O’Neill needs to open chequebook, raid NRL
By kingplaymaker, 1 Oct 2009 kingplaymaker is a Roar Rookie
- Tagged:
- Greg Inglis, John ONeill, NRL, robbie deans, Rugby League, Rugby Union, wallabies
626 Have your say
Related coverage

Wallabies coach Robbie Deans talks to the team during the Wallabies Captain's run in Sydney on Friday, July 25, 2008. AAP Image/Jenny Evans
Many explanations have been given for the terrible failure of the Australian team to be competitive this year: lack of pride, lack of mental toughness, bad organisation from the coaching team.
However, the true reason is blindingly simple: Australian rugby only produces two-thirds of a Tri-Nations team in quality players, that is, 10 players out of 15, while New Zealand and South Africa produce more or less 15.
All three sides have roughly equally excellent coaching teams, and so when two teams have largely better players, they will most of the time beat the team with weaker players, except for occasional moments when the weaker team perform above themselves.
The ARU’s current strategy for combating this is supposedly to put money into the grass-roots level of the game, and in addition, to try and buy young league players before they become famous.
Basically, to grow the game and hence playing numbers.
Whether this is working in the long term or not, the fact remains that at the moment, and for the next few years, Robbie Deans simply does not have enough good players to beat his regular opposition.
And a corresponding loss of interest in rugby, and hence a decline in playing numbers – exactly what is to be avoided – will eventuate.
The solution is the following: John O’Neill needs to go on a massive spending spree.
This would have the twin advantages of increasing the strength of the national team and, as some of the players brought would come from rugby league, bringing more glamour to the code and weakening its rival.
If the game in Australia is not currently producing enough players, there is nothing wrong with supplementing it from league.
The moderate possibility: buy Dan Vickerman and Mark Gasnier. This would naturally strengthen the team in two fundamental positions.
The bold possibility:
Australia’s real problems lie in the outside backs. Drew Mitchell, Lachie Turner, James O’Connor and Adam Ashley-Cooper produced little or nothing in attack this year and only got away with it because in their positions, as opposed to the forwards, so long as a player does little wrong, it goes unnoticed that he hasn’t done anything spectacular.
Any league players who might be brought in to improve the team have to be acquired this season, as by next year, they would not have long enough to adapt before the World Cup.
This means buying out contracts and spending a lot of money.
However, what’s the point in spending a fortune on 28 year-old Gasnier when for a little more, the better Greg Inglis, who is 22, could be had?
O’Neill could buy Greg Inglis, Israel Folau, and Jarryd Hayne.
This would cost a lot, and involve buying out contracts, but it would have huge advantages:
1) Vastly strengthening the Australian team in its weakest areas.
2) League is surging in popularity at union’s expense. As any growth of a similar code is bound to damage the other, a move such as this would be a hammer blow to its momentum and bring back interest and glamour to union.
It would also create the impression that union is more attractive, as along with Mark Gasnier and Sonny Bill Williams, so many of league’s top stars would have moved over recently.
It could initiate a flood of conversions.
In addition, imagine the increased interest in the Super teams where these players would be based?
I wouldn’t overestimate how difficult it is to lure players like Inglis. They must be aware that playing a sport where nine of the teams are in the same city hardly constitutes the grandest stage for a great sportsman.
If O’Neill were to buy these three players and create a national competition, he would have guaranteed the game’s short-term and long-term future.
Sure, that would cost a lot. But what’s the alternative?
A huge decline in rugby’s popularity in Australia, a period of absolute disaster for the national team and the legacy of O’Neill as a catastrophe.
The money must be found, from more Bledisloe matches, from anywhere, even if it’s risky.
The decision now looms for the Wallabies and rugby in Australia: spend big, or be reduced to rags.
Enjoy sports? Enjoy a bargain? All Sports Online has your favourite sporting brands at up to 70% off. Online only, premium quality sporting goods and merchandise at discounted prices. Get a deal now.
