could be considered reactionary which is very likely true but I'm coming around on the reduction of the number of teams. But not just here. Across the competitiom as a whole.

I have been an avid Super Rugby fan since it's inception. I've supported its development and growth. But I have to admit and it pains me to say it. But those calling for contraction might be right. Super Rugby has been the best Rugby competition in the world, not arguably the best, the best since the whole carnival kicked off in 1996.

But as it stands. It could be struggling to maintain that mantle if not already losing it's tenuous grip. There's no doubting the strength of the Kiwi sides. But the rest of the competition is lagging well behind. Why? Simply put. We have spread our resources too thin and not just by a little. I cannot believe I'm suggesting this but, it might be time to entertain reverting back to the old Super 12 structure.

I know what this means. We all do. But it is becoming more and more apparent that in order to survive as a professional league Super Rugby needs to return to what worked so well from the beginning. This will mean culling teams. The Sunwolves, the Jaguares and ues, two from each Aus and SA. But it seems wholly necessary.

As a competition Super Rugby grew far too big, far too soon. The talent simply wasn't and still really isn't there to support the current 18 teams. The only nation with an apparent surplus is NZ and we are all seeing what that is doing to the competition. It lacks balance.

Now, I realise such a move would leave both Rebels and Force fans out in the cold. That a pathway would be stripped away. But the landscape has changed. There still is a clear pathway for both Vic and WA talent toward professionalism in the form of the NRC. There's also opportunity in regards to the overall development of the game in both states. Any savings made on cutting either or both should be redirected to funding the overall development of the game in both states.

This isn't the only overhaul needed. Whether we like it or not, the three remaining would need to move toward a centralised structure. A centralised admin with only HP operations being separate. This would create efficiences and consistencies across the three remaining squads as well as ideally savings. Savings that then could poured back into HP operations.

Now, some would question the overall effect on the value in terms of $ this may have in regards to TV deals. Well, what is more valuable. Five average teams drawing drawing 60k a game or three highly competitive teams drawing over 100k a game? I dare say to broadcasters. Very little.

 

[WorkingClassRugger]

In fact, having three highly competitive squads would stand a better chance of drawing more interest that 5 average ones. Then there's the flow on effect to the Wallabies. Raising the standard and competition for places in Super Rugby via this move will inevitably bolster the competitiveness of the Wallabies.

But back to topic. While I am suggesting a dramatic move it's not without compromise. And here are my ideas on that. First, if Super Rugby reverts back to 12 teams then the season needs to be at the very least 16 weeks long. I'd push it further to say it needs to round two full rounds of H/A games. So 22 rounds plus finals.

Second, all total TV revenue is to split equally three ways. I know this was a point of contention but it was a system that worked.

Third and final, in regards to Japan and Argentina. For Japan losing the Sunwolves mist be offset with their inclusion in The Rugby Champiomship. For Argentina, well, That's more difficult. And is something I will need to give more thought to.

Anyway, these are my thoughts as I lay here unablle to fall asleep. I don't necessary even agree with them myself but it does appear like it may be time to seriously entertain the idea of stepping back in order to move forward.

 

[half]

Mate in 1996, league was near dead after the Super league wars, AFL was recovering and rebuilding from a rare bout of poor management, soccer was in its death throws, there was no BBL, no super V8’s, Basketball was in decline from its glory time, Netball as a national competition was not even an idea, AFL women’s was not an idea, women’s cricket was not an idea. Test cricket was still hugely popular, we had next to no competition at GSP schools.

People still remembered Ella, Ella, Ella. Eastwood was still a largely ANGLO town. The SS still had reasonable Sydney media coverage.

South Africa was not thinking of imposing on rugby teams a colour %.

You can’t go back in time. You need to go forward.

The future lies not in the past but with visionary thinking and leadership that puts growing rugby again at its core and then spending maybe 20 years of rebuilding. But to fast forward to a distant past when the environment was totally different is not the answer.

 

[TOCC]

Market has changed significantly since 1996, even since 2005 there has been a massive shift in the product on offer.

