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.
@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.
-
I must admit I found myself with a very hollow feeling after watching the Wallabies capitulate against the Welsh this morning , a very very sad day for Rugby in this region , I felt for their supporters and the family’s of the players
Can’t believe some vitriol from some quarters as if our Rugby is on solid ground .
We need a strong Australian side , personally I think the Wallabies would under Dave Rennie despite the results we’re making progress.
It was only a year ago , the Wallabies should beaten France , lost to Ireland by 3 and beat Wales
For me it was a monumental mistake changing their coach this close to the RWC that’s on Rugby Australia
Seems as though there’s a real old boys network from a certain era with to much to say , it was interesting listening to the post match comments especially from that muppet Justin Harrison who refused to acknowledge Dave Rennie’s contribution..that told me something -
So Australia sucked & Eddie is taking the flak. Might be time to reactivate my GAGR account .... !
In Defence Of Eddie Jones:
All jokes aside, I genuinely feel for Eddie. That press conference was fucking awful. Continually going on about Japan, even after he'd shut that line of questioning down. They took a man who was down & kicked the shit out of him. Many will argue that he deserved it (especially after his treatment of the press on the departure plane), but I for one do not agree with that. Eddie was right that there were unbelievably negative & defeatist. He was right to take them on then & he was right to treat them with disdain & in the press conference, he was right to sidestep the Japan questions too. They'd just lost, he'd failed on what he was employed to do & any decent analyst could come up with some good questions. Why did they have most of the ball but none of the points? Why was nobody standing back to return well placed kicks? Why did you play Donaldson replace him with Gordon, vice versa to the Fiji horror show? Instead they just booted him.
As I alluded to before, you do get what you deserve. Perhaps if Eddie had worked with them earlier on in the season, then things may have been better; he didn't. But that's the way he is, always has been and always will be. IT's fair to say that steering the Wallabies, he looked completely and utterly out of his depth. But lets face it, we all know he's not. He's got a superb record coaching international teams, especially in world cups. Eddie Jones IS an international quality coach, no question.
I personally think, like the NZRU, the rot comes from the very top. This is 100% on the people that are above him. He should never have been employed, Rennie may not have been doing the job that was wanted, but in hindsight, perhaps he was doing as good as could be done. Perhaps that was the current ceiling and a shitty world cup under steady coach was what was needed ahead of the biggest 4 years ahead for Australian rugby since the 01 Lions / 03 World Cup. Given the WC growth since then, arguably ever.
Instead they got a complete shambles. A team that played so far beneath the sum of its parts, it's laughable. A media who put themselves way way above their level & a fanbase that's watching the NRL. Eddie holds partial responsibility for one of those, but not all.
IT's a long road back for the ARU, and one that will work much better without Eddie Jones, than with it.
And that, for me, is a slam on the ARU management and board.
@MajorRage said in RWC Week 3: Wales v Australia:
So Australia sucked & Eddie is taking the flak. Might be time to reactivate my GAGR account .... !
In Defence Of Eddie Jones:
All jokes aside, I genuinely feel for Eddie. That press conference was fucking awful. Continually going on about Japan, even after he'd shut that line of questioning down. They took a man who was down & kicked the shit out of him. Many will argue that he deserved it (especially after his treatment of the press on the departure plane), but I for one do not agree with that. Eddie was right that there were unbelievably negative & defeatist. He was right to take them on then & he was right to treat them with disdain & in the press conference, he was right to sidestep the Japan questions too. They'd just lost, he'd failed on what he was employed to do & any decent analyst could come up with some good questions. Why did they have most of the ball but none of the points? Why was nobody standing back to return well placed kicks? Why did you play Donaldson replace him with Gordon, vice versa to the Fiji horror show? Instead they just booted him.
As I alluded to before, you do get what you deserve. Perhaps if Eddie had worked with them earlier on in the season, then things may have been better; he didn't. But that's the way he is, always has been and always will be. IT's fair to say that steering the Wallabies, he looked completely and utterly out of his depth. But lets face it, we all know he's not. He's got a superb record coaching international teams, especially in world cups. Eddie Jones IS an international quality coach, no question.
I personally think, like the NZRU, the rot comes from the very top. This is 100% on the people that are above him. He should never have been employed, Rennie may not have been doing the job that was wanted, but in hindsight, perhaps he was doing as good as could be done. Perhaps that was the current ceiling and a shitty world cup under steady coach was what was needed ahead of the biggest 4 years ahead for Australian rugby since the 01 Lions / 03 World Cup. Given the WC growth since then, arguably ever.
Instead they got a complete shambles. A team that played so far beneath the sum of its parts, it's laughable. A media who put themselves way way above their level & a fanbase that's watching the NRL. Eddie holds partial responsibility for one of those, but not all.
IT's a long road back for the ARU, and one that will work much better without Eddie Jones, than with it.
And that, for me, is a slam on the ARU management and board.
I’m with you on the second half of this, in that the primary blame comes from the top.
But as you even alluded to, Eddie made this bed for himself by being a complete piston wristed gibbon over and over again. He was a prick to journos that asked all the same type of questions that you wish they’d asked today. He was a prick to senior players that he didn’t pick (he absolutely threw Hopper under a bus in an interview last week, one of the more despicable things I’ve seen in a while).