Do you have what it takes to become a sports writer? Write for the roar
Rugby Union articles
- Will Super Rugby crowds continue their slide? (198)
- Will South African rugby force a Super 21 by 2018? (172)
- Brumbies 2012: New coach, new players, new attitude (128)
- Dan Parks and the unsolved questions of expat rugby (61)
- Pocock set to be named new Force skipper (56)
- Can the ‘Tahs win the battle after losing the Waugh? (51)
- What does the future hold for the Six Nations (50)
- Wales show Southern Hemisphere how to play running rugby (28)
- What opening matches of Six Nations taught us (18)
- Will Super Rugby crowds continue their slide? (201)
- Clinical Chiefs cost rusty Rebels in Corio (9)
- Six Nations shows rugby is a parochial game at heart (5)
- Goose’s Super Rugby up-and-comer XV for 2012 (29)
- What does the future hold for the Six Nations (50)
- Explore:
- Greg Inglis, John ONeill, NRL, robbie deans, Rugby League, Rugby Union, wallabies

Knives Out said | October 1st 2009 @ 7:27am | Report comment
I cannot wait to see the responses to this article. All aboard.
katzilla said | October 1st 2009 @ 7:38am | Report comment
I feel bad that im even replying as I don’t think this argument deserves any weight (although I posted on the troll bait thread about the merger a couple of times to my everlasting shame)
The Answer is No, been done before. Doesn’t work. Spend money on junior level development programs.
For the price of one over hyped RL back you could send a team of promising juniors to the rugby school in NZ (or just 2 promising junior props to the proping school). Or for the price of 2-3 RL players you could set up your own elite rugby program.
If you want to buy up talent to shore up the poor depth then raid known rugby nurseries, NZ and SA for a start. Argentina will be an absolute playground for OZ rugby money in the next two years. But if you were a true rugby fan you’d already know that?
Knives Out said | October 1st 2009 @ 7:44am | Report comment
Well even more shame be heaped upon you Katzilla, you’ve been caught once more. Reminds me of the Rawhide theme tune:
“Keep trollin’, trollin’, trollin’
Though Gallop’s brain is swollen,
Keep Stuart Fielden rollin’, Willie!
Through rain and wind and weather
The NRL is such a pleasure
Now Tahu is back on our side
All the things I’m missin
Gasnier, Rooney and Sonny Bill Williams
Are playing for the French union sides”
and so on..
katzilla said | October 1st 2009 @ 7:51am | Report comment
Lol don’t tell me you put that together just now?
There has been an inordinate amount of Troll Baiting going on around here the last few days, I guess people are just getting bored because there is a lull in the rugby here in the south. And I don’t have setanta
I stopped my subscription because I didn’t really enjoy the SPL enough to watch it for 20 hours a day.
Heres a tasty bit of troll bait from the PS3 v Xbox 360 wars-
‘I got an Xbox 360 the other day, you know why they call it an Xbox 360? Because when you open the box you turn 360 degrees and walk away!’
Knives Out said | October 1st 2009 @ 8:09am | Report comment
It’s a very malleable song, Katzilla.
‘I got an Xbox 360 the other day, you know why they call it an Xbox 360? Because when you open the box you turn 360 degrees and walk away!’
Woot woot! Testify..
Jerry said | October 1st 2009 @ 8:14am | Report comment
Um…if you turn 360 degrees, you’re facing the same way as when you started. Troll FAIL.
Knives Out said | October 1st 2009 @ 8:17am | Report comment
Maybe you walk straight over the Xbox?
anopinion said | October 1st 2009 @ 8:15am | Report comment
Would turning 360 degrees not put you back in the same spot? 180 degrees and walking away makes more sense.
Pippinu said | October 1st 2009 @ 8:19am | Report comment
The 360 degree metaphor is probably an apt description in some instances.
katzilla said | October 1st 2009 @ 10:03am | Report comment
Bahahahaha!
Look i’ll let you guys off because maybe you don’t understand what Troll Bait is.
Its when you say something that it is clearly incorrect in order to get a response from people.
Did you guys actually think I didn’t understand the end point of a 360 degree turn?
The Troll throws out the Bait and the Fish bite. Hence Troll Bait.
I must say it is fun though.
anopinion said | October 1st 2009 @ 10:42am | Report comment
Katzilla,
You certainly write in a condescending way. A little sarcasm mixed with a little self righteousness. Well done. Always nice to know some people treat others like shit. By the way Propping is spelt with two p’s not one.
katzilla said | October 1st 2009 @ 11:09am | Report comment
Wow chill anopinion its just a joke.
