Aussie Pro Rugby
-
-
@mariner4life said in Aussie Rugby in general:
Sort of linked to your article on the other thread @NTA are Wallaby fans pining for a past that didn't really exist?
The Wallabies historical in percentage is about 51%. This is obviously a bit skewed by the pre 1980s, but since 1980, it's 62%. Pretty good right really? However there are some parts that really stand out, the absolute prime of Wallaby rugby teams: 84-86 (80% wins); 91-92 Wallabies (89%); and 98-2000 (83%). The rest of the time it's win a bit more than you lose. Which is good, especially given you play us 2-3 times a year, and the Saffers, who up until the last couple of years were pretty good. Yes, last year's test results weren't good, but you played the two best teams in the world 7 times, and were in nearly every game.
In Super rugby and Aussie team has won it 4 times, and been a losing finalist 6 times. Not bad, but that great Brumbies team makes up 2 of those wins, and 4 of those losing finals. There isn't a huge pedigree of Super rugby success there.
So while on the surface it looks like Aussie rugby has fallen in a hole, if you look at historical results, is it really that much worse than normal? Comparing everything to statistical peaks, and making that your benchmark is always going to make you feel worse. It doesn't help that at the moment your closest competitor is going through a sustained period of unheard of success (at test and Super level), but again, does that reflect the performance of Aussie rugby?
@mariner4life said in Aussie Rugby in general:
Sort of linked to your article on the other thread @NTA are Wallaby fans pining for a past that didn't really exist?
The Wallabies historical in percentage is about 51%. This is obviously a bit skewed by the pre 1980s, but since 1980, it's 62%. Pretty good right really? However there are some parts that really stand out, the absolute prime of Wallaby rugby teams: 84-86 (80% wins); 91-92 Wallabies (89%); and 98-2000 (83%). The rest of the time it's win a bit more than you lose. Which is good, especially given you play us 2-3 times a year, and the Saffers, who up until the last couple of years were pretty good. Yes, last year's test results weren't good, but you played the two best teams in the world 7 times, and were in nearly every game.
In Super rugby and Aussie team has won it 4 times, and been a losing finalist 6 times. Not bad, but that great Brumbies team makes up 2 of those wins, and 4 of those losing finals. There isn't a huge pedigree of Super rugby success there.
So while on the surface it looks like Aussie rugby has fallen in a hole, if you look at historical results, is it really that much worse than normal? Comparing everything to statistical peaks, and making that your benchmark is always going to make you feel worse. It doesn't help that at the moment your closest competitor is going through a sustained period of unheard of success (at test and Super level), but again, does that reflect the performance of Aussie rugby?
Good calls. I have Graham Mourie's biography lying around somewhere and I remember him commenting about a crowd that was a good size "for a game against Australia". In other words, it's only quite recently that they've been considered a sustained threat and enemy no. 1.
My concern isn't so much with the Wallabies (although their success is obviously vital to the popularity of the game) but the state of the game in general. I went to Suncorp the other night with a mate who had season tickets during the glory years and up until last year. He told me the crowd used to cheer every time each player was introduced before a game. They were totally mute last week. People only need an excuse to flock to Suncorp but now they're staying away in droves.
I don't know what the silver bullet is but I do know that diluting the talent with 4 then 5 teams was a pretty stupid thing to do.
I'm also not convinced that the problem is with the schools. In my experience it was the club system and what comes after school that were the problems.
-
The ruckman for North Melbourne was a junior rugby player. Big athletic unit and only 21. Holding on to those blokes is the challenge for the ARU
-
@Rancid-Schnitzel said in Aussie Rugby in general:
I have Graham Mourie's biography lying around somewhere and I remember him commenting about a crowd that was a good size "for a game against Australia". In other words, it's only quite recently that they've been considered a sustained threat and enemy no. 1.They didn't beat us between 1949-1979, plus the Bledisloe Cup physically went AWOL for a decade was found and trotted out by the Aussies after they won and left a lot of NZ players actually wondering what it was.
Did a rivalry with Australia in sport exist at any meaningful level before the 1980s? It didn't really seem to start until we started competing and beating Australia in other sports like cricket, league and America's Cup that things started to get heated. The absolute earliest I can recall Aussie sniffing a rivalary with us was the fall out from the Montreal Olympics when they started the AIS because our success and their lack thereof.
-
While the handling of this whole thing is a mess - ARU Chairman Cameron Clyne has started doing media and comes across much better than Pulver. Moving forward the more media he can do the better.
The real issue comes back to why ARU thought it would be a good idea to expand to 5 teams - they only allowed a handful of years for 4 teams to settle - for a sport with rugby's profile in Australia to jump from 3 teams in 2005 to 5 teams in 2011 is crazy.
-
This whole thing was inevitable and many here said so at the time. But, we were just uppity kiwis who should've just shut tfu....
-
@Rancid-Schnitzel Agreed. I think most people were predicting that the Aussies couldn't sustain 5 teams when it was announced. I certainly was.
-
@KiwiMurph said in Aussie Rugby in general:
While the handling of this whole thing is a mess - ARU Chairman Cameron Clyne has started doing media and comes across much better than Pulver. Moving forward the more media he can do the better.
The real issue comes back to why ARU thought it would be a good idea to expand to 5 teams - they only allowed a handful of years for 4 teams to settle - for a sport with rugby's profile in Australia to jump from 3 teams in 2005 to 5 teams in 2011 is crazy.
