Aussie Pro Rugby
-
@mooshld said in Aussie Rugby:
@antipodean said in Aussie Rugby:
@mariner4life I get their argument about three SR sides raises the level for players due to competition and that helps the Wallabies.
The problem is I don't think that helps widen the base long term.
Agree, their supposition that if there are only 3 super teams those other players will play club rugby for peanuts and improve the quality of that competition doesn't hold water. Not when you have 17 NRL teams looking for new talent.
Yup. And Australia (and NZ) are finding it difficult to pay their players enough to resist the lure of the Top 14 (and Pro D2) already. Trying to increase competition by squeezing their paypackets is not going to make them better players, it's just going to make them NRL or France based players.
-
-
@GibbonRib said in Aussie Rugby:
Yup. And Australia (and NZ) are finding it difficult to pay their players enough to resist the lure of the Top 14 (and Pro D2) already.
And Japan.
Big pay packet. New culture. A dozen games a year.
Sounds good.
-
@mooshld said in Aussie Rugby:
Not to forget that in their day there was a pathway from senior club rugby into a rep team. That doesn't exist now. You come in through an academy system. Pro clubs aren't scouring the lower leagues for overlooked players.
Very little scope for late bloomers. League has a huge pyramid under each NRL side that provides enough wheat to discard the chaff.
Rugby here is pinning its hopes on schools rugby that is known for warehousing talent and dominating the odd comp. You might be the kind of player to hit your straps after you turn 18, or didn't play in the right team, or just politics.
Too fucking late for the vast majority. Not many Fardy's coming through a broken system these days
-
@NTA said in Aussie Rugby:
@mooshld said in Aussie Rugby:
Not to forget that in their day there was a pathway from senior club rugby into a rep team. That doesn't exist now. You come in through an academy system. Pro clubs aren't scouring the lower leagues for overlooked players.
Rugby here is pinning its hopes on schools rugby that is known for warehousing talent and dominating the odd comp. You might be the kind of player to hit your straps after you turn 18, or didn't play in the right team, or just politics.
Or just not go to the right school
-
The above arguments were the exact same ones used before expansion and look how successful that was. There was never anything like the depth required for 4 teams, let alone 5. Aus super teams became the whipping boys of the comp. Ffs guys like Adam freaking Thomson were being brought to the Reds because they didn't have the cattle. Multi-million dollar contracts were paid for NRL players, one of whom was made the face of the game in Aus. We all know how well that went...
And astonishingly enough, players still went overseas.
Expansion has been an absolute disaster for Aus rugby. -
@NTA said in Aussie Rugby:
League has a huge pyramid under each NRL side that provides enough wheat to discard the chaff.
the benefits of a coherent system
Kangaroos
State of Origin
NRL (17 teams)
State Leagues (Q-Cup & NSW Cup, 26 teams total)
Park-level Club Competitions (hundreds)Throw in the U20/18s/16s of the NRL sides in NSW/Q-Cup sides in Qld that have state comps.
All playing at the same time. And players move up and down as form or need warrants.
-
@mariner4life it is baffling that you can see a few different successful options for competition/format around the world in different sports....and yet rugby cant pick one and stick with it
-
@Kiwiwomble said in Aussie Rugby:
and yet rugby cant pick one and stick with it
rugby isn't allowed to because tradition is everything
-
@mariner4life i get what your saying....but im not even sure thats it, because i think we could have formed something that fit next to (above and below) most of not all traditional comps....but rather than putting in that effort we've (and i think NZ isn't actually much better) just tried sticking different comps kind of next too...or overlapping with the old ones...and then thrown are hands in the air and wondered why it isn't working
I believe tradition is important too, a lot of those successful comps around the wold are at least partially successful because of the tribal nature of the support spawned a lot for history and tradition
-
@stodders said in Aussie Rugby:
Agreed. But Ireland's model has shown it has the beating of NZ's right now. I will strongly caveat that by saying that the strong Euro means Ireland can retain their playing talent more easily than NZ and that is one of the big issues NZ needs to overcome right now.
Not sure that is solvable “right now” or in the immediate future. The NZ dollar is weak, the amount of $ coming into the game in NZ isn’t exactly enough to retain that fringe AB/second tier of players that are still attractive to overseas clubs.
There are a number of issues facing Aussie rugby and unfortunately not having success is going to mean that they will be an after thought to getting any sort of meaningful coverage. Super rugby pfft, many ardent sports loving Aussies wouldn’t know it exists. It hasn’t always been like that because I recall times when rugby has received decent coverage when the the AFL and NRL was booming - but that’s because the Wallabies were strong.
It’s a tough thing to try and turnaround because they need the things underneath the Wallabies to have some semblance of good governance and success to make the Wallabies viable.
-
@antipodean said in Aussie Rugby:
@mariner4life I get their argument about three SR sides raises the level for players due to competition and that helps the Wallabies.
The problem is I don't think that helps widen the base long term.
Understand that too, but does 5 teams with a number of overseas players widen the base?
-
@Dan54 said in Aussie Rugby:
@antipodean said in Aussie Rugby:
@mariner4life I get their argument about three SR sides raises the level for players due to competition and that helps the Wallabies.
The problem is I don't think that helps widen the base long term.
Understand that too, but does 5 teams with a number of overseas players widen the base?
It exposes more players to professionalism.
Both NZ and Oz need to stop looking at SR through the misty eyes of youthful recollection and acknowledge that it isn't the Super 12. It's a different competition now.
I've outlined before what I think it the solution and that requires bold, innovative action, wholesale buy-in from stakeholders including broadcasters.