I was just highlighting a new phase in Trolling. Its not something I do all the time.
Lighten up dude, or are you maybe more upset at yourself for falling for it?
The fact that you used your time and effort to try and correct someone elses mistake is whats a little self righteous, then you follow that up by trying to correct me again lol.
Propping with 2 ps? Pedantic with 1 p?
samM said | October 1st 2009 @ 2:35pm | Report comment
i agree with you katzilla,
its been done before and didn’t work. right now were playing really inconsistenly but when we play to our ability were the best, so right nw instead of putting the panic buttons on and going money crazy we just need to calm down and build depth in the squad not with rl players but with existing layers and just bulding their experience because thats the key and it will come in time.
kingplaymaker said | October 1st 2009 @ 2:40pm | Report comment
sam sadly you just don’t have the players, Deans is a superb coach and he could make nothing of them. Not all are bad that is, just a third. Replace them and you can win.
Sammy22 said | October 1st 2009 @ 10:00pm | Report comment
Hey Katzilla
agree with your comment, like any business or facet of life focus on the areas you do well and it will come together with much depth, too late to read the rest of the 200 plus comments tonight
BTW I think anopinion just trolled you……… if not he needs ated on the end of his name
Jeff Baxter said | October 1st 2009 @ 7:40am | Report comment
Is there any money left in the coffers? Serious question.
kingplaymaker said | October 1st 2009 @ 8:11am | Report comment
Jeff money can always be had or borrowed: given the recent financial turnaround in the ARU’s fortunes, and the money saved by the departure of Tahu and Tuqiri, there should be enough available. My point though, is that the risk is necessary.
Jeff Baxter said | October 1st 2009 @ 9:10am | Report comment
Ok. What collateral does the ARU have to put up for this loan? God I sound like a bank manger now.
cookie said | October 1st 2009 @ 7:55am | Report comment
Mate, this is an old old one….and i agree with katzilla…
Nope not under any circumstances, god no.
The money needs to be put into grass roots and build it up from the ground….
If you want more decent ready to go players then get them from the UK, Europe, Africa or Argentina.
Leagues popularity has a lot to do with it’s media coverage as C9 has invested so much in it, it will be force fed to everyone whether they want it or not…. Can the media stop force feeding afl please….i can’t find anyone is nsw who gives a #$%#!
I was dragged by a mate who’s a rabid St george fan to the parra saints game before the finals and i have to say thank god for beer; lots and lots of beer….
It was the most appalling load of drivel, pathetic skills with poor defence and some fat bloke on the wing who basically refused to do anything…. Come on seriously…. These were meant to be two of the best teams and i honestly thought they were crap.
League is a simple boring game of ping pong and very few players show any skill.
$1 million on a dope from league or $1 million on extensive skills training camps for all Club rugby teams? It’s a no brainer.
Justin said | October 1st 2009 @ 7:59am | Report comment
Yeo this should make for another predictable league v union war on here
kingplaymaker said | October 1st 2009 @ 8:00am | Report comment
Right, Katzilla and Cookie, youth programmes only work when the game is popular or growing in popularity which it isn’t now.
What would make it grow in popularity? Some league stars.
Besides how long would it take for these mystical youth programmes to have an effect? Within the next two years?
League players are the only instant solution to the current dearth of Australian playing talent.
Simply, the team needs more talented players IMMEDIATELY.
Plus, in the popularity war, union seriously needs to land a blow on league, and taking their three top players would do this.
Knives Out said | October 1st 2009 @ 8:13am | Report comment
I’m intrigued to know why you think that Ashley-Cooper, for example, did so little in attack? What did he do so little of? How do you measure what is good about the specific back line positions in union – what players have to do to be good in those positions? I’d like to know your understanding of the relationship between forward and back play (hence your comment on Australia’s problems coming from the outside backs) and defence and attack. What is your opinion of the value of defence? I’d also like to know why you think various league players would make any impact on union when so many other high profile players haven’t.
kingplaymaker said | October 1st 2009 @ 8:20am | Report comment
KO when I have more time I’ll also explain the meaning of life and death: for now 11, 13, 14 and 15 were not effective in attack this year. Imagine what Sitiveni Sivivatu, Tana Umaga, Jason Robinson and Christian Cullen could have done in their places?
