RWC Week 3: Wales v Australia
-
@Tim said in RWC Week 3: Wales v Australia:
@chimoaus McLennan is such a clown. Maybe he can pick another fight with NZ Rugby now ...
He will try something similar to deflect criticism away from his decisions. He took Eddie on saying he was there to do a quick grab of Bledisloe and WC, then it was for Lions and 27 WC, and also it was last 20 years of mismanagement that he has been part of for 3 of those years and his CEO has been part of for 5 years.
At least Eddie is constant, if you remember he said when the ABs walloped them in Melbourne, it was his fault, and he apolgies to Australian public, almost word for word in what he said this morning! -
Can't argue with how good the Wallabies were in 1999, and I wouldn't disagree that the 3 Super Rugby teams they had at the time supported that well. But you can't leap from there to the conclusion that 3 is the magic number.
I also don't know what the answer is. But I do know that culling a team or two would do (yet more) significant damage to the game.
If the long term benefit outweighs the damage, then so be it. But we need to be sure. And to be sure, we need a credible long-term strategy, not just the latest ARU tea-reader declaring that if we offer a blood sacrifice then the rugby gods will grant us a Bledisloe.
-
@antipodean said in RWC Week 3: Wales v Australia:
equals
It won't happen if Aussie teams can't compete. So either NZ need more teams to lower standards. This won't happen as money and it will flow into test rugby. Or Aust need less.
Aust was strong when they only had three teams
-
@Winger said in RWC Week 3: Wales v Australia:
@antipodean said in RWC Week 3: Wales v Australia:
equals
It won't happen if Aussie teams can't compete. So either NZ need more teams to lower standards. This won't happen as money and it will flow into test rugby. Or Aust need less.
Aust was strong when they only had three teams
Correlation ≠ causation
-
Firstly, I enjoyed the game as I was cheering for Wales.
After reading through this thread now I didn't see any comment about Wales' last try. Beard was in front of Basham at that maul so that situation was no different to the no try penalty against NZ in the Namibia test. More inconsistency from the refs/TMO.
-
The "Eddie's played his mind games with younger players" comment was telling. Almost as if he dumped some of the experienced players as they would have told him to cut it out.
-
@Victor-Meldrew said in RWC Week 3: Wales v Australia:
The "Eddie's played his mind games with younger players" comment was telling. Almost as if he dumped some of the experienced players as they would have told him to cut it out.
I have lots of stories around Eddie's mind games going back years. Might deliver some quick wins as people up the effort to please him, but the lack of trust ultimately takes it's toll.
My dislike for him is only outweighed by my dislike for Hamish
-
"You can't use (lack of) experience as an excuse"
"...unless the players get the experience they can't move forward"
All over the place. Must know he's completely lost control of the narrative.
-
@GibbonRib said in RWC Week 3: Wales v Australia:
Can't argue with how good the Wallabies were in 1999, and I wouldn't disagree that the 3 Super Rugby teams they had at the time supported that well. But you can't leap from there to the conclusion that 3 is the magic number.
I also don't know what the answer is. But I do know that culling a team or two would do (yet more) significant damage to the game.
If the long term benefit outweighs the damage, then so be it. But we need to be sure. And to be sure, we need a credible long-term strategy, not just the latest ARU tea-reader declaring that if we offer a blood sacrifice then the rugby gods will grant us a Bledisloe.
Ultimately the choice is to have a number of teams that your depth can adequately support. In this case 3 definitely is the magic number. The issue then is the loss of revenue from fewer teams, less content, less broadcasting cash etc. Can Aus Rugby take that financial hit? Probably not. So they're in a fůcked situation - culling teams would improve quality and competitiveness but they can't afford to not have the extra teams.
They should have waited with expansion. I get it was tempting at the time and there was all that sweet sweet cash, but it was obvious to anyone that the cattle wasn't there. The Force hit playing stocks hard enough, and the Rebels was a complete pisstake. I remember watching a Rebels game in Brisbane and their reserves looked like extras from a Mad Max movie. And that's of course not including the broken ex Allblacks who earn a nice little pension contribution.
It would never fly but maybe an effective option would be to merge the Tahs and Brumbies? That way you could at least have one team outside the traditional areas.