There's no requirement for a third level of professional rugby at this stage, either in NZ or Oz. We need to develop a competition that straddles what was SR and the desired level below (NPC, defunct NRC etc.) Grow and develop that.
There's already Shute Shield/ Premier rugby with district/ country rugby and Subbies under that. Another layer isn't going to help, it just needs alignment.
-
@Dan54 said in Aussie Rugby:
@antipodean said in Aussie Rugby:
@mariner4life I get their argument about three SR sides raises the level for players due to competition and that helps the Wallabies.
The problem is I don't think that helps widen the base long term.
Understand that too, but does 5 teams with a number of overseas players widen the base?
i think if those teams engage with the club layer below them better then yes....currently positions might be help by someone form overseas...but that's still creating a role the next young guy coming through can fill
@antipodean said in Aussie Rugby:
@Dan54 said in Aussie Rugby:
@antipodean said in Aussie Rugby:
@mariner4life I get their argument about three SR sides raises the level for players due to competition and that helps the Wallabies.
The problem is I don't think that helps widen the base long term.
Understand that too, but does 5 teams with a number of overseas players widen the base?
It exposes more players to professionalism.
Both NZ and Oz need to stop looking at SR through the misty eyes of youthful recollection and acknowledge that it isn't the Super 12. It's a different competition now.
I've outlined before what I think it the solution and that requires bold, innovative action, wholesale buy-in from stakeholders including broadcasters.
There's no requirement for a third level of professional rugby at this stage, either in NZ or Oz. We need to develop a competition that straddles what was SR and the desired level below (NPC, defunct NRC etc.) Grow and develop that.
There's already Shute Shield/ Premier rugby with district/ country rugby and Subbies under that. Another layer isn't going to help, it just needs alignment.
i would say they also need to do more to raise the rest of the countries club comps to the shute shield level so there is more consistent engagement....i mean the shute is broadcast on stan!
-
@antipodean said in Aussie Rugby:
@Dan54 said in Aussie Rugby:
@antipodean said in Aussie Rugby:
Understand that too, but does 5 teams with a number of overseas players widen the base?
It exposes more players to professionalism.
Both NZ and Oz need to stop looking at SR through the misty eyes of youthful recollection and acknowledge that it isn't the Super 12. It's a different competition now.
I wish it was youthful recollection mate, unfortunately I was already in 40s when Super started
. Take my word for it I not in anyway dismissing other's ideas etc, just throwing in what I see as problems , not that I anymore expert than others. I not sure what answer is for a next level comp in Aus is, they already got Shute Shield and Hospital cup etc and I not sure if that's giving them depth that's required. Also wonder if having Rebels has caused an upsurge in rugby in Melbourne and I always thought when RA cut Force they should of perhaps amalgamated Rebels and Brumbies. Brumbies I know are pretty strong, but perhaps seem to be a bit financially struggling? Just wonder if actually having the teams that can afford to compete isn't a good starting point? -
As Matt Burke so succinctly points out in teh above podcast, the money that the two australasian rugby unions have to play with is fucking nothing
The AFL broadcast deal is $650m per year
The NRL broadcast deal is $400m per year (and the next iteration will be way higher)The ARU get $33m per year
The NZRU gets $80m per year
combined that's a little over a quarter of what the NRL get -
@mariner4life said in Aussie Rugby:
As Matt Burke so succinctly points out in teh above podcast, the money that the two australasian rugby unions have to play with is fucking nothing
The AFL broadcast deal is $650m per year
The NRL broadcast deal is $400m per year (and the next iteration will be way higher)The ARU get $33m per year
The NZRU gets $80m per year
combined that's a little over a quarter of what the NRL getThat ARU figure is shocking. I knew it would be low, but that really brings it home.
And you'd have to think that, unless things improve a lot between now and whenever it's up for review, the next one will be worth even less.
-
@Dan54 said in Aussie Rugby:
@antipodean said in Aussie Rugby:
@Dan54 said in Aussie Rugby:
@antipodean said in Aussie Rugby:
Understand that too, but does 5 teams with a number of overseas players widen the base?
It exposes more players to professionalism.
Both NZ and Oz need to stop looking at SR through the misty eyes of youthful recollection and acknowledge that it isn't the Super 12. It's a different competition now.
Also wonder if having Rebels has caused an upsurge in rugby in Melbourne
short answer is no, or at least not as far as ive seen, COVID also fucked us around quite a lot, fewer expats filling the ranks, two seasons cut short...just the fact i dont think too many people act actually name the premier Rugby comp/trophy
-
@GibbonRib said in Aussie Rugby:
@mariner4life said in Aussie Rugby:
As Matt Burke so succinctly points out in teh above podcast, the money that the two australasian rugby unions have to play with is fucking nothing
The AFL broadcast deal is $650m per year
The NRL broadcast deal is $400m per year (and the next iteration will be way higher)The ARU get $33m per year
The NZRU gets $80m per year
combined that's a little over a quarter of what the NRL getThat ARU figure is shocking. I knew it would be low, but that really brings it home.
And you'd have to think that, unless things improve a lot between now and whenever it's up for review, the next one will be worth even less.
I'm surprised anyone wants to pay anything. What do they have to offer? Some local cripple fights with the odd rodgering by a NZ team resting their stars. And all this happening while the ref repeatedly stops the game for 10 min to check an incident that occurred 50 phases prior. So in sum, you've got an unentertaining whistle fest between substandard sides and sometimes a disinterested NZ side. They should have to pay to have it broadcast.
-
They don't learn, do they. More big money on League star