I deliberately use big examples because that is the level of talent that the potential NRL recruits possess.
Knives Out said | October 1st 2009 @ 8:23am | Report comment
Well, that’s why I asked you to answer those questions because rugby union is a complicated sport. How much ball did the Australian back five received? That is an essential starting point for your argument. How well did Sivivatu play this season? They’re not very complicated questions, KPM. I’m sure you could find the time.
kingplaymaker said | October 1st 2009 @ 8:26am | Report comment
KO the Australia back five didn’t receive much down the line, but they did nothing with what they did receive, and moreover they received masses from kicks, and did equally little with that.
Knives Out said | October 1st 2009 @ 9:26pm | Report comment
You can’t just say they did nothing. That sort of talk completely undermines your argument. What did they do little of specifically? How do you measure the success of outside backs in the simple terms of attack? Further, you have to contrast the work of the Australian outside backs with those from NZ and SA.
Knives Out said | October 1st 2009 @ 9:44pm | Report comment
Where are the answers?
kingplaymaker said | October 1st 2009 @ 11:50pm | Report comment
KO there are answers but I’m in a different timezone now and so had to stop.
They didn’t damage, indeed hardly threatened the opposition backline.
As I say, imagine what Umaga, Sivivatu, Robinson and Cullen would have done in their places.
anopinion said | October 1st 2009 @ 10:46am | Report comment
Imagine if Sivivatu and Cullen played RL. They would have dominated. Better still Rokocoko
anopinion said | October 1st 2009 @ 8:28am | Report comment
You seem to care about a 2 year deadline. Is it the WC you are worried about? Do not be, it is not the most important part of the game. The important part is every person enjoying the game at any level. The Wallabies are representative of all those people, not more important than them.
Kingplaymaker, if RL outside backs are so good, how can the Broncos move a prop, Dave Taylor to the centres and he dominates the game? Every media outlet is talking about him for the Aussie team.
kingplaymaker said | October 1st 2009 @ 9:21am | Report comment
anopinion it’s not just the next two years, even the next five years, and again having stars in the game increases its strength, attraction and so brings in players and makes it better for all of them too.
anopinion said | October 1st 2009 @ 9:47am | Report comment
The cost is that good young rugby players head overseas because they are blocked from making the Super Teams or Wallabies by RL players or swap to league because the ARU values them more highly.
kingplaymaker said | October 1st 2009 @ 10:16am | Report comment
WIth a national compeition there is no cost, there are spaces for all who are any good.
In any case within 5 or 6 years there’ll be 2 more Australian Super teams with a lot of places for players to fill.
anopinion said | October 1st 2009 @ 10:48am | Report comment
I think this is an unlikely scenario. I do hope you are correct.
Working Class Rugger said | October 1st 2009 @ 12:51pm | Report comment
Actually promoting the game and getting into a more accessible media outlets beyond PayTV would help. Promoting Rugby at the junior level in NSW and QLD will be take alot of effort considering it is League’s stronghold. But in the other State’s and Territories Rugby has the ascendency. And youth development programs could capitalise on this.
And just because at the top the game is struggling doesn’t mean you can’t get kids playing. It just take an organised and well executed program.
Fuchal said | October 1st 2009 @ 8:07am | Report comment
Australia didn’t win two World Cups and create its golden era of 1998-2001 by raiding NRL.
Nuff said.
sheek said | October 1st 2009 @ 8:13am | Report comment
Bait or no bait, I’ll bite. Kingplaymaker is dreaming…..
We’ve been down that path, buying league players, & it hasn’t worked to any significant extent.
Yes, O’Neill should open his cheque book, but only to develop more juniors.
Build firstly the quantity then quality of the player base. Then, & only then might we find all the talent we desire.
Short-term fixes are usually just that – short-term fixes.
Rickety Knees said | October 1st 2009 @ 9:13am | Report comment
Ditto
Spencer said | October 1st 2009 @ 11:56am | Report comment
Although I dont agree with buying RL stars, I do think that Rugby should be doing better at recruiting 19-22 year old players, many of whom played both RL and Rugby at junior level.
Currently there are 4 such players in the Wallaby team: Elsom, Palu, Barnes, and O’Connor.