Even New Zealand league has the good sense to allow sustained mediocrity from the Warriors for years on end without thinking of adding another team based elsewhere in NZ. I guess the tenuous 'they still have a mathematical chance to make the top 8' line that is trotted out every season can only go so far with one team let alone two......
-
@KiwiMurph said in Aussie Rugby in general:
The real issue comes back to why ARU thought it would be a good idea to expand to 5 teams - they only allowed a handful of years for 4 teams to settle - for a sport with rugby's profile in Australia to jump from 3 teams in 2005 to 5 teams in 2011 is crazy.
I disagree. If it was the only focus of Super Rugby expansion I think Australia could sustain 5 teams. Expanding from 3 to 5 over a ~20 year period should have been a cake walk especially considering the success Australian rugby had during the early-mid pro era.
Completely changing the format of the competition is what screwed those franchises the most IMO. The new franchises had to rely heavily on their fellow Australian franchises which were bereft of star power and watered down even further. Draw cards like the Crusaders, Blues that gave the tournament a level of interest or flash are now hardly seen. Those early Force v Crusader games were epic. The build for the Reds v Crusaders game over Easter 2011 was bigger than some recent Bledisloe's. This new system and the shittiness of Australian rugby has blown that momentum.
Expansion franchises for the first 10+ years are to varying degrees all about coming to see the visiting attractions. The attractions coming to Australian rugby grounds currently is absolute garbage.
The addition of other the Sunwolves and the increase in salaries in Europe have diluted the talent pool even further.
-
What? I don't get it. Did you get this take from Alan Jones or something? So it's the format, Europe and the Sunwolves fault Australia have three wins over NZ teams over the last one and a half seasons? I have no idea how exactly the format itself has somehow made their teams worse or how the Sunwolves and their FOUR Australian players are diluting Australian rugby (which if that's the case, only helps prove the point they never had the depth to support five teams) but you don't think NZ has to deal with the crap format and the increased salaries in Europe either? Are we in a parallel dimension where we don't have those problems too or something? The big difference from where I'm standing is we have a system that works incredibly well, going from the grassroots right up to the ABs. Australia doesn't, they built a house with an incredibly weak foundation and are now suddenly shocked the fucking thing has fallen apart.
-
@rotated I have no doubt that the competition structure has had some impact but I can't see the Force and Rebels being in a much different situation today if the competition format had stayed as a straight round robin since 2011.
In fact Super 15 increased the playoff spots to 6, up from 4 under Super 12/14. In addition, between 2011 and 2015 the Rebels and Force were playing 4 of the 5 NZ franchises per year (and the same with the South African franchises).
-
I think the key factor is the increasing allure of European rugby. When the Rebels were introduced in 2011, we didn't have the depth to support them - and no-one argued that at the time. The idea was, though, that we'd be able to build that depth and in a few years we'd see less foreign players (like those in the early days of the Rebels - Delve, Sommerville, Lipman etc) and more locally bred ones.
I'd argue we have actually produced these players, but now so many of them have gone overseas. We're seeing so many more 2nd and 3rd tier players find lucrative contracts in Europe, and those are the guys that should be playing for the 4th and 5th franchises. I reckon there are 20-30 of these sort of blokes over there now (the Hugh Pyles, Peter Kimlins, Kieran Longbottoms of the world, not necessarily the Beale/Mitchell/Genias) and we just can't cope.
I'm not sure this was predictable six years ago. Maybe it should have been. Either way I think it's a big reason we are where we are.
And yes NZ face the same issues, but have much greater structures and depth to cope. And less competition from League and AFL.
-
@barbarian said in Aussie Rugby in general:
And yes NZ face the same issues, but have much greater structures and depth to cope. And less competition from League
Actually, league is a greater problem for New Zealand rugby; on a per capita basis, more New Zealanders are playing in the NRL than Australians.
-
Hey lads - on the topic of Aussie Rugby: my club is struggling for numbers a bit.
If you know anyone who wants a run, our registration fees are pretty cheap and we're bloody good value (Major sponsor is a pub! https://www.ettamogahhotel.com.au/).
Ta.
EDIT: We're in Northwest Sydney - Kellyvile.
(Ignore the hideous design. Its ten years old and I'll get around to fixing it one day).
-
-
@antipodean TBH I think 4 Grades of seniors is really too much for a competition to bear at this point. Turnover is the issue: not regular. Happens in fits and starts.
e.g. a lower grade team wins a title after playing together a few years, they're all 30+ and decide they've had enough. Wife hassling them about Saturdays for family events etc. I've been there.
Happened to other teams here - one private school has an Old Boys club that used to be quite competitive, but has slowly drifted. Their 4th Grade played together for years, made the finals, just lost. Finally wont it and retired en masse. Club could only put up 2 out of 4 Grades the next year! Now they're in 6th Division with only 1 Grade, and trying to rebuild with no 5th Div (2 grades) at the moment.
And without 5th Division, 6th Division is palliative care for some clubs, and a simple joy for others. Go play some of the clubs for whom rugby is the off-season for Surf Boats. They're big, fit, and hard. But they don't want two Grades.
I'd be no hope of putting up 4th Grade without a base of white collar workers to run it off. I've got so many blokes who work a Saturday morning that I could barely consider more than what I have now.
Its a funny thing. For years I've been thinking how the club is in the biggest growth corridor in Sydney, yet can't seem to consistently hit numbers.
But I realise that the people buying in this corridor are usually older to start with, can't afford to get injured, and don't want to throw away their Saturdays getting smashed by big Islander blokes in any case.
-
-
but at least it allows Tests to go to outposts like Canberra 
Renegades Rugby - Renegades Rugby
