RWC Week 3: Wales v Australia
-
@Rancid-Schnitzel said in RWC Week 3: Wales v Australia:
@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.
Sydney suburban rugby isn't dying because the Force and the Rebels exist. There's a tonne of problems, and there's no reason to think that axing more teams will help. Since super rugby started, the ARU have contacted (from the old club comps) then expanded then expanded again then contacted again then expanded again. Carrying on the same pattern is no more likely to fix the underlying issues than sacking Eddie Jones and replacing him with Cheika.
-
@MajorRage
I reckon you're being unduly generous to him.Obviously they were going to ask about Japan - it's a big story. If it's not true, then he could have just clearly denied it and said he wasn't going to take any more questions on it. Instead he tried to sidestep it with a weird "I dunno what you're talking about mate" answer. Twice. That just sounded shifty and made everyone think there's something there.
If it's not true, just clearly say so. If it is true, well then he deserves all the grief he gets.
-
I know there are deep-seated issues in Aussie rugby that need addressing with good longer term planning, but this specific loss is 100% down to getting rid of Rennie. That was an insane decision at the time, only slightly offset by the unpredictability of Eddie who can sometimes pull something out of the bag. But it's turned out to just be an insane decision as expected. The whole process that was followed there needs an independent review and some actual consequences for those involved. I know that won't happen, but fuck me what were they thinking? They were on the right track last year to be very competitive at this cup, then just threw that all away?? Utter madness.
-
Forgive the journos If they don't believe Eddie after what he did to the Stormers in 2015......
“There has been no contact and I am committed to the Stormers. I woke up this morning and looked at Table Mountain … I’m very happy to be here,” he said.Eddie Jones has apologised to South African rugby franchise The Stormers in a statement and a video for leaving the club after eight days to take over as head coach of England. -
-
@GibbonRib said in RWC Week 3: Wales v Australia:
@MajorRage
I reckon you're being unduly generous to him.Obviously they were going to ask about Japan - it's a big story. If it's not true, then he could have just clearly denied it and said he wasn't going to take any more questions on it. Instead he tried to sidestep it with a weird "I dunno what you're talking about mate" answer. Twice. That just sounded shifty and made everyone think there's something there.
If it's not true, just clearly say so. If it is true, well then he deserves all the grief he gets.
I think I am too. But two things here
- I know he's a good coach.
- Having met him, I know he's a pretty decent straight up guy too.
If I was Aussie, I'd be doing all I could to get Chieka back.
-
@GibbonRib said in RWC Week 3: Wales v Australia:
@Rancid-Schnitzel said in RWC Week 3: Wales v Australia:
@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.
Sydney suburban rugby isn't dying because the Force and the Rebels exist. There's a tonne of problems, and there's no reason to think that axing more teams will help. Since super rugby started, the ARU have contacted (from the old club comps) then expanded then expanded again then contacted again then expanded again. Carrying on the same pattern is no more likely to fix the underlying issues than sacking Eddie Jones and replacing him with Cheika.
If axing teams will allow scant resources and playing stocks to be focussed on areas where the game has some kind of stronghold then axing more teams in cities where people largely don't give a shit would make a difference. Success on the field is a massive factor when competing in this market and that's pretty bloody difficult if the talent is diluted to such an extent.
-
@Machpants said in RWC Week 3: Wales v Australia:
Based on what I saw, he was the only explayer who had a pop at Eddie. Respect for that. Pity he has the oratory skills of Hodor.
He is barely coherent, but the point he (eventually) makes is correct. He also looks genuinely pissed off, he really cares
Well Quade is a bestie..
-
@Rancid-Schnitzel said in RWC Week 3: Wales v Australia:
@GibbonRib said in RWC Week 3: Wales v Australia:
@Rancid-Schnitzel said in RWC Week 3: Wales v Australia:
@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.
Sydney suburban rugby isn't dying because the Force and the Rebels exist. There's a tonne of problems, and there's no reason to think that axing more teams will help. Since super rugby started, the ARU have contacted (from the old club comps) then expanded then expanded again then contacted again then expanded again. Carrying on the same pattern is no more likely to fix the underlying issues than sacking Eddie Jones and replacing him with Cheika.
If axing teams will allow scant resources and playing stocks to be focussed on areas where the game has some kind of stronghold then axing more teams in cities where people largely don't give a shit would make a difference. Success on the field is a massive factor when competing in this market and that's pretty bloody difficult if the talent is diluted to such an extent.
The problem is that people don't give a shit about rugby anywhere in Australia any more. Adding a few of the Rebels best players to the Tahs' roster isn't going turn that liner around.
-
@GibbonRib said in RWC Week 3: Wales v Australia:
@Rancid-Schnitzel said in RWC Week 3: Wales v Australia:
@GibbonRib said in RWC Week 3: Wales v Australia:
@Rancid-Schnitzel said in RWC Week 3: Wales v Australia:
@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.
Sydney suburban rugby isn't dying because the Force and the Rebels exist. There's a tonne of problems, and there's no reason to think that axing more teams will help. Since super rugby started, the ARU have contacted (from the old club comps) then expanded then expanded again then contacted again then expanded again. Carrying on the same pattern is no more likely to fix the underlying issues than sacking Eddie Jones and replacing him with Cheika.
If axing teams will allow scant resources and playing stocks to be focussed on areas where the game has some kind of stronghold then axing more teams in cities where people largely don't give a shit would make a difference. Success on the field is a massive factor when competing in this market and that's pretty bloody difficult if the talent is diluted to such an extent.
The problem is that people don't give a shit about rugby anywhere in Australia any more. Adding a few of the Rebels best players to the Tahs' roster isn't going turn that liner around.