It would be very informative to know what percentage of Rugby/RL juniours got to RL and Rugby respectively.
kingplaymaker said | October 1st 2009 @ 8:17am | Report comment
Sheek I don’t agree league converts don’t succeed: witness Jason Robinson, Brad Thorn, Rocky Elsom, Lote Tuqiri (for the first few years).
I also think that now it should be possible to manage and convert them better than in the early days.
sheek said | October 1st 2009 @ 8:28am | Report comment
The problem in Australia is this – while all that money was paid for some half dozen or so high profile league players, the junior development suffered significantly. Australian rugby is in trouble across a range of areas. Buying league players is a quick-fix, it won’t solve institutionalised structural problems.
Buying Sailor, Rogers & Tuqiri in 2002-03 was ground-breaking, the benefits, especially monetary, mixed. The ARU now has to do the gritty, dirty, hard work it’s been trying to avoid these past few years. There’s no glamour in pouring money into junior development, & you have to wait a 5 years or more to see the benefit. But the future of the code NOW depends upon it.
kingplaymaker said | October 1st 2009 @ 8:33am | Report comment
Sheek if every 3 or 4 years a few league stars are taken it provides a succession of quick-fixes until the game grows enough for them to be unnecessary.
I understand your point about youth development, but I think the bigger problem is really the absence of a national competition which would make more of a difference to youth development than anything else.
So National championship+Inglis, Folau, Hayne=youth development AND quick-fix.
sheek said | October 1st 2009 @ 9:02am | Report comment
KPM,
If you read my posts regularly, you would know I’m the greatest advocate of a national comp.
But i’ve avoided mentioning it thus far lest I sound like a scratched record (those black, round, flat vinyl discs that we used to listen to rock music on)……….
kingplaymaker said | October 1st 2009 @ 9:39am | Report comment
Sheek I think that if it happened it would take care of youth development: every one talks about youth development as if it a messiah but really what does it do? There need to be enough players playing the game in the first place to develop, and there currently aren’t.
Rodney McDonell said | October 1st 2009 @ 9:29am | Report comment
Hahaha, how much money do you think the RU has? Three or four players every year? Are you serious?
OMG. I thought i was reading an article, by someone who may have known something about anything. This reads more like your average forum post.
You clearly have no idea and fail to draw any insight in what has happened in the past. What your asking now is essentially what the RU have been doing for years.
Many more players have switched codes than just the three everyone are talking about and still RUs popularity and it’s style of football has decreased. You can’t argue that, it’s fact – despite the fact they have been buying and then releasing RL players since the early naughties (2000).
How you can come to a conclusion that buying League players is the way to go is beyond me.
kingplaymaker said | October 1st 2009 @ 10:15am | Report comment
Rodney I said players every 3 or 4 years, NOT 3 or 4 players a year!
anopinion said | October 1st 2009 @ 10:52am | Report comment
Those players are very good. But do you really feel the NRL has that much talent? Is Inglis so good because he has to break tackles from guys that would have zero chance of playing Super 14.
RL has diluted its talent between 16 sides, the Super 14 in Australia only 4.
kingplaymaker said | October 1st 2009 @ 11:04am | Report comment
anopinion of course the fact that there are 16 teams makes the NRL stars look good, but they are good nonetheless, that much is obvious.
anopinion said | October 1st 2009 @ 11:36am | Report comment
Yes they are good at RL. It is a different game. Open field running with a defense back 10 metres off guaranteed possession, no rucks or mauls, centres always lining up on the same side of the field. Like Chess and Chequers, same field different rules, very different skills required.
anopinion said | October 1st 2009 @ 8:41am | Report comment
Rocky Elsom, played Union through school and into the Aussie Schoolboys. He can hardly be considered a leaguie.
Brad Thorn a good convert although he admits he struggles with any of the skill positions in RU. He can only play the basic roles of second row and blindside.
Robinson was a huge success. 2 out of about ten high profile converts makes it too much of a gamble.
RU has developed a few good players in its time also. Lynagh, Horan, Little, Loane, Wally Lewis, Ricky Stewart, Jonathon Davies, Larkham, Campese, Mortlock
kingplaymaker said | October 1st 2009 @ 9:41am | Report comment
anopinion you partly respond to my point, but more significantly as I said, they are now better at converting them.