There's more NRL and AFL games on FTA, Digital TV has allowed 8? More FTA channels, we now have 3 or 4 additional professional competitions to compete with: BBL, WAFL, Super Netball and
A-League, and we've seen the rise of Netflix/Stan/AppleTV.

I also think Super Rugby is broken, but returning to the Super12 model isn't the solution IMO.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

 

[Strewthcobber]

The elephant in the room is that we as a country do produce enough quality players for 5 competative pro teams, it's just that there's 100 guys playing OS, among them some of our best and brightest.

Until we work out a way to stem that flood it's all really just fiddling around the edges

 

[Clarence]

I'd also note the number of players switching to NRL in their teen years. Just about every major rugby league player also played union in their early years, but eventually they have to make a choice.

Super Rugby could really make progress if they boosted their profile right here in Australia. Especially with the younger generations. Hard to achieve when there is so much focus exclusively on private schools (glad that is now changing).

 

[WorkingClassRugger]

I hated writing my little post. Really did. I'd much prefer to see all 5 remain and I'm also hoping that last night was more a case of slow starter than what to expect.

 

[Dave Beat]

But as it stands. It could be struggling to maintain that mantle if not already losing it's tenuous grip. There's no doubting the strength of the Kiwi sides. But the rest of the competition is lagging well behind. Why? Simply put. We have spread our resources too thin and not just by a little. I cannot believe I'm suggesting this but, it might be time to entertain reverting back to the old Super 12 structure.

Why, when most things are growing because the right areas are being fertilised, there has been to much concetrations at the top and when this happens there can be a shuddering crash.

Really good point here;

I'd also note the number of players switching to NRL in their teen years. Just about every major rugby league player also played union in their early years, but eventually they have to make a choice.

Super Rugby could really make progress if they boosted their profile right here in Australia. Especially with the younger generations. Hard to achieve when there is so much focus exclusively on private schools (glad that is now changing).

Wont change overnight, same a tree doesnt just appear the next day.

 

[Dave Beat]

I hated writing my little post. Really did. I'd much prefer to see all 5 remain and I'm also hoping that last night was more a case of slow starter than what to expect.

Hearing you!!
You raised some accurate points, that bring out thoughts and plans, of which we can all have differing ideas (not always right and not always wrong). Good thread.

At a far different level and area -
Manly, there are 5 village clubs, a while back there use to be far more players playing, over recent years as players diluted when moving onto senior school the number of teams reduced - now from 13's up the 5 village teams merge into the Vikings and there maybe a couple of teams in each age group. We'd love to see 5 village clubs with a couple of teams in each age group - this will hopefully then have quantity lifting quality - it is a work in progress.

 

[Braveheart81]

The elephant in the room is that we as a country do produce enough quality players for 5 competative pro teams, it's just that there's 100 guys playing OS, among them some of our best and brightest.

Until we work out a way to stem that flood it's all really just fiddling around the edges

This is crucial to the whole argument.

Adding the Force then the Rebels didn't cause every player to take a reduction in salary just like cutting teams is unlikely to provide a huge boost to player salaries.

Expecting that cutting teams would just cause the lowest quality players to miss out on contracts seems an unlikely outcome to me because I can't see a reduction in teams creating a big increase in the payroll of the remaining teams.

Cutting teams has to be solely about the health of the competition because I don't think it is going to make our remaining teams more competitive.

 

[Dave Beat]

This is crucial to the whole argument.

Adding the Force then the Rebels didn't cause every player to take a reduction in salary just like cutting teams is unlikely to provide a huge boost to player salaries.

Expecting that cutting teams would just cause the lowest quality players to miss out on contracts seems an unlikely outcome to me because I can't see a reduction in teams creating a big increase in the payroll of the remaining teams.

Cutting teams has to be solely about the health of the competition because I don't think it is going to make our remaining teams more competitive.

And where will these players go - stay in Aus, or go Over Seas.

 

[Braveheart81]

Of course they will go overseas. If the opportunity dries up here they will seek out professional opportunities elsewhere.

We are producing plenty of talent (although maybe not enough supremely talented players to let us compete with the All Blacks) but the concept that our rugby will get stronger with fewer professional opportunities in Australia seems fraught.