-
@GibbonRib said in RWC Week 3: Wales v Australia:
Can't argue with how good the Wallabies were in 1999, and I wouldn't disagree that the 3 Super Rugby teams they had at the time supported that well. But you can't leap from there to the conclusion that 3 is the magic number.
I also don't know what the answer is. But I do know that culling a team or two would do (yet more) significant damage to the game.
If the long term benefit outweighs the damage, then so be it. But we need to be sure. And to be sure, we need a credible long-term strategy, not just the latest ARU tea-reader declaring that if we offer a blood sacrifice then the rugby gods will grant us a Bledisloe.
Sorry mate, didn't mean that 3 was magic number by any means, just meant perhaps that however many team Aus can afford and have players to fill is the right number. I understand the angst at thought of cutting team/s and know it would need to be done with an eye to expanding when players and finace allow. Just not convinced Aus rugby paying money for players that aren't eligible is a great way to go.
-
@Crazy-Horse said in RWC Week 3: Wales v Australia:
I am half expecting us to win a quarter final and then to get spat out like a flaccid penis in a semi final we would be expected to win.
Bit like most pre-Foster RWC AB's then.
-
@Victor-Meldrew said in RWC Week 3: Wales v Australia:
@Crazy-Horse said in RWC Week 3: Wales v Australia:
I am half expecting us to win a quarter final and then to get spat out like a flaccid penis in a semi final we would be expected to win.
Bit like most pre-Foster RWC AB's then.
Well yes, but with the exception of the preceding losses to Argentina, home series loss to Ireland, record test loss and first ever pool game loss.
-
@NTA I think this is true for everywhere with the possible exceptions of Ireland and France. There is just not enough money in rugby to support the professional game the way it currently exists worldwide.
English rugby is basically bankrupt, so to Welsh. The Saffas are struggling with travel and travel budgets. Etc etc.
Players are basically going to earn relatively less in the future than they have in the last 10 years unless they play in France. We need structures that support decent rugby teams. I don’t know how we get more fans involved, nothing really seems to work.
-
@Rancid-Schnitzel said in RWC Week 3: Wales v Australia:
@Victor-Meldrew said in RWC Week 3: Wales v Australia:
@Crazy-Horse said in RWC Week 3: Wales v Australia:
I am half expecting us to win a quarter final and then to get spat out like a flaccid penis in a semi final we would be expected to win.
Bit like most pre-Foster RWC AB's then.
Well yes, but with the exception of the preceding losses to Argentina, home series loss to Ireland, record test loss and first ever pool game loss.
Lol mate. or the preceding holding of Bled, Freedom cup, and RCs which hasn't been done, so there always differences huh?
But to be fair we haven't mde QFs yet, so I will give you that too mate!
-
My point is that using the questions "how many teams do we have the cattle for" and "how many teams do we have the $ for" is not a good way to determine how many teams we should have.
A better way is to ask "how many teams could we have the cattle / $ to support in a long-term, sustainable way". And being able to even try to answer that question depends entirely on having a credible long-term strategy, and a competent administration able to implement it.
Suppose we say that, at the moment, Aus can support 3 teams. So we cut 2. Interest and development in Perth/Melbs dies, maybe more players leave for overseas because of the reduced $, sponsorship dwindles. Now the number of Super Rugby level teams we can support is 2, so we cut the Brumbies. Eventually we can support 1, and then 0.
Perhaps a good credible strategy would show that Aus can eventaully support 4 teams, or perhaps it will say 2 or 3 or 5. Whatever it is, the ARU need to know what the target state is (worried that this starting to sound like Plank's corporate wanktalk now) so they can work out how to get there.
Maybe they will figure out that whatever the end goal is, it's not compatible with Super Rugby, or maybe they'll say we don't have the money to get there. But you've got to know (as far as it's possible to know) so that they can make smart choices.
The current plan of knifing teams, resurrecting teams, replace the coach & repeat isn't ever going to bring back the glory days.
-
@voodoo said in RWC Week 3: Wales v Australia:
But we aren't playing some mythical side on a run of 300 wins in a row. Ireland are absolutely beatable, and we absolutely have the team to do it in a one-off QF.
Get on the bandwagon man!!!
I'm pretty sure when they play us they will be playing to equal the record of most consecutive wins ever (by a tier 1 team).
Which will make our victory that much sweeter I guess?
-
So Australia sucked & Eddie is taking the flak. Might be time to reactivate my GAGR account .... !