Two english examples: instead of being rushed into the first teams too quickly, Shontayne Hape and Seven Myler were carefully introduced at a lower level and are great successes, where such players were rushed in too soon before.
anopinion said | October 1st 2009 @ 11:03am | Report comment
Kingplaymaker,
Pardon me. I did not respond to your point about the newly acquired success strategy for converting RL players to RU because I thought it was way off the mark. I have never heard of the two examples you have mentioned, thus perhaps their success is limited, perhaps not, I hsall due some research.
My example is Andy Farrell. His expensive recruitment was quite recent and he failed miserably. Not only failed but failed and was still selected in the English World Cup Squad. This I believe does more harm to a nation as the players who miss out become disgruntled. Another example is Mark Gerrard, Tahu was selected ahead of him and he is now overseas playing, we could have used him this season.
kingplaymaker said | October 1st 2009 @ 11:08am | Report comment
anopinion Farrell is in my opinion the one true failure. Admittedly he was brought on board far too old, at 30 I think! Crazy.
Nonetheless I think he was too slow for a back, and somehow wrong for a back row forward.
Basically the kind of player he is is just not effective in union, as a union prop would not be effective in league.
It doesn’t mean the right kind of players can’t convert though.
Another recent successful league convert in England, Danny Williams for Newcastle, 9 tries in his first 15 games, and playing for one of the weakest sides.
Working Class Rugger said | October 1st 2009 @ 1:20pm | Report comment
Chev Walker was another failure.
Working Class Rugger said | October 1st 2009 @ 1:19pm | Report comment
Shontayne Hape has had previous experience in Rugby so the cross over wasn’t to alien to him. Steven Myler has done a good job in converting. Has played for the England Saxons and regularly start in the GP.
kingplaymaker said | October 1st 2009 @ 1:23pm | Report comment
Working Hape had no experience in rugby, and Walker didn’t fail he strangely walked out just when he started succeeding, claiming his girlfriend was unhappy.
If you want a failure, Andy Farrell.
Knives Out said | October 1st 2009 @ 9:27pm | Report comment
How are Myler and Hape great successes?
kingplaymaker said | October 1st 2009 @ 11:47pm | Report comment
In their own terms yes.
Colin N said | October 2nd 2009 @ 1:39am | Report comment
Not this again!!
kingplaymaker said | October 2nd 2009 @ 1:44am | Report comment
Colin you are KO resemble each other but to be fair you prefer to make arguments rather than try and score points.
Knives Out said | October 2nd 2009 @ 1:44am | Report comment
Help me, Colin.
kingplaymaker said | October 1st 2009 @ 11:46am | Report comment
anopinion I think they are good though: it’s amazing how successful Robinson and Thorn were. They’re not good though because they play league, but because they have transferable skills.
Sandy said | October 1st 2009 @ 12:37pm | Report comment
anopinion-
Wally Lewis isnt a product of union , he played two years at school becuase he was asked to by his school. But he never stopped playing rugby league. David Campese played rugby league up until he was 17 and Ricky stuart played rugby league before he went to St edmunds and took up union.
Dogs Of War said | October 1st 2009 @ 9:43am | Report comment
It’s the Toyota Cup which the ARU should be targetting. Looking for guys with backgrounds in both games. These are the sorts of players which the next generation of Wallabies can be built on, and it should also wake up the ARU that they need a similar sort of thing. Maybe a Under 23′s (Or under 21′s with 3-4 over 21′s allowed) state based team, where all the states play against each other during the Super 14 Season. Anything to develop the next generation of player, who needs to play at a higher standard.
kingplaymaker said | October 1st 2009 @ 9:53am | Report comment
And who is this next generation of player? The fact is there isn’t enough of him. Union in Australia just doesn’t have enough players, at any age.
Dogs Of War said | October 1st 2009 @ 11:10am | Report comment
Way to go chicken little. Is the sky falling?
No one said the quality will be awesome straight away, but you have to put the system’s in that will allow players to develop.It is what is currently missing, a high level youth academy system.
You get each state running it’s own program, I am sure they would find the players to fill these teams even if as I said, hitting up the Toyota Cup, or raiding clubs colts programs. A little short term pain, for a long term gain.
