RWC Week 3: Wales v Australia
-
-
@mariner4life said in RWC Week 3: Wales v Australia:
@GibbonRib said in RWC Week 3: Wales v Australia:
If Australia's going to get back on its feet again, it's not going to be through solely resurrecting the NSW and Qld school pathways that served them well in the amateur era.
they have a unique problem though
Local junior looks super promising, and an NRL scout is going to turn up, and offer him a real money contract. The ARU will tell them they'll see them in a few years. I'm sure the same would happen with an AFL scout if he was tall.
And if they are looking at moving to club land, you can play rugby, and pay $300 in subs. Or you can play league where the subs are $5, and you might get paid.
If you don't come from money i know which way most are going to go
Even better: an agent will get you on their books, work gratis until you get a contract, then make their money off you at that point.
And maybe you don't make it to the NRL. You can still make $200-$500 per game playing second- or third-tier league in Sydney.
Why would you play rugby?
-
@Winger said in RWC Week 3: Wales v Australia:
@antipodean said in RWC Week 3: Wales v Australia:
add them to 10 NZ teams
Won't happen. NZ can barely cope (cost and quality) with 5 teams
Aust must reduce to 3 teams. Otherwise Aust rugby is f++ked and it will likely take NZ rugby down with it
We've been down this path before. Moe content equals more dollars. More competitive means more people will watch it.
Thinking we're constrained to the same amount of money now doesn't make sense. It's a new, expanded competition. More games, for longer. So it's worth more.
-
@antipodean said in RWC Week 3: Wales v Australia:
@Winger said in RWC Week 3: Wales v Australia:
@antipodean said in RWC Week 3: Wales v Australia:
add them to 10 NZ teams
Won't happen. NZ can barely cope (cost and quality) with 5 teams
Aust must reduce to 3 teams. Otherwise Aust rugby is f++ked and it will likely take NZ rugby down with it
We've been down this path before. Moe content equals more dollars. More competitive means more people will watch it.
Thinking we're constrained to the same amount of money now doesn't make sense. It's a new, expanded competition. More games, for longer. So it's worth more.
and in this part of the world as well, if you're not competing until this weekend your winter sport doesn't exist.
-
@GibbonRib said in RWC Week 3: Wales v Australia:
@NTA said in RWC Week 3: Wales v Australia:
@Kirwan said in RWC Week 3: Wales v Australia:
We need to help them get strong again. Less teams for them and a better comp structure in Super rugby
Why? How?
Less teams just means less money and less chance at results.
We need to revamp all our shit internally. Forget the pro level at this point. It can't be papered over.
This will take a decade of proper grassroots reform.
This.
Rushing to say we urgently need to cull SR clubs is just as short-term as swapping the coach. Who are you going to cull - Melbourne, biggest city in Australia? Canberra, historically Australia's best performing team? Perth, another huge market with great development programs (and Twiggy money)? Making the call to just give up on those regions, without a vision of what the long term structure will be, would be rank stupidity.
Plus, if RA lose 40% of the teams, they should expect to lose 40% of the TV money. And 40% of the players whose wages it pays. Not the shitest 40% either, it'd be 40% of the stars and 40% of the benchwarmers.
Yeah, you can argue that it will increase competition, so the players will be forced to compete for the reduced contracts available. Which might work, as long as there are no other leagues globally willing to pony up plenty of money to anyone who can handle a Mediterranean lifestyle
Yep but it gets balanced out by the facr=t that they have a lot of non eligible players in super teams to try and make them competitive surely. All their money should be paying Wallaby eligible players I think.
I don't pretend to know all the answers , but it's hard to argue how good the Wallabies with 3 teams, and had a lot more seemingly ability to play together. I can also understand why many don't want to lose teams etc, al so it's no easy. One of big problem is Hamish has told assured everyone of the silver bullet that was the Lions tour and WC must be at risk of being as profitable as he has said if Aussies aren't behind the team etc. -
@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.
