RWC Week 3: Wales v Australia
-
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.
-
Apologies if already posted...
SBW cops alot of shit, but he is on the money here
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.
-
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.
-
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.
@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.
-
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.
@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.
-
@mariner4life said in RWC Week 3: Wales v Australia:
@bayimports said in RWC Week 3: Wales v Australia:
@voodoo Ireland absolutely beatable, just our best team needs to execute accurately on the field. I think there is serious concerns over that, however doesn't mean you should give up before you even face them
the flip side is they will have to play well to beat us as well. If they have an off day, or their QF demons cause them to hesitate even a little then we'll get them.
The QFs are shaping up to be fucking tasty
I remember Chiefs fans riding a roller coaster under Fozzie, where their hopes would be built up only for them to be cruely torn down. Since Fozzie's reign as the AB coach is mirroring his efforts with the Chiefs, 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.
@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.
-
@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.
-
@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.
@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.
-
@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.
@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:
-
@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.
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.
-
@Machpants said in RWC Week 3: Wales v Australia:
@mencey said in RWC Week 3: Wales v Australia:
@Stargazer said in RWC Week 3: Wales v Australia:
@mencey said in RWC Week 3: Wales v Australia:
Game over me thinks. Will they keep Eddie?
I suspect they'll keep Eddie ... with all the excuses of the Lions Tour and "2027"
Didn't think about that. The Lions will absolutely slaughter the Wallabies unless there are some serious changes. The thing that worries me is the way the All Blacks played against SA in the warm up and there first game against France, we may be looking down the barrel of another hiding against Ireland in the semi's assuming we get that far. Scott Robinson may have his work cut out for him the next few years. The defence of Ireland and Wales the last couple of days has been outstanding.
We face Ireland in the quarters, no way we make the semis. I am hoping we make a game of it unlike the wallabies here
Fuck man, enough with the defeatist bullshit, it's getting boring
Yeah, we lost to them in a series a year ago, we all remember it. We also thumped them 42-19 in the first game of that series remember? In the 2nd test we played for a while with 13 men, and with 14 for 18mins. And in the 3rd test we fought back to within 3 points with a side that included Havili at 12, BB at 10, no Scott Barrett, and RTS on the bench.
You may not like the lack of development since, but at the very least the starting side is absolutely settled now, assuming injury recovery continues the way we are told it is. Frizz over AI is an upgrade, JB over Havili at 12 is a huge upgrade. Midfield combo being settled is massive. SB is in great form so we have 3 quality locks to choose from.
Yeah this isn't a vintage AB side, props and back row still has real issues, and we lack punch at 15 and a cohesive kicking game.
But we aren't playing some mythical side on a run of 300 wins in a row. Ireland are absolutely beatable, and we absolutely have the team to do it in a one-off QF.
Get on the bandwagon man!!!
@voodoo said in RWC Week 3: Wales v Australia:
But we aren't playing some mythical side on a run of 300 wins in a row. Ireland are absolutely beatable, and we absolutely have the team to do it in a one-off QF.
Get on the bandwagon man!!!
I'm pretty sure when they play us they will be playing to equal the record of most consecutive wins ever (by a tier 1 team).
Which will make our victory that much sweeter I guess?
-
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.
-
@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:
@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.
-
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.
