Aussie Pro Rugby
-
@antipodean said in Aussie Rugby in general - but NRC:
On the bright side it looks like Australian rugby will have not one, but two championships. That's certainly one way to address decades of not having a Currie Cup or NPC.
You mean this supposed breakaway group of the top 4 clubs in Sydney and Brisbane?
I saw that and thought "You're screaming that the ARU gives you no money, yet you have money for your own competition?"
Good luck to them. Once those clubs are out of the reservation, more money can be put into bringing the game west of the M3.
-
@NTA said in Aussie Rugby in general - but NRC:
On that note: its no surprise that these initiatives originate in Western Sydney where a lot of rugby talent starts, but can't continue, due to these issues, and the ever-present shadow of loig.
... .
What, pray, is the "shadow of loig"?
-
@NTA definitely the best quality competition thus far IMO.
Final was enjoyable and was definitely a lift in intensity from last year.
What will be interesting now is who is selected for next years Super rugby. The consistent filter of players getting their opportunity from the NRC into Super rugby will only improve the quality long term.
-
@ACT-Crusader well, Papworth and Poidevin would disagree with us
-
this is Aussie rugby in general. clowns.
-
[edit] Split from http://www.thesilverfern.com/topic/1435/crusaders-vs-waratahs/ [/edit]
First comments - and all from the northern end of the ground where I was sitting with @dK and Red Beard.
Looked like decent game of rugby. Tahs weren't complete retards, even looked good at points. Jake Gordon is a good 9 and could be great.
Our defensive structure lacks proper cover. Cam Clark was caught out of position a few times, particularly that long kick that put us under pressure toward the end. But the blindside wing was too often not there, or the second last man didn't trust enough. Bench didn't add much either.
Superior ball skills by the Crusaders to finish those tries separated the teams, mostly.
Crowd was decent - anyone got a figure?
===============================
@taniwharugby @Stargazer sorry to say lads, but Australian rugby is not going to get much stronger the way things are.
The basic question posed to me by my guests after the game: does dropping teams improve things for Aussie rugby?
No. Not really. The player pathway is too narrow. 4 separate schools comps in Sydney alone, some of which want nothing to do with the others. Each is a tiny little pissing contest in the bigger scheme of things. Some years a school is dominant on the back of a couple of good players, some years others. It all points to a lack of continuity and aspiration to build good rugby programs.
Politics gets kids into rep squads, and on to greater things. League scoop a few up. The old school ties are just happy to lord it up over other school ties when their alma mater wins. Pretty sure I've said all this before.
Basic skills don't develop in these environments. Grassroots is a disjointed mess where clubs work their arse off to get little tackers involved, then maybe lose half of what's left to schools when they hit their teens. The competitions for juniors are split up everywhere to make things
interestingeasier for parents, but then some age groups are poorly represented in a given region.Around my area the local soccer clubs have over 800 registered players across age groups and into masters. I've got 20 juniors in U6 and U7, and 30 registered seniors so far (three weeks out from season). Maybe I'll get to 60 seniors this year, if they all flood back after trials.
=============
The pathway for coaches is even worse. Look at our teams right now:
Waratahs: Kiwi ex-Test player in his first head coaching gig
Brumbies: Aussie ex-Test player in his first head coaching gig
Reds: Aussie ex-Test player in his first head coaching gig
Rebels: Aussie club coach in his first head coaching gig
Force: South African coach in his first head coaching gigYou can't blame everything on the coaches of course, but experience is fairly good to have in such positions. Gibson had some shit to deal with tonight in terms of rookies at 10 and 15, but the bulk of the team should have been good enough to make that a contest.
The last-man defence is Nathan Grey's area, and for a guy with a reputation as a defensive coach, he's not delivering.
-
The decline of Aussie rugby is a huge shame- in the late 80's earlier 90's pre professional and then just into pro rugby Australia regularly beat us or at least were more or less on par.
Rugby in Oz was seen as a toffs game- elitist. players were university educated smart men, they were innovated and free spirited playing running rugby and leading the way tactically that even we had to try to follow them or try to combat them physically to win.
The 92 series was fantastic (we lost 2-1 but the points scored over the series was even). Before that brilliant minded players like Farr-Jones, Ellas, Campo, Eales had great success over us. Where are those type players now?? Players have got larger so Oz backline players are now becoming big PI guys -a more crash and recycle type. Oz mums are apparently against little Nick,Timmy and Jason playing the sport so less Uni educated players involved because of head injury worries to their potential Doctor/lawyer sons.
My point is now NZ leads the way in back-line play - we while also having many PI players they come through our systems and develop better than their Oz counterparts.
I think OZ decline is a shame we do need them - we do need their thinking and innovation back in the game ... but will we ever see that again - lost generations? Or am I barking up the wrong tree? -
I think to a small degree, you're looking back with rose--coloured glasses.
You're right about the 80s and 90s period BUT there were two factors at play there:
-
"Perfect Storm" scenario of a crop of excellent players coming through our remarkably disjointed system. With only NSW and QLD to choose from, combinations were more defined, and usually selected (e.g. NSW front row, QLD second row, QLD halves etc).
-
When professional rugby came along, we had coaches like Macqueen who had already been treating the game professionally for years in the coaching ranks. That 1999 RWC winning side, through to the 2001 Lions series win, was based on factor 1 above in terms of talent, and the coach having adopted professionalism much earlier than the rest of world rugby. We basically had to: in terms of playing pool, we were struggling even then.
The player safety thing certainly is a factor, but not as big as anyone thinks. Nobody plays rugby because it just isn't as popular as when we were winning World Cups and beating the ABs regularly.
Kids who can carry a ball and run are much more likely to earn a living from AFL and NRL, and those sports are in the public eye, and fighting in the schools and local parks for market share. Soccer is there too, but while junior numbers are huge, fans at professional level aren't.
