Aussie Pro Rugby
-
Played another game with/ against ex-Wallabies coach Stephen Larkham today. It's ridiculous how much time he appears to have on the field. It's like everyone else is wearing diving boots. Pass is still perfect - although it's probably easier to hit slower moving targets.
@antipodean said in Aussie Rugby in general:
Played another game with/ against ex-Wallabies coach Stephen Larkham today. It's ridiculous how much time he appears to have on the field. It's like everyone else is wearing diving boots. Pass is still perfect - although it's probably easier to hit slower moving targets.
Was that an ACT Vets game? Always interesting when you play alongside this calibre of talent and realise the huge gulf between them and you.
-
Interesting the mess AR is getting itself further and further into
@Machpants That's a can of worms right there and it looks like Castle knows it.
-
@antipodean said in Aussie Rugby in general:
Played another game with/ against ex-Wallabies coach Stephen Larkham today. It's ridiculous how much time he appears to have on the field. It's like everyone else is wearing diving boots. Pass is still perfect - although it's probably easier to hit slower moving targets.
Was that an ACT Vets game? Always interesting when you play alongside this calibre of talent and realise the huge gulf between them and you.
@Crucial Yeah, you can ignore the skills and physicality, it's the speed of thought and execution. Everything is just done at a faster pace.
@NTA said in Aussie Rugby in general:
I'm not sure what the issue is? RA are fucking broke in simple financial ledger terms (income versus expenditure or whatever). The money needs to come from somewhere.
Agreed. Spiro making a mountain out of a molehill. There's much bigger issues to deal with. Getting rid of Clyne is a step in the right direction.
-
I'm not sure what the issue is? RA are fucking broke in simple financial ledger terms (income versus expenditure or whatever). The money needs to come from somewhere.
@NTA said in Aussie Rugby in general: @antipodean > I'm not sure what the issue is? RA are fucking broke in simple financial ledger terms (income versus expenditure or whatever). The money needs to come from somewhere.
In simple terms of financial necessity I'd agree but the potential for undue influence and the under the radar methodology used makes this a bit of a mess IMO.
-
@NTA said in Aussie Rugby in general: @antipodean > I'm not sure what the issue is? RA are fucking broke in simple financial ledger terms (income versus expenditure or whatever). The money needs to come from somewhere.
In simple terms of financial necessity I'd agree but the potential for undue influence and the under the radar methodology used makes this a bit of a mess IMO.
@Catogrande said in Aussie Rugby in general:
@NTA said in Aussie Rugby in general: @antipodean > I'm not sure what the issue is? RA are fucking broke in simple financial ledger terms (income versus expenditure or whatever). The money needs to come from somewhere.
In simple terms of financial necessity I'd agree but the potential for undue influence and the under the radar methodology used makes this a bit of a mess IMO.
bit of a mess is the ARU's modus operandi
-
@Catogrande said in Aussie Rugby in general:
@NTA said in Aussie Rugby in general: @antipodean > I'm not sure what the issue is? RA are fucking broke in simple financial ledger terms (income versus expenditure or whatever). The money needs to come from somewhere.
In simple terms of financial necessity I'd agree but the potential for undue influence and the under the radar methodology used makes this a bit of a mess IMO.
bit of a mess is the ARU's modus operandi
@antipodean said in Aussie Rugby in general:
@Catogrande said in Aussie Rugby in general:
@NTA said in Aussie Rugby in general: @antipodean > I'm not sure what the issue is? RA are fucking broke in simple financial ledger terms (income versus expenditure or whatever). The money needs to come from somewhere.
In simple terms of financial necessity I'd agree but the potential for undue influence and the under the radar methodology used makes this a bit of a mess IMO.
bit of a mess is the ARU's modus operandi
There's probably not enough gin going around. The RFU runs on Beefeater and we are assured that everything is fine, just fine.
-
When you look at the disparity in pay from the top to bottom, and the net effect of retaining these particular players, you have to ask one question:
"So what?"
