Aussie Pro Rugby
-
-
@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
-
@Duluth slowly building. Putting the club players next to the pro players is definitely assisting them in understanding how far behind they are in their little flat-track club competitions in Sydney and Brisbane.
Mostly its giving people coaching experience, and forcing them to learn fast as they only get about 10 weeks in total, and it follows right on the heels of the Sydney and Brisbane Premier Club competitions.
This is a challenge in itself as, for example, the team based in Western Sydney had two of its feeder clubs in the finals two years ago - and they needed a two week stand down so one NRC team is under strength for 2 games out of 7.
They're adding a Fijian side based in Sydney this year which should be great - we lost one team last year as NSW was fielding effectively 4 teams and it was hurting performance compared to Queensland (2), ACT (1), Melbourne (1) and Perth (1).
Sydney Premier Rugby is well shitty with the idea of NRC. Clubs like Sydney Uni and Randwick seem to think they can go it alone, but the QRU, for all their faults, understood that it was important for all levels to pull together to get them out of their shit hole.
Again: Sydney in general has big fish, little pond syndrome.
-
While there are much bigger issues, I do think some of the coaching and strategy by Australian Super teams leaves a lot to be desired, as has been mentioned, a lot of rookie coaches currently.
On Friday night the Rebels defensive system was more of the same from them, placid. They didn't try a rush defense nor did they try to attack the breakdown, they simply fanned out and conceded possession and field position. The Tahs meanwhile kicked the ball a lot but their kick chase was dire (to go with a lot of average kicks). Crusaders themselves put in some average kicks but their strong kick chase meant that they weren't burnt by it. At least the Force played a spoiling game that suits their current cattle and got the closest of the Aussie sides.
Meanwhile someone like Ewen Mackenzie has been lost to Australian rugby.
-
@KiwiMurph Another thing that is pretty odd in my mind, given the player shortage in Oz, is that the Crusaders have Australians Digby Ioane, Michael Alaalatoa and Pete Samu on their books.
Having Alaalatoa and Oli Jager - neither NZers - as the back-up tighthead props is quite a concern actually.
-
@Chris-B. said in Aussie Rugby in general:
@KiwiMurph Another thing that is pretty odd in my mind, given the player shortage in Oz, is that the Crusaders have Australians Digby Ioane, Michael Alaalatoa and Pete Samu on their books.
Having Alaalatoa and Oli Jager - neither NZers - as the back-up tighthead props is quite a concern actually.
I do find it odd when any NZ team has foreign players, not so much PIs I guess but other Tier 1, but find it weirder that the Crusaders do it - especially considering one of them was Volavola.
-
@Nepia Why is it "weirder that the Crusaders do it"? Haven't all NZ franchises signed foreign players at some point? The Chiefs with several Japanese players last year; the Highlanders with Guy Millar, Tanaka, Geldenhuys, Haskell etc.
I have no problem with NZ franchises signing non-Kiwis, whether it's Fijians like Nadolo or Volavola (apart from the fact that he's not good enough and, therefore, dropped by Robertson), or Aussies, or English, or Irish, or South African, or Japanese etc etc. If franchises think that those players are better than what's available in NZ (= not under contract) at that time, so be it.
The fact that there aren't sufficient good players available in certain position, that's a concern indeed, but why should a franchise risk it's possible success by hiring a lesser - Kiwi - player?
PS: if anything, the signing of foreign players in certain positions, indicates a weakness in NZ depth at SR level. Prop is clearly one of them. That's something that should be addressed at NPC and academy level. With priority.
-
-
@Stargazer The Crusaders have been our strongest team throughout Super rugby - so I'm asking why they thought they needed to bring Volavola (I can understand the value of Nadolo as he almost singlehandedly won them a competition). I said at the start of that sentence I find it odd for any NZ team to bring in foreign players and I was replying to KiwiMurphs post where he mentions three Oz eligible players who contracted by the Crusaders.
I've got no problem with NZ franchises signing up tier 2 players (PI preferred) but I don't think we should sign up too many tier one players - especially in positions of depth in NZ. The NZRU pays the salaries of the franchises so I think we should reserve most spots of NZ eligible players.
-
-
