Fix the Wallabies

NTA

Good post rotated - I've been talking about skills development in Australian Rugby being poor, as well as a lack of opportunities for coaches, for ages. 
 
These aren't overnight fixes. Occasionally we get the cream rise and some special players come together. 
 
 
 
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="jegga" data-cid="610631" data-time="1472496867">
<div>
Papworth, the aussies should leave Sanzaar <a data-ipb='nomediaparse' href='http://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/rugby/international/83695441/former-wallabies-star-brett-papworth-says-australia-must-quit-sanzar-to-fix-its-flawed-game'>http://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/rugby/international/83695441/former-wallabies-star-brett-papworth-says-australia-must-quit-sanzar-to-fix-its-flawed-game</a>
</div>
</blockquote>
 
Yeah thanks Pappy. Your shitty little club won't even invest in NRC because you (and others) pissed away your money on trying to win shitty little Sydney Premierships rather than putting your shoulder to the wheel.
 
He's not wrong about the HPU and top-heavy structure. His comment to "create schools competitions" are correct and he's not ex-GPS so isn't quite as smitten with how that is all set up.
 
But if he thinks we're getting out of SANZAAAAAAAAAAR then he's just pissing into the wind.

mariner4life

Papworth is a blow hard fuckwit who thinks the only way forward for Aus rugby is backwards to Sydney Club Rugby being the pinnacle (look at all the great players it produced!).
 
 
Rotated's post is pretty much spot on, but i struggle to believe there aren't people in the ARU who know all that. It would be interesting to know what the focus of the ARU is, and what KPI's they measure themselves by. It's clear the NZRU's main remit is a successful AB team. Everything is structured around that, from player development; player welfare; finances etc it's all set up to produce great test players. How do the ARU measure themselves?

Hooroo

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="mariner4life" data-cid="610686" data-time="1472513715">
<div>
 It would be interesting to know what the focus of the ARU is, and what KPI's they measure themselves by.
</div>
</blockquote>
Willis!

Nepia

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="ACT Crusader" data-cid="610565" data-time="1472457781">
<div>
Easiest way to fix Wallabies is for the final Blesisloe is we throw out a few Mitre 10 warriors

Prattley
Dixon
Kainga
Bird
C. Retallick
Shields 7. Lamborn
Pryor
Hall
Black
McNicholl
Ropiha
Aso
Lowe
Nanai 
Ohh wait....
</div>
</blockquote>
FFS ACT, Lamborn in unavailable as he's played for the USA. ;)
 
Should select Jonah Lowe at 13 so we can have the Lowe-Lowe's.

antipodean

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="mariner4life" data-cid="610686" data-time="1472513715">
<div>
Papworth is a blow hard fuckwit who thinks the only way forward for Aus rugby is backwards to Sydney Club Rugby being the pinnacle (look at all the great players it produced!).
 
 
Rotated's post is pretty much spot on, but i struggle to believe there aren't people in the ARU who know all that. It would be interesting to know what the focus of the ARU is, and what KPI's they measure themselves by. 
</div>
</blockquote>
 
Papworth clearly doesn't understand where the money the ARU is pissing away on Super Rugby comes from.
 
From reading the ARU's reports, it seems player participation is the KPI. Now that they won't mention how many registered players there are anymore.

NTA

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="mariner4life" data-cid="610686" data-time="1472513715">i struggle to believe there aren't people in the ARU who know all that.</blockquote>
 
Go look at the Schoolboy Rugby threads on GAGR to understand why this is. 
People KNOW what we should do, but look at it through the lens of their own self-interest. Therefore as long as their club/school/kid is represented with prominence, they're happy that things are going swimmingly.

pukunui

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="antipodean" data-cid="610700" data-time="1472515875">
<div>
Papworth clearly doesn't understand where the money the ARU is pissing away on Super Rugby comes from.
 
From reading the ARU's reports, it seems player participation is the KPI. Now that they won't mention how many registered players there are anymore.
</div>
</blockquote>
 
I was thinking the same thing when I read that. 
It's not as if there is a broadcaster falling over themselves to get the rights to the NRC or Shute shield that is going to be able to match what they get from Super rugby and TRC.
Where would their money come from? Are they going to request a 7 match Bledisloe series every year? Maybe they wouldn't need any money because all the professional players would leave for Europe and Japan.
Of course this would never happen but can you believe this guy gets paid to write that shit?

Rancid Schnitzel

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="mariner4life" data-cid="610686" data-time="1472513715">
<div>
Papworth is a blow hard fuckwit who thinks the only way forward for Aus rugby is backwards to Sydney Club Rugby being the pinnacle (look at all the great players it produced!).
 
 
Rotated's post is pretty much spot on, but i struggle to believe there aren't people in the ARU who know all that. It would be interesting to know what the focus of the ARU is, and what KPI's they measure themselves by. It's clear the NZRU's main remit is a successful AB team. Everything is structured around that, from player development; player welfare; finances etc it's all set up to produce great test players. How do the ARU measure themselves?
</div>
</blockquote>
 
 
That last point is vitally important. The only way for rugby to grow and stay successful in AUS is for the Wallabies to succeed on the field. It is perhaps the one advantage rugby (see Nepia I didn't call it union then) has over league and AFL, i.e. a genuine international programme.