It’s just a matter of building it. This solution can only succeed, while your proposed solution can fail quite easily, when Union supporters and players get frustrated with the free ride League stars are given.
kingplaymaker said | October 1st 2009 @ 11:13am | Report comment
DOW there are plenty of systems, but no good players to come through them. You imagine a massive player base which isn’t being developed, when in fact it doesn’t exist.
Dogs Of War said | October 1st 2009 @ 11:20am | Report comment
It is let to clubs to develop. This isn’t high level enough. You need 5 teams at least with juniors being delivered.
anopinion said | October 1st 2009 @ 11:04am | Report comment
Thus weakening clubs even further
kingplaymaker said | October 1st 2009 @ 11:23am | Report comment
DOW of course and that’s why there should be a national championship.
Working Class Rugger said | October 1st 2009 @ 1:28pm | Report comment
DoW
You’re right. If the ARU were to target league player’s in the future it should be at the Toyota Cup level. Doing this will give them enough time to develop in Rugby through the Club and Academy structures.
Rugby needs an U20 comp aswell. We have the the U20′s JWC on an annual basis.
cookie said | October 1st 2009 @ 8:18am | Report comment
Kingplaymaker,
I’m not necessarliy talking youth programs, rather the top players in club rugby.
I honestly doubt that rugbywould increase in popularity simply because one goose from league came across…. Sure there may be a bit more interest but do you really think that people will switch to rugby simply because of 1 or 2 players?
I would prefer to see a mass training camp for the best players in categories such as 1st grade, 1st grade colts, Schoolboy reps.
Rather than general training i would like to see positional training…and skill specific training across the board such as basic passing, rucking, etc.
So get the top 25 halfbacks in Australia and teach the poor buggers the basics of playing halfback….ie. passing would be a start. Enlist the help of the best halfbacks of the past such as Nick Farr Jones etc… or a different past player that was the best in each facet of play… ie. passing, kicking, running, defence….
Same thing for every other position… There should be no excuse at the top level for poor basic skills especially in there own position. Such as poor throwing from a hooker or poor passing from a halfback.
All the backs should be given extensive training for rucks and mauling and all forwards should be given basic passing and backline coaching. Why ?
How many times do you see a turnover at the breakdown because a backline player didn’t commit or know what he was doing… likewise how many turnovers or lost opportunities do you see because of poor passing or not understanding basic backline play do you see because a forward didn’t have the skill?
kingplaymaker said | October 1st 2009 @ 8:23am | Report comment
Cookie, my first point is that none of that would lead to an IMMEDIATE increase in the strength of the Wallabies, which is what is desperately needed now.
Secondly, bringing league stars over would lead to increased interest in union, and hence in a subtler way to a growth in player numbers, in addition to the damage it would cause league.
More or less, junior players will gravitate to the more glamourous sport.
sheek said | October 1st 2009 @ 8:33am | Report comment
Kingplaymaker,
Stuff the Wallabies, they make me sick. The sooner we replace the current lot with a new generation, the better.
(Sorry, an attack of Wallaby rage there, I’m better now).
What I mean is, trying to keep the Wallabies afloat is no longer the priority. That’s been done for the past 15 years, to what advantage? All the ARU has done, is tread water.
Okay, maybe that’s a bit unfair, but the game hasn’t added value significantly. Especially when compared to the other 3 footy codes, which we can’t ignore, no matter how else we might feel.
We have to turn back to the juniors, they are the future. We find ourselves in this mess precisely because we have been ignoring junior development. That & quality coaching at every level, which seems to have disappeared.
Let me repeat, the time for short-term quick fixes is no more.
kingplaymaker said | October 1st 2009 @ 9:26am | Report comment
Sheek I’m not saying that the juniors shouldn’t be helped, but I think a national competition is a far better way to do this than vague youth programmes.
The Wallabies are crucial to the popularity of Rugby in Australia, indeed, they are the one thing that separates it from league. Damage the Wallabies, and you have scrubbed out the game’s trump card.
Ideally league players would be bought to keep the national team competitive and add glamour whic brings in spectators and junior players.
