• 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.

Ideas for NRC

WorkingClassRugger

Simon Poidevin (60)
Like the idea - but lets not have 9 teams again as bye did not really work. Make it 8 or 10 teams and if not ready to have 2 sides added wait until we are.

Not sure if we could put two teams in next year - maybe the year after..


I like the idea of beginning and ending the season with rivalry rounds. City/Country, Rays?Rams, Viking/NSW Country, Rising/Spirit but with 9 it makes it a little uneven. At least we'll have 8 games again. If the Fijian squads works out well, I'd be in favour of looking to involving a Samoan squad if World Rugby were willing to come to the party again.
 

Highlander35

Paul McLean (56)
I'd hope it would more or less be a domestic international side a la the USA and Canada in the Americas 6 Nations.

Frightening prospect for the NRC sides, but potentially very valuable experience for the players individually.
 

Rugbynutter39

Steve Williams (59)
You know why it might work as by adding Fijian side may increase viewer numbers especially amongst PI community in Oz....so if foxsports willing to tip more money into support it might work. But please don't make it 9 teams as bye sucked for short competition. Make it 8 or 10.

Who else could add not sure - as don't think any other oz side could be added at this point
 

WorkingClassRugger

Simon Poidevin (60)
We'll be seeing the return of the bye next year if Fiji enter. But as I said, if they prove successful why not look to involve the likes of Samoa. Then my rivalry round at either end of the season would be back on the table.
 

WorkingClassRugger

Simon Poidevin (60)
In light of the various Wallabies performances this weekend in the NRC, I'd like to see a NRC XV vs Wallabies game. The NRC team would picked regardless of whether they have a contract or not.
 

Highlander35

Paul McLean (56)
Also the unnecessary risk of injury that comes with an exhibition game in a contact sport, particularly one with little or no commercial interest.

That fact always annoys me. Stupid Cricket and it's ability to have Australia A playing in a Quadrangular series with a Development Side.
 

WorkingClassRugger

Simon Poidevin (60)
Also the unnecessary risk of injury that comes with an exhibition game in a contact sport, particularly one with little or no commercial interest.

That fact always annoys me. Stupid Cricket and it's ability to have Australia A playing in a Quadrangular series with a Development Side.


I always liked the the All Black trial concept they used to run. That's how I would have seen it developing.

I agree, it would be good if we could see a return of the A program. Would be great to have both the Wallabies and the A squad tour Europe in November.
 

Rugbynutter39

Steve Williams (59)
Got to add other thing I have noticed. Which is less teams chopping and changing their starting line up week to week where saw some Super rugby players play a game or two then disappear. Very hard to follow a team if just putting in different team every week and gave the impression they were not taking the competition seriously. One of the big improvements as noted this seems to have been addressed.
 

Rugbynutter39

Steve Williams (59)
We'll be seeing the return of the bye next year if Fiji enter. But as I said, if they prove successful why not look to involve the likes of Samoa. Then my rivalry round at either end of the season would be back on the table.


Given Fiji as a drawcard I would probably only accept from my viewpoint that making a 9 team comp would make sense for one year with plan if successful add another side. I am not sure would be viable to add another PI team though - more with Fiji that may provide enough interest and hence money TV wise etc to add another side. I do struggle beyond your Fiji suggestion to see where another team could come from.

But if as you state they could lobby IRC to provide some funding for a Fiji and Samoan side to compete in this comp (Tonga might feel aggrieved) to promote / progress PI rugby then may work.
 

kiap

Andrew Slack (58)
Also the unnecessary risk of injury that comes with an exhibition game in a contact sport, particularly one with little or no commercial interest.

That last bit is the kicker. As a hangover from the amateur era, in many ways it does make sense that they've done away with the 'A' concept.

I cast my cynical eye with a grudging approval at the way the Kiwis seem to be doing this now. Leaving aside the Maori All Blacks, which is a different thing, you don't really see the "Junior All Blacks" (NZ A) much any more.

What they do instead is include some fringe squad and emerging players into the full All Blacks side to play Test fixtures against the likes of Japan and the USA. It's commercially marketable but also gives new players opportunity.
 

WorkingClassRugger

Simon Poidevin (60)
Given Fiji as a drawcard I would probably only accept from my viewpoint that making a 9 team comp would make sense for one year with plan if successful add another side. I am not sure would be viable to add another PI team though - more with Fiji that may provide enough interest and hence money TV wise etc to add another side. I do struggle beyond your Fiji suggestion to see where another team could come from.

But if as you state they could lobby IRC to provide some funding for a Fiji and Samoan side to compete in this comp (Tonga might feel aggrieved) to promote / progress PI rugby then may work.


Well, part of the talks that are in progress involves World Rugby covering all the costs involved in the Fijian squads competing. This includes flying teams to and from Fiji for their home games. It's part of their Pacific Funding Plan. I don't see why if it proves successful why it couldn't be expanded.
 

kiap

Andrew Slack (58)
Precedent from way back in 1973 - The Junior NZ team beat the NZ Rugby Team by 14=10. I think the Juniors were Under 23 back then not U21 or U20 as the "Juniors" seem to be nowadays.
https://www.odt.co.nz/sport/rugby/rugby-all-black-history-carisbrook


I didn't know about that result!