NTA

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="antipodean" data-cid="610700" data-time="1472515875">Papworth clearly doesn't understand where the money the ARU is pissing away on Super Rugby comes from. 
From reading the ARU's reports, it seems player participation is the KPI. Now that they won't mention how many registered players there are anymore.</blockquote>
 
Because someone called them out on numbers when it became clear they were double- or triple-dipping in some cases: 
1 x schools XV 
1 x rep XV 
1 x club XV 
Same player, headcount 3 
Not to mention the counting of one-day carnival events separately to everything else

Rancid Schnitzel

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="NTA" data-cid="610736" data-time="1472525071">
Because someone called them out on numbers when it became clear they were double- or triple-dipping in some cases: 
1 x schools XV 
1 x rep XV 
1 x club XV 
Same player, headcount 3 
Not to mention the counting of one-day carnival events separately to everything else</blockquote>
 
Do they actually include schools when counting juniors? They didn't used to.

antipodean

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Rancid Schnitzel" data-cid="610740" data-time="1472525496">
<div>
Do they actually include schools when counting juniors? They didn't used to.
</div>
</blockquote>
 
They have to to be accurate. Kids play for clubs until they go to high school, in which case they're playing for their school.

Rancid Schnitzel

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="antipodean" data-cid="610751" data-time="1472528723">
<div>
They have to to be accurate. Kids play for clubs until they go to high school, in which case they're playing for their school.
</div>
</blockquote>
 
But there must be a lot of kids who play for school but not for a club.

NTA

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Rancid Schnitzel" data-cid="610740" data-time="1472525496">
<div>
Do they actually include schools when counting juniors? They didn't used to.
</div>
</blockquote>
 
Maybe I'm getting the school carnival days mixed up there. 
 
A few years ago there was a case where they were ballsing up the count deliberately to get federal funding. 
 
When player numbers are talked about for any nation, they're pretty useless unless you're saying every one of those people helps contribute to the pyramid of playing talent.
 
Subbies Rugby in Sydney is about the biggest centrally administered comp in the world, with up to 6 divisions at a time fielding anywhere from 1 Grade to 5 Grades + Colts. None of them are likely to front up for a Premier Club.

BartMan

Fix the Wobblies? 
No. 
Let them keep hurting. 
Or step 1. Sack the coach.

Mick Gold Coast QLD

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="NTA" data-cid="610701" data-time="1472515923">
<div>
 
Go look at the Schoolboy Rugby threads on GAGR to understand why this is. People KNOW what we should do, but look at it through the lens of their own self-interest. Therefore as long as their club/school/kid is represented with prominence, they're happy that things are going swimmingly.
</div>
</blockquote>
 
... and it has ever been thus. It is a long time since I was involved at teenage level, with its coterie of insistent, self focused, maniacal parents however I would venture it is far worse now given the potential income on offer.
 
The ARU recently had one who was propelled by that system to the very top whose father, who appeared and conducted himself much like Richard Wilkins, was still not satisfied - he would regularly ring the Super Rugby franchise management and coach complaining about the position his splendid son was being selected in, as if he was still back in the Under 14s with a history teacher as part time coach on Wednesday afternoons.

nostrildamus

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="BartMan" data-cid="610795" data-time="1472545371">
Fix the Wobblies? 
No. 
Let them keep hurting. 
Or step 1. Sack the coach.</blockquote>
I like how you put step 1 at the end..

Mofitzy

Does the Olympic gold affect funding in any significant way?

NTA

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Mofitzy" data-cid="610850" data-time="1472562781">Does the Olympic gold affect funding in any significant way?</blockquote>
Don't believe so - the allocation is to the sport, not the results. 
The womens sevens here are going to get a new pay deal though, giving them equal pay with the mens sevens. 
I think it's probably a good move BUT am always wary when big money enters rugby. Professionalism hasn't exactly sparked our professional rugby outfits to glory. In fact, when you think about the period from 99-03 when we were dominant, a lot of the guys involved had grown up in an amateurs environment

NTA

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Mofitzy" data-cid="610850" data-time="1472562781">Does the Olympic gold affect funding in any significant way?</blockquote>

Or maybe indirectly eg more girls and/or schools playing sevens = more money for the ARU to fleece from parents.

mariner4life

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="NTA" data-cid="610909" data-time="1472595054">
<div>
Don't believe so - the allocation is to the sport, not the results. 
The womens sevens here are going to get a new pay deal though, giving them equal pay with the mens sevens. 
I think it's probably a good move BUT am always wary when big money enters rugby. Professionalism hasn't exactly sparked our professional rugby outfits to glory. In fact, when you think about the period from 99-03 when we were dominant, a lot of the guys involved had grown up in an amateurs environment
</div>
</blockquote>
 
Then there'es your answer! Just pick a team of lawyers and accountants who all went to private schools, and play in the Sydney Club comp. Always stick with what works...

The Silver Fern

Fix the Wallabies