On another level a national competition would afford playing opportunities to juniors, and more games to spectators in more location hence developing more spectator interest and so player participation.
mother teresa said | October 1st 2009 @ 1:03pm | Report comment
SHEEK,why is it that all the coaches of the wallabies esp head coach deans deflect criticisms of their contribution. deans hasnt got the background music of home and spouts forth the platitudes that serious and respectful players with mental toughness need only apply.the coach must surely have understand the culture prior to commencement and the resources available and a plan to succeed .to trot out the excuses for failure now is really a tale of how his tactics and selections were not the solution.ANY COACH COULD DO THAT is that all we get the obvious? deans tactics in 2003 rwc lost the game for the all blacks and now with the wallabies more of the same struggling against a weak ab team.the wallabies historically have always boxed above their weight with limited catchment so whats new;where is the change we must wait patiently for.
deans took over the crusaders and allblacks ,2 teams that had good momentum winning well ,now he has a challenge where he is being exposed.
sheek said | October 1st 2009 @ 2:43pm | Report comment
Mother Teresa,
Seeing is believing! It’s one thing to know what you’re getting into, another entirely to experience it. I’m sure you would concur with that.
Deans was the backs coach of the ABs in 2002-03. John Mitchell was the head coach. I don’t know how much latitude Mitchell gave Deans re strategy & tactics. Besides, the ABs lost a semi-final to the Wallas who played above themselves.
Otherwise, I would suggest the ABs record was outstanding. Two losses only, was it – one each to England (2002 or 03) & Australia (2003)?
Why berate Deans? If we were looking for an alternative to Deans, we would be looking at the guy’s coaching credentials obviously. At the time of his appointment, Deans was the outstanding candidate by far.
Anyone can appear wise & highlight someone else’s faults AFTER the event. We’re all geniuses with hindsight.
Deans has made mistakes for sure, but the major problems lie elsewhere – apparently collapsing junior development; loss of quality volunteer coaches; poor basic skills training; poor mentoring; no national comp.
You could say the Wallabies poor form is symptomatic of the ills bedeviling the game.
mother teresa said | October 1st 2009 @ 6:33pm | Report comment
fair enough but deans is no better than others is my point and paid a lot more
Jeff Baxter said | October 1st 2009 @ 9:19am | Report comment
You want to damage league? why?
kingplaymaker said | October 1st 2009 @ 9:27am | Report comment
Jeff don’t make any mistake: where one grows in popularity it does so at the expense of the other, taking fans and players. They can’t co-exist as they are fighting over the same turf.
sheek said | October 1st 2009 @ 9:46am | Report comment
KPM,
Playing the man & not the ball, so to speak, is doomed to failure.
If league were to falter, it should be because union got its act together, not because union played dirty tricks with league.
A man lives or dies by his reputation, & so does a sport.
It’s about making your game the best it can be, not necessarily better than anyone else.
League continues to survive & prosper because it concentrates on itself & what its good at, not what the other footy codes are doing.
This is a fact totally missed by union.
kingplaymaker said | October 1st 2009 @ 9:52am | Report comment
Buying some of their players is hardly a dirty trick. In fact, they used to do it union, remember?
The fact is that put one of each of the three players named in a Super club and you have a huge boost in live and tv attendance.
Then, a huge boost in Wallabies spectatorship.
All this at the same time as introducing a national competition, giving regular opportunities for watching a home team and big players, and you are attacking the market from all angles large and small.
Jeff Baxter said | October 1st 2009 @ 8:20pm | Report comment
I didn’t ask that. I asked why you want to see league damaged?
Rodney McDonell said | October 1st 2009 @ 9:22am | Report comment
Kingplayermaker
When lote, sailor and rogers went to Union, Union may have gained a little more exposure – However, this all coincided with the 2003 WC and i think that was the major factor.
Also, League did not suffer at all from loosing their players. In fact, it has gone from strength to strength and if you look at the statistics this year, It’s absolutely mind boggling what the TV Ratings and crowd figures say given they’ve had the most attrocious year off field thanks to several of their star players.
History has proven this has not worked before. Why anyone would come to the conclusion that this is the silvery bullet the RU are looking for is beyond reasoning.
kingplaymaker said | October 1st 2009 @ 9:29am | Report comment
Rodney league did suffer, but it recovered: it needs to be continually battered to keep it down.
Also, the influences are numerous, from young players wondering why all the top league players go to union and hence choosing it over league, to helping the national side, which is crucial.