In Defence Of Eddie Jones:
All jokes aside, I genuinely feel for Eddie. That press conference was fucking awful. Continually going on about Japan, even after he'd shut that line of questioning down. They took a man who was down & kicked the shit out of him. Many will argue that he deserved it (especially after his treatment of the press on the departure plane), but I for one do not agree with that. Eddie was right that there were unbelievably negative & defeatist. He was right to take them on then & he was right to treat them with disdain & in the press conference, he was right to sidestep the Japan questions too. They'd just lost, he'd failed on what he was employed to do & any decent analyst could come up with some good questions. Why did they have most of the ball but none of the points? Why was nobody standing back to return well placed kicks? Why did you play Donaldson replace him with Gordon, vice versa to the Fiji horror show? Instead they just booted him.
As I alluded to before, you do get what you deserve. Perhaps if Eddie had worked with them earlier on in the season, then things may have been better; he didn't. But that's the way he is, always has been and always will be. IT's fair to say that steering the Wallabies, he looked completely and utterly out of his depth. But lets face it, we all know he's not. He's got a superb record coaching international teams, especially in world cups. Eddie Jones IS an international quality coach, no question.
I personally think, like the NZRU, the rot comes from the very top. This is 100% on the people that are above him. He should never have been employed, Rennie may not have been doing the job that was wanted, but in hindsight, perhaps he was doing as good as could be done. Perhaps that was the current ceiling and a shitty world cup under steady coach was what was needed ahead of the biggest 4 years ahead for Australian rugby since the 01 Lions / 03 World Cup. Given the WC growth since then, arguably ever.
Instead they got a complete shambles. A team that played so far beneath the sum of its parts, it's laughable. A media who put themselves way way above their level & a fanbase that's watching the NRL. Eddie holds partial responsibility for one of those, but not all.
IT's a long road back for the ARU, and one that will work much better without Eddie Jones, than with it.
And that, for me, is a slam on the ARU management and board.
-
@Dan54 said in RWC Week 3: Wales v Australia:
@Rancid-Schnitzel said in RWC Week 3: Wales v Australia:
@Victor-Meldrew said in RWC Week 3: Wales v Australia:
@Crazy-Horse said in RWC Week 3: Wales v Australia:
I am half expecting us to win a quarter final and then to get spat out like a flaccid penis in a semi final we would be expected to win.
Bit like most pre-Foster RWC AB's then.
Well yes, but with the exception of the preceding losses to Argentina, home series loss to Ireland, record test loss and first ever pool game loss.
Lol mate. or the preceding holding of Bled, Freedom cup, and RCs which hasn't been done, so there always differences huh?
But to be fair we haven't mde QFs yet, so I will give you that too mate!
I you think that offsets what I listed then fair play to you.
-
@GibbonRib said in RWC Week 3: Wales v Australia:
My point is that using the questions "how many teams do we have the cattle for" and "how many teams do we have the $ for" is not a good way to determine how many teams we should have.
A better way is to ask "how many teams could we have the cattle / $ to support in a long-term, sustainable way". And being able to even try to answer that question depends entirely on having a credible long-term strategy, and a competent administration able to implement it.
Suppose we say that, at the moment, Aus can support 3 teams. So we cut 2. Interest and development in Perth/Melbs dies, maybe more players leave for overseas because of the reduced $, sponsorship dwindles. Now the number of Super Rugby level teams we can support is 2, so we cut the Brumbies. Eventually we can support 1, and then 0.
Perhaps a good credible strategy would show that Aus can eventaully support 4 teams, or perhaps it will say 2 or 3 or 5. Whatever it is, the ARU need to know what the target state is (worried that this starting to sound like Plank's corporate wanktalk now) so they can work out how to get there.
Maybe they will figure out that whatever the end goal is, it's not compatible with Super Rugby, or maybe they'll say we don't have the money to get there. But you've got to know (as far as it's possible to know) so that they can make smart choices.
The current plan of knifing teams, resurrecting teams, replace the coach & repeat isn't ever going to bring back the glory days.
What good is interest and development in Perth or Melbourne if the game is dying in its strongholds? No one can look at the state of the game in Aus before and after expansion and claim it improved the game. Nor can it be claimed that the game will die if it doesn't expand to other states. NRL could ditch the Storm tommorrow and continue on their merry way.