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

 

[louie]

The elephant in the room is that we as a country do produce enough quality players for 5 competative pro teams, it's just that there's 100 guys playing OS, among them some of our best and brightest.

Until we work out a way to stem that flood it's all really just fiddling around the edges

For me the real elephant in the room is we don't have enough quality coaches. A lot of players have the potential but don't have the support to develop properly.Take the Rebels last night. Morgan Turinui is there backs coach, has he coached anywhere before? How on earth is he there backline coach?

 

[Strewthcobber]

For me the real elephant in the room is we don't have enough quality coaches. A lot of players have the potential but don't have the support to develop properly.Take the Rebels last night. Morgan Turinui is there backs coach, has he coached anywhere before? How on earth is he there backline coach?

Got some very big wraps on him does Morgan. Bob Dwyer's a fan

Since hanging up the boots in 2014, the Randwick junior has taken to coaching like a duck to water.
After a year coaching French club Lille, Turinui returned to Australia and his Sydney club last year — on the recommendation of former Wallaby Stephen Hoiles — was only too pleased to welcome him back to the club as their attack coach for 2016.
Very quickly, however, Randwick realised his stay at the club wouldn’t last long.
“Morgan reacquainted himself with the club after a stint in France and was incredibly impressive during his time with the club,” said Nick Ryan, Randwick’s director of coaching.

 

[Brumby Runner]

^^^^^ I also believe it is largely a coaching issue in this country. Last night's game clearly showed a wide gulf between the skills and game plans of the two teams. It looked like men against boys because the Blues looked to play rugby at every opportunity while the Rebs were deficient in both how they played the game and in individual skills. That I believe is a result of inferior coaching through schoolboys, juniors and club levels.

I am sure there are sufficient players with abilities to support the five franchises but many seem to fall down in basic game skills like passing under pressure or field kicking, as examples.

And for too long, our Super coaches seem to be too inclined to adopt a game plan around territory instead of possession. Many times last night the Rebs kicked for territory only to see the Blues run it back to the same area or beyond in one or two phases. Whenever the Blues elected to kick for field position, they invariably had players contesting for the ball and pressuring the Rebs kick receiver into error. Did anyone notice, for instance, their mid field box kick that was fielded by Piers Francis as the only player to even contest the catch and the play then continued for Rieko to score his third try. On the other hand, the vast majority of Rebs' field kicks were too long to allow any contest to take place. Very poor game plan and skills.

 

[Braveheart81]

Got some very big wraps on him does Morgan. Bob Dwyer's a fan[/URL]

Has Bob ever met a Randwick player he didn't like?

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

 

[wamberal]

Possession or territory?


It's not a zero sum game. I think it all revolves around securing your own ball first and foremost. The Rebels struggled with that, particularly at the lineout.


Our new national skills coach said last season that, contrary to common wisdom, it is actually more tiring to attack continuously than it is to defend continuously. That is probably an over-simplification, but it is an interesting viewpoint.


Probably depends on the level of the game, the higher the level, the fitter the players are. At lower levels defending is definitely more tiring, I am sure.


But the point is that there is not much point having possession unless it leads to territorial gain and, ultimately, points scored.


And if it doesn't, then territory has to be gained by the only other means. Kicking.

 

[I like to watch]

And a shit kicking game gives you neither territory nor possession!

 

[Brumby Runner]

There is definitely a place for a good kicking strategy, but it has to be executed to achieve the territory gain desired. The Blues last night must have regained possession from their kicks around 50% which got them out of their danger zone and into an attacking area straight away. I can't recall the Rebels regaining possession at all from their kicking game, but I do remember the Blues running the ball back consistently into a good attacking position for them.

Unfortunately, my criticism in this respect can be leveled at most, if not all, of the Aus franchises and often to the Wallabies. It is like a cancer eating away at the Australian game structure.

 

[mst]

I believe that there is a very valid argument that we do have the ingredients to be competitive and retain 5 teams but it more comes back to changing an outdated philosophy, management practise, structure and unwillingness to make significant changes.