Here it is (confirmed by the commentator at the end as U23):


Probably the biggest roaring cheer ever heard for a team beating the All Blacks on Unzid soil.

<Edit:> In the last decade or so (less than that really, because they're just about defunct now) the Junior All Blacks have been essentially NZ 'A' (with no age limit)

The U20 age-limited team are nicknamed the "Baby Blacks". Interestingly enough, that name was originally coined for the full national side that was picked with fresh faces after many regular players made a dodgy cash-tour to apartheid South Africa.
 

Rugbynutter39

Steve Williams (59)
Well, part of the talks that are in progress involves World Rugby covering all the costs involved in the Fijian squads competing. This includes flying teams to and from Fiji for their home games. It's part of their Pacific Funding Plan. I don't see why if it proves successful why it couldn't be expanded.

Competing in the NRC? Sounds a great idea and win win for all concerned and makes sense for IRC support as helps PI and also helps Oz rugby as side benefit which is struggling to build a decent professional competition below super rugby and competing against other 3 football codes. PI involvement important for the game as is a strong Australian Rugby province - neither of which is guaranteed without some help from IRC. And funding PI per existing funding makes sense.
 

Highlander35

Paul McLean (56)
That last bit is the kicker. As a hangover from the amateur era, in many ways it does make sense that they've done away with the 'A' concept.

I cast my cynical eye with a grudging approval at the way the Kiwis seem to be doing this now. Leaving aside the Maori All Blacks, which is a different thing, you don't really see the "Junior All Blacks" (NZ A) much any more.

What they do instead is include some fringe squad and emerging players into the full All Blacks side to play Test fixtures against the likes of Japan and the USA. It's commercially marketable but also gives new players opportunity.
There are a few holdovers from an amateur era. "A" teams are one of them. Tours are another. BILs are another. A growing minority believe the latter now simply exist to prop up the Southern Hemisphere Unions. A different group think the domestic tour games are nonsense, and would be better served playing other Nations. I don't agree with the former, I have a growing appreciation for the latter, and I do understand the view. It's a holdover from an amateur era that does damage the performances and brands of Clubs and Nations.

Conversation for a different time however. I reckon "A" sides need to be removed, revamped or given greater incentive.

There is an inherent advantage to the sides that choose to nominate the U20s as the A Side. While it does weaken the teams at this level, with some players choosing not to commit, more often than not they do, and it's far more financially feasible than running an A Squad.

But for teams like New Zealand and Australia, where so many players turn out for players of their heritage rather than birth, or been raised in, to do it that way is to deprive them of an opportunity on the national stage.

I'd do the double up. Some incentive is needed for A teams to become active, and in ideal circumstances, playing teams outside the old Tier 1/2 ranking system. Uruguay-Brazil-Chile, Namibia-Zimbabwe-Kenya, Russia-Spain-Portugal, etc. What that is I don't know, but it really needs to be so for development purposes.

Plus, I'd switch it to a Football system, whereby being capped for a non-senior team simply rules you a) eligible for the senior side in perpetuity and b) unable to gain new eligibilities through the process of residency. Increase numbers though. U20s, plus up to another 4 nominated open age squads, at either 7s or XVs.

Ah well, ramblings of a ninny.
 

Rugbynutter39

Steve Williams (59)
Well, part of the talks that are in progress involves World Rugby covering all the costs involved in the Fijian squads competing. This includes flying teams to and from Fiji for their home games. It's part of their Pacific Funding Plan. I don't see why if it proves successful why it couldn't be expanded.



Like the concept a lot Working Class Rugger.. You sound pretty connected on these things....As must be a concern to world rugby that Oz rugby been at crossroad in terms of grass roots issues, dwindling participation and financial viability issues at all super rugby franchises. So makes sense if going to help PI rugby that they invite them to professional set up and fledgling short form comp in oz (NRC) then sending them to NZ for example to compete in one of their comps! Justified alone on supporting and growing PI rugby but gives side benefit of helping important Oz rugby nation which would benefit.

Lot to like with this as kills 2 birds with one stone. Hope it happens.
 

Rugbynutter39

Steve Williams (59)
Was also reading the 5 things on the front page - and in particular reference to crowds and how this can be a mood killer.

Completely agree that getting reasonable size crowds key. I have found 1500-2000 on small grounds works for mood, but as former Stars supporter it did kill the mood going to a game where there might be 300-500 crowd as just felt embarrassing. So key got to be to get what is reasonable crowd to the games for the atmosphere and mood which seems to be around 2000 or more. Biggest problem of course is working with next to no marketing e.g. I did not even know Fox sports were showing weekend games direct on foxsports or would have even known competition starting (as no media coverage either - last year got some but almost ZERO to date in this years comp)
 
Top