And there were only 3 questions about Japan - the first one to him asking if it happened that was totally fair enough. The last one to Porecki to ask if the fact that there was a rumour like that going around affected them mentally - again, totally fair question . Only the 2nd could possibly cause umbrage, where the guy asked if he’d get a 2nd interview - I thought it was pretty funny.
But aside from doing their jobs, these reporters owe Eddie nothing. He’s been nothing but a prick to them since forever. Lies and belittling comments, stories changing to suit.
Eddie and Hamish should both be out the door.
-
@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.
@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.
-
So Australia sucked & Eddie is taking the flak. Might be time to reactivate my GAGR account .... !
In Defence Of Eddie Jones:
All jokes aside, I genuinely feel for Eddie. That press conference was fucking awful. Continually going on about Japan, even after he'd shut that line of questioning down. They took a man who was down & kicked the shit out of him. Many will argue that he deserved it (especially after his treatment of the press on the departure plane), but I for one do not agree with that. Eddie was right that there were unbelievably negative & defeatist. He was right to take them on then & he was right to treat them with disdain & in the press conference, he was right to sidestep the Japan questions too. They'd just lost, he'd failed on what he was employed to do & any decent analyst could come up with some good questions. Why did they have most of the ball but none of the points? Why was nobody standing back to return well placed kicks? Why did you play Donaldson replace him with Gordon, vice versa to the Fiji horror show? Instead they just booted him.
As I alluded to before, you do get what you deserve. Perhaps if Eddie had worked with them earlier on in the season, then things may have been better; he didn't. But that's the way he is, always has been and always will be. IT's fair to say that steering the Wallabies, he looked completely and utterly out of his depth. But lets face it, we all know he's not. He's got a superb record coaching international teams, especially in world cups. Eddie Jones IS an international quality coach, no question.
I personally think, like the NZRU, the rot comes from the very top. This is 100% on the people that are above him. He should never have been employed, Rennie may not have been doing the job that was wanted, but in hindsight, perhaps he was doing as good as could be done. Perhaps that was the current ceiling and a shitty world cup under steady coach was what was needed ahead of the biggest 4 years ahead for Australian rugby since the 01 Lions / 03 World Cup. Given the WC growth since then, arguably ever.
Instead they got a complete shambles. A team that played so far beneath the sum of its parts, it's laughable. A media who put themselves way way above their level & a fanbase that's watching the NRL. Eddie holds partial responsibility for one of those, but not all.
IT's a long road back for the ARU, and one that will work much better without Eddie Jones, than with it.
And that, for me, is a slam on the ARU management and board.
@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.
-
So Australia sucked & Eddie is taking the flak. Might be time to reactivate my GAGR account .... !
In Defence Of Eddie Jones:
All jokes aside, I genuinely feel for Eddie. That press conference was fucking awful. Continually going on about Japan, even after he'd shut that line of questioning down. They took a man who was down & kicked the shit out of him. Many will argue that he deserved it (especially after his treatment of the press on the departure plane), but I for one do not agree with that. Eddie was right that there were unbelievably negative & defeatist. He was right to take them on then & he was right to treat them with disdain & in the press conference, he was right to sidestep the Japan questions too. They'd just lost, he'd failed on what he was employed to do & any decent analyst could come up with some good questions. Why did they have most of the ball but none of the points? Why was nobody standing back to return well placed kicks? Why did you play Donaldson replace him with Gordon, vice versa to the Fiji horror show? Instead they just booted him.
As I alluded to before, you do get what you deserve. Perhaps if Eddie had worked with them earlier on in the season, then things may have been better; he didn't. But that's the way he is, always has been and always will be. IT's fair to say that steering the Wallabies, he looked completely and utterly out of his depth. But lets face it, we all know he's not. He's got a superb record coaching international teams, especially in world cups. Eddie Jones IS an international quality coach, no question.
I personally think, like the NZRU, the rot comes from the very top. This is 100% on the people that are above him. He should never have been employed, Rennie may not have been doing the job that was wanted, but in hindsight, perhaps he was doing as good as could be done. Perhaps that was the current ceiling and a shitty world cup under steady coach was what was needed ahead of the biggest 4 years ahead for Australian rugby since the 01 Lions / 03 World Cup. Given the WC growth since then, arguably ever.
Instead they got a complete shambles. A team that played so far beneath the sum of its parts, it's laughable. A media who put themselves way way above their level & a fanbase that's watching the NRL. Eddie holds partial responsibility for one of those, but not all.
IT's a long road back for the ARU, and one that will work much better without Eddie Jones, than with it.
And that, for me, is a slam on the ARU management and board.
@MajorRage
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. -
-
@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.
@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.
-
@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.
@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.
-
@Rancid-Schnitzel said in RWC Week 3: Wales v Australia:
@taniwharugby said in RWC Week 3: Wales v Australia:
Apologies if already posted...
SBW cops alot of shit, but he is on the money here
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
@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..
-
@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.
@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.
-
@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.
-
@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?
@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
-
@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
@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
-
40?!! From Wales? This is sad
@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
-
@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
@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. -
@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!:face_savoring_food:
I you think that offsets what I listed then fair play to you.
@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!:face_savoring_food:
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.