Looking at some key points BH is absolutely correct; with near on 100 players O/S in essence it shows we are producing enough players of a reasonable standard.

Why are they going O/S? That is something we need to explore. Money is one factor and usually tagged as the only factor and IMHO used incorrectly as a blanket argument. But money does not appeal to all. Stop and consider the reasons that have been given by the like of Ben Mowen who said he was happy to forgo the Wallabies for financial security for his family. There is more to why players leave than just money.

In comparison to our nearest competitors we do not have a strong domestic competition. While NZ and SA look outwards due to having almost too much domestic rugby, we don't have enough "local derbies" to generate the money so we look to an "international" competition' like Super Rugby as the vehicle and want to skew it to serve our domestic deficiencies which is not in line with our counterparts. This factor right here is a key issue.

As for the management, philosophy etc, its interesting to stand back and look at the way rugby in Australia is atm. The politics around the Shute for example is in part about tradition and history. These thing although not tangible do have value, but they can also be a significant cost and burden. The question is what holds the most weight and benefit for the game holistically, and who is brave enough to make the right decisions regardless if necessary?

It is well known internationally that Australians are poor corporate leaders due to ingrained cultural and philosophical tendencies. This is backed up by a quick survey of the top 100 corporate entities here and most at the top are non-Australians. Why, Australian's are not ruthless enough and are to busy looking after mates and wont make the hard unpopular calls.

An example of that popped up in the news this morning. So we all know about past coaches like Foley, RG, and even now we have "some" under performing ones. Our generally accepted management method is to give them every opportunity before we finally act. Usually the reaction is to slow and its after the damage is done.

In contrast you have this. Its called performance based:

http://www.news.com.au/sport/footba...y/news-story/9b81e27f2624789a7f946870bf3ed8bc

Then you have other examples like how Eddie Jones got his job - Lancaster failed and was sacked. Performance based actions.

This criteria seems to be applied selectively in Rugby; especially off field. Off field right now is where we are failing in so many aspects.

A player is only as good as the coaching and opportunities they receive. Even natural talent is not enough without some coaching and mentoring, and that quality of that development is intrinsically linked.

The argument are obvious about reducing the pool and opportunities; its a backwards step. Less TV, less exposure, less revenue, etc. There is a real risk that we could be pushed further out of the market, if not totally from it as we only now have a tenuous grip. Its unlikely FTA TV will be interested in a product that had decreased in size.

The real question is can we fix what we have to make it in to a working, going, profitable (or sustainable) concern.

All franchise have at times shown they can at least get close to it. The problem I see is hit and miss management and administration and a clear lack of a singular determined cohesive direction and objective.

The ARU and franchise keep banging on about needing Super Rugby derbies as they get good crowds and raise revenue. So why has that not been translated to a domestic format and give us what we want?

Soccer has realised they can't keep riding on the back of the National team; they needed to get revenue from the domestic market. Thus they now have a 10 team competition. Rugby is still riding the back of the Wallabies as its solitary cash cow; why?

TOCC's post above I believe sums up the key issue with Rugby in Australia right now: "Market has changed significantly since 1996, even since 2005 there has been a massive shift in the product on offer."

So aside from adding teams to Super Rugby, how has rugby in Australia changed and adapted to differences in markets, financial opportunities, participation, demographics and additional competitors from other sports? There are many other question but the answers will be the same; not much.

I have said it before, but the Australian rugby atm is comparable to the Layland P76. At the time it was a fantastic beast and even today is admired, is part of our culture and history and we can be proud of it.

But its a piece of shit compared to the Hyundi that the FFA have just left us in its dust at the traffic lights in. Their Hyundi comes at a quarter of the cost with less maintenance. out performs our vehicle and appeals to a wider demographic and so much easily more accessible. They can also upgrade it regularly as the market changes.

Its time to park the P76!

There is a rule in business that is used that suggest that you never ask a front-line person to make a corporate decision without expecting a front line centric answer. So based on the composition of some of our Rugby boards, I wonder if we will ever get the right decisions; or if we really want the right decisions.