Be that as it may, the one thing that does more or less guarantee popularity is a successful national team. The issue for Aus is how to achieve that on a sustainable basis without bankrupting themselves in the process. Be that either by spending too much in trying to buy success or by strangling themselves financially by reducing the amount of rugby.
-
@GibbonRib said in RWC Week 3: Wales v Australia:
@Machpants said in RWC Week 3: Wales v Australia:
Smash and grab maaaaaaaaaaaaaaaate
I mean
It's all about the Lions maaaaaaaaaaaate
Well
2027 maaaaaaaaaaaaaate we will win the cup
PS How's the weather in japan....?
Why would Japan want him?
They’ve got ex-girlfriend fever
Never works out
-
@MiketheSnow said in RWC Week 3: Wales v Australia:
@GibbonRib said in RWC Week 3: Wales v Australia:
@Machpants said in RWC Week 3: Wales v Australia:
Smash and grab maaaaaaaaaaaaaaaate
I mean
It's all about the Lions maaaaaaaaaaaate
Well
2027 maaaaaaaaaaaaaate we will win the cupPS How's the weather in japan....?
Why would Japan want him?
They’ve got ex-girlfriend fever
Never works out
As the ARU are finding out.
-
@sparky said in RWC Week 3: Wales v Australia:
Hundreds of Aussie fans are leaving the stadium.
Normally I would be the first to berate this, but it was an absolute shit show leaving the ground last night
Think trains to Aushwitz
-
@mariner4life said in RWC Week 3: Wales v Australia:
40?!! From Wales? This is sad
We’ve been on the receiving end of these drubbings from Oz in the past, so we were due
-
@MiketheSnow said in RWC Week 3: Wales v Australia:
@sparky said in RWC Week 3: Wales v Australia:
Hundreds of Aussie fans are leaving the stadium.
Normally I would be the first to berate this, but it was an absolute shit show leaving the ground last night
Think trains to Aushwitz
I hear ya mate.
Was in Paris for ABs game and what a bloody mission leaving the stadium to be picked up by our taxi. Police closed off all the roads in and around the stadium. It was a shit show.
Glutton for punishment though as I am going to the ABs v Italy game in Lyon. -
@Rancid-Schnitzel said in RWC Week 3: Wales v Australia:
@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.
:Hell I didn't know we were trading, was just filling in some blanks. I don't get into firsts in anything, all firsts get done sometime whether they negative or positives. I mean Henry coached ABs to first loss in QF of a WC, etc, never thought to put that on his record or his assistants Hansen and Smith or Captain McCaw. There will be a coach who will be in charge when ABs lose first test in pro level at Eden Park too, not sure I will put that on him. I in no way a Foster fan, but neither am I anti.
-
@GibbonRib said in RWC Week 3: Wales v Australia:
@Rancid-Schnitzel said in RWC Week 3: Wales v Australia:
@GibbonRib said in RWC Week 3: Wales v Australia:
@Rancid-Schnitzel said in RWC Week 3: Wales v Australia:
@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.
Sydney suburban rugby isn't dying because the Force and the Rebels exist. There's a tonne of problems, and there's no reason to think that axing more teams will help. Since super rugby started, the ARU have contacted (from the old club comps) then expanded then expanded again then contacted again then expanded again. Carrying on the same pattern is no more likely to fix the underlying issues than sacking Eddie Jones and replacing him with Cheika.
If axing teams will allow scant resources and playing stocks to be focussed on areas where the game has some kind of stronghold then axing more teams in cities where people largely don't give a shit would make a difference. Success on the field is a massive factor when competing in this market and that's pretty bloody difficult if the talent is diluted to such an extent.
The problem is that people don't give a shit about rugby anywhere in Australia any more. Adding a few of the Rebels best players to the Tahs' roster isn't going turn that liner around.
People don't give a shit because they're absolute shit on the field and they're shit on the field because they barely have enough depth for 2 very successful teams let alone 5.
But back it up. What I reacted most to was this argument (forget who put it forward) that Aus rugby needs the Perth and Melbourne markets. I think the size of Melbourne was quoted. It was that kind for thinking that has gotten them in this mess.
-
@Dan54 said in RWC Week 3: Wales v Australia:
@Rancid-Schnitzel said in RWC Week 3: Wales v Australia:
@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.
:Hell I didn't know we were trading, was just filling in some blanks. I don't get into firsts in anything, all firsts get done sometime whether they negative or positives. I mean Henry coached ABs to first loss in QF of a WC, etc, never thought to put that on his record or his assistants Hansen and Smith or Captain McCaw. There will be a coach who will be in charge when ABs lose first test in pro level at Eden Park too, not sure I will put that on him. I in no way a Foster fan, but neither am I anti.
My entire point was that comparisons like that are stoopid. And you've just taken it up a notch.
-
@Rancid-Schnitzel said in RWC Week 3: Wales v Australia:
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.
Very good points Rancid, I have said at times when we get changes to laws of the game (to attract new fans) that you then risk losing a portion of old fans, and this is similar perhaps. Don't really know the answer , but in the 20 odd years I lived in Brisbane, I went to super rugby at a very good percentage of games, and watched as crowds went from a packed Ballymore and Suncorp in a hell of a lot of games to where even against the Tahs you would sit in empty stands. I not saying it was only reason, but it seemed the more Aussie teams there was, the smaller the crowds got, and really don't think the number of teams was problem, but the performance of the Wallabies seemed to get reflected.
-
@Rancid-Schnitzel sorry mate I was doing the same , you actually brought in the team lost etc, and thought I would point out how silly without taking in all points. Perhaps we both pointing out how silly it is to bring these things up?