After RWC2007 the NZRFU decided to shake up their system and fucking DO something about repeated RWC losses. That focussed everything on making the All Blacks better, and if you weren't on the train, you got left behind.
The ARU hasn't come to this realisation because its still playing politics at the highest level, and letting those politics run things at the lower levels. It isn't going to stop until the rot stops.
I am President of a club with three Grades. For each of those grades this season, we will pay:
- $550 entry fee to the Suburban (amateur) competition
- $1950 insurance
- $775 ARU Participation Fee
And that last one goes up to $1000 next year. They wanted to levy $50 per player registered, and just expect clubs to ask their players for more money.
To put that into perspective: my club is one of the cheapest going for any senior sport at $220 per season (includes shorts, socks, training shirt, polo). I heard today about a First Division club (still amateur) charging players $390. Not sure what it includes, but a fucking handjob would want to be in there for that kind of dosh.
-
-
@NTA said in Crusaders vs Waratahs:
Red Beard.
Nathan Grey
- Tell Red Beard he is a fluffy bunny
- Never rated Nathan Grey
-
-
@Duluth "aberration" is probably not a bad term for it, but I tend to think of it more as the two factors I mention above:
-
The right group of players - and yes including some veterans like AAC, Palu, and TPN.
-
An approach that was a bit better than other teams. The game plan in itself was fairly simple: dominate the contact zone, get it out bloody fast to the backline, and use the two playmakers for continuity. That's nothing unusual, but Factor 1 above was really important.
As @dK was saying on the way to the ground (while admiring my Waratahs 2014 Champions polo), Potgeiter was a huge factor in that win. BUT he also worked in combination well with that forward pack, and they were motivated by the right combination of coaches.
The lineup is on this page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_Super_Rugby_Final
-
-
Not much different from the level of talent available now, but maybe we're a bit light on in some areas in this current crop. Remember though in 2013 Cheikaball wasn't quite working as the players got into it. Then in 2014 it worked. Then in 2015 it didn't.
Compare that to the Crusaders rolling out regular finals appearances, and the general improvement of NZ rugby in the last 5 years*. Its not all just personnel - systems have to work
*I note of course that the improvement in NZ rugby is larger in contrast to the stagnation or regression of both Australian and Saffer rugby
-
@Duluth said in Crusaders vs Waratahs:
So was the NSW win 3 years ago just an aberration? The same issues must have existed back then
Wez waz robbed I tells ya.....
-
@NTA said in Crusaders vs Waratahs:
Not much different from the level of talent available now, but maybe we're a bit light on in some areas in this current crop. Remember though in 2013 Cheikaball wasn't quite working as the players got into it. Then in 2014 it worked. Then in 2015 it didn't.
2015 wasn't that bad for the Waratahs, they finished 3rd on points in the regular season.
So Cheika arrives, it takes a year to make an impact and then they are a good side for two years. He leaves and they drop back to the previous level.
Maybe all these rookie coaches are the main problem?
@NTA said in Crusaders vs Waratahs:
The basic question posed to me by my guests after the game: does dropping teams improve things for Aussie rugby?
No. Not really. The player pathway is too narrow. 4 separate schools comps in Sydney alone, some of which want nothing to do with the others. Each is a tiny little pissing contest in the bigger scheme of things. Some years a school is dominant on the back of a couple of good players, some years others. It all points to a lack of continuity and aspiration to build good rugby programs.
Yes all of that is a problem, but that doesn't mean dropping a team wouldn't be an improvement
The starting XV's would immediately be slightly stronger.
But the biggest improvement would be in squad depth. Currently the Aussies sides can't rotate without a big drop off. Also the Aussies can't cope with the inevitable injuries that occur in a long competition
-
@NTA the new procedures have fucked rugby in Cairns. Clubs were struggling to put teams on the field for round 1 on the weekend, because of the ARU's new individual pays before they can play regime. Casuals who would fill gaps no longer will because they don't want to pay the massive levies. There is an extra one in Qld because the QRU are ultra-broke.
Fucking top job ARU, make the amateurs in the country pay for your professional ineptitude.
As to the pro game, i read a stat in the paper today that there are 115 Super rugby players in Aus who have never beaten a NZ team. That's fucking astounding.
-
@mariner4life - that is also a reflection of the losses in personnel we've had in recent years, and the startup nature of the Rebels. Lot of kids playing now.
@Duluth said in Crusaders vs Waratahs:
Yes all of that is a problem, but that doesn't mean dropping a team wouldn't be an improvement
The starting XV's would immediately be slightly stronger.
But the biggest improvement would be in squad depth. Currently the Aussies sides can't rotate without a big drop off. Also the Aussies can't cope with the inevitable injuries that occur in a long competition
That is a good point. But I don't see how it fixes any of the following:
- Coaching pathway
- Player pathway
- Wallabies winning - which is our only public product on FTA. I don't know how 4 teams is any different to 5 for the top 25-30 players in the nation.
It will deliver a few results for some teams (maybe) but longer term that success will just paper over the cracks at franchise level. The people supporting the franchise(s) that benefit will enjoy it. The people whose team gets the arse will be lost to rugby.
@Nepia fuck knows I've publicly offered my services to the ARU enough times. Pulver is getting paid somewhere in the region of $700K as CEO. I've offered to be their hatchet man for half that. I get two years to clean house and set things up right.
The best part - and what I'm essentially discounting my services for - will be wading through the blood in schoolboy circles.
-
@NTA said in Crusaders vs Waratahs:
But I don't see how it fixes any of the following
It doesn't. A shitty talent pipeline is a different issue
Expanding the number of teams before improving the development of players was a massive mistake and should be reversed
How is the NRC going? That was considered the solution a few years ago