Really, if you take out Pocock and Folau are we going to be any more second tier than we are now? We've never paid tight five forwards enough, or given them a decent pathway, to compete at the highest levels consistently. The cupboard is pretty bare on decent inside backs, and we lack pace OR size on the wings. We have no decent 8th men to speak of and some half-arsed blindside flankers.
7 is actually one place we do ok.
As for Folau... Well a fullback who can't fucking pass is of questionable value.
-
When you look at the disparity in pay from the top to bottom, and the net effect of retaining these particular players, you have to ask one question:
"So what?"
Really, if you take out Pocock and Folau are we going to be any more second tier than we are now? We've never paid tight five forwards enough, or given them a decent pathway, to compete at the highest levels consistently. The cupboard is pretty bare on decent inside backs, and we lack pace OR size on the wings. We have no decent 8th men to speak of and some half-arsed blindside flankers.
7 is actually one place we do ok.
As for Folau... Well a fullback who can't fucking pass is of questionable value.
@NTA said in Aussie Rugby in general:
When you look at the disparity in pay from the top to bottom, and the net effect of retaining these particular players, you have to ask one question:
"So what?"
Really, if you take out Pocock and Folau are we going to be any more second tier than we are now? We've never paid tight five forwards enough, or given them a decent pathway, to compete at the highest levels consistently. The cupboard is pretty bare on decent inside backs, and we lack pace OR size on the wings. We have no decent 8th men to speak of and some half-arsed blindside flankers.
7 is actually one place we do ok.
As for Folau... Well a fullback who can't fucking pass is of questionable value.
Mike Brown might be available.
-
@NTA said in Aussie Rugby in general:
When you look at the disparity in pay from the top to bottom, and the net effect of retaining these particular players, you have to ask one question:
"So what?"
Really, if you take out Pocock and Folau are we going to be any more second tier than we are now? We've never paid tight five forwards enough, or given them a decent pathway, to compete at the highest levels consistently. The cupboard is pretty bare on decent inside backs, and we lack pace OR size on the wings. We have no decent 8th men to speak of and some half-arsed blindside flankers.
7 is actually one place we do ok.
As for Folau... Well a fullback who can't fucking pass is of questionable value.
Mike Brown might be available.
@Catogrande we've got enough complete twats.
-
-
One of the concerned officials told Sydney Morning Herald column Ruck & Maul this week: "This issue has to again be looked into. Our suspicions were originally raised due to the very strange mistakes made by usually reliable Australian players during that game. Some errors are glaring. It's like watching Tiger Woods miss a two-inch putt, over and over again. Very odd."
Have to disagree there. Much like when match fixing allegations were levelled against the mid 90s Black Caps, hiding a couple of profitable match fixings amongst a decade of shit play is not a bad strategy.
Per the article Australia have only been heavily favoured in a handful of games in the past decade : the potential candidates would be the 2011 loss to Samoa, 2012 loss to Scotland and 2017 thrashing by Scotland. The article also doesn't confirm it is a test match so the Munster tour loss is on the table too (let's assume the 2011 RWC loss to Ireland is not the test in question).
Of the four games, the Samoa and Scotland game at home were first tests of the season and the ABs at times play as though they are on the take during that first hit out; so I will guess either the Munster loss or the loss in Edinburgh a few years ago.
-
One only needs to have seen the team wide displays of incompetence in those games to determine the losses were a team issue.
-
That's like a news thump article headline. The wallabies haven't been consistent for years, and look at England just recently in the 6N, reckon they threw that by stupidly sticking with a failing tactic after building up massive odds vs Ireland and France?
-
You would need a lot of players on the take for it to work gaurenteed surely. The Aussie players are also fairly well renumerated. Teams are also often changed and players are injured etc.
For a betting co-op to make massive bets they would want to be bloody confident of the ability of said players to fix the game.
I just think it would be too hard and risky to do. Also wouldnt the coach sub any players that were obviously having a shocker.
-
If they are going to look back and investigate every shock loss or displays of ineptitude they will be still conducting this investigation in 2024..
-
