The Roar
The Roar

kingplaymaker

Roar Guru

Joined August 2009

72.1k

Views

30

Published

12.7k

Comments

Published

Comments

Firstly a very good and well-researched article and takes an interesting and unusual angle.

I’d agree mostly with the conclusions. It’s always intriguing how much of a nation’s sporting success in development structures and taking what talent is there, however much, and perhaps with a much keener and more organised eye for identification, and then refining it to the greatest degree.

Olympic high performance units have often been exceptional at applying systems that dip down into every level below.

In fact that is one thing that can simply be decided and acted on by a governing body. It doesn’t need to appear organically.

However, Italy have managed to do this in spite of the horrendous decision twenty years ago to reduce their second tier footprint from 10 to 2 teams. There was no debate or issue as in Australia about being able to sustain the teams they had. It was simply hoped that joining the now URC would raise the national performance.

It sent it precisely backwards. It initiated the utter disaster of Italian failure of the past 15 years and it’s only just now, this year even, that there has been some improvement. Not ‘golden’, but somewhat better.

Who are the two worst performing of the SANZAAR/Six Nations teams for the past 15 years? Italy and Scotland.

What do they have in common? They reduced their national footprint to two teams and have had hideous results ever since.

In Italy’s case this is quite easily the stupidest decision in sporting history.

At least Scotland has an attempt at mitigation in being a small country of 5 million, but Italy is 60 million and one of the most spread out in having a very large number of separate mid-sized population centres.

This kind of sprawl needs multiples teams to cover more than any other rugby nation.

As a result of the absurdity of giving a nation of 60 million such a foot print, the northern heartlands which should have at least four teams in the Veneto, and Lombardy/Emilia-Romagna with three or so, have only one each (forget the rich history of towns playing each other), while one secondary centre Rome/Lazio has none, the other lesser centre Abruzzo nothing, and then the whole mass of populous cities and towns where the game might grow are empty: economic hub Turin, Bologna, Florence/Prato, Genoa, Rimini and the entire South. Nothing in Naples, Salerno, Bari, Basilicata, Calabria nor Sicily: Catania, Palermo and Messina.

For the hope of a quick fix in getting two teams in the URC Italy threw away 15 years of growing the game and its national interest. There’s little hope of those two winning anything and watching losing teams is hardly likely to interest anyone in Italy, let alone the 90% of the country in other areas. What they want is to see Italian teams play Italian teams across the country, with some Champions League variety on occasion.

There have been movements to leave the URC and try and actually interest the majority of the nation in domestic rugby. That’s the most urgent thing for them.

How Italy revolutionised their youth system to produce a golden generation – and what Australia can learn from it

Agree no point going against NPC which is a different tier as well, but it didn’t start last year until early august, so until then Super rugby could run as in Europe by continuing through the test tours from the north, and/or start earlier.

Australia does need a third tier national competition but for simply change that they might do without needing any upheaval which they seem to reject at the moment, just adding the Super AU finals and calling the inter-Australia matches Super AU would do something with little effort.

'Previous chairman can not be a scapegoat': First salvo fired in bid to spill the Rugby Australia board

The reason for the suggestion is that it’s closer to something RA might actually do. There are bolder alternatives that are preferable but they would mean a radical overhaul that I don’t think RA will contemplate.

The Trans-Tasman part doesn’t need to be shrunk. The number of games against New Zealand would be the same. The only difference is a final between the top two teams taken from a table of results between the Australian sides.

If you want more games than now the pre-season trials could be turned into full matches or the season could continue later.

But fundamentally it wouldn’t be that different from now in scale.

'Previous chairman can not be a scapegoat': First salvo fired in bid to spill the Rugby Australia board

There needs to be no more cost at all.

It would cost the same.

'Previous chairman can not be a scapegoat': First salvo fired in bid to spill the Rugby Australia board

Continuity can be achieved many ways, but speeding up restarts is different from extending in-play continuity. There is also variety in continuity-not simply forwards/centres trucking it up but wide, varied, elusive and skilful play.

WR's mooted law changes are great - but show there's a hell of a lot wrong with rugby in 2024, and that sucks

That would be more accurate as criticism.

Vunivalu set to be dropped for Brumbies clash as Reds recall off-contract Wallabies star

These are imperfections that Kiss should work to iron out. Also, ‘lazy in defence’. It’s never laziness at this level. Super rugby players are basically fanatics as is anyone in elite sport.

Vunivalu set to be dropped for Brumbies clash as Reds recall off-contract Wallabies star

First few matches he seemed to show improvement under Kiss so in the context of this season it’s looks like just blaming him for the loss.

Vunivalu set to be dropped for Brumbies clash as Reds recall off-contract Wallabies star

Knee-jerk reaction: better to try and continue improvements that react like this.

I’m not sure specific issues with Vunivalu this season are teething problems either.

Vunivalu set to be dropped for Brumbies clash as Reds recall off-contract Wallabies star

I’m not finding it at the moment but it was in the Daily Mail (which I don’t read!) about a year ago and there were 17 NRL players something like one each club.

More 'Scary Schmidt' than 'Sleepy Joe': Ireland tales that show the new Wallabies coach could be a polarising figure

Not having a national competition is one thing, but as the situation is what it is now for the current TV deal at least why not simply bring back Super Rugby AU and AO.

The absence of a second tier national element and final loses a ton of support and this was a way to have it while also keeping the Trans-Tasman competition.

'Previous chairman can not be a scapegoat': First salvo fired in bid to spill the Rugby Australia board

It seems completely obvious and I remember Brett Mackay saying why not keep it as it is. They could probably be played at the same time too as in Europe.

'Previous chairman can not be a scapegoat': First salvo fired in bid to spill the Rugby Australia board

Whenever the crowd won’t turn up because of Covid some money might be lost.

'Previous chairman can not be a scapegoat': First salvo fired in bid to spill the Rugby Australia board

Am looking. There were 17 NRL players I think-it was when Eddie Jones was considering which NRL players to get.

More 'Scary Schmidt' than 'Sleepy Joe': Ireland tales that show the new Wallabies coach could be a polarising figure

I know-that’s the joke.

If they focused on developing backs more and a more integrated 15 man back and forwards rather than 10 man forwards only game then they could have done much better, rather than just trying to avoid the issue by organising the rules in their favour.

WR's mooted law changes are great - but show there's a hell of a lot wrong with rugby in 2024, and that sucks

So what? They brought a groundswell of interest and satisfied as best as possible within the current format the desire for a national league as well as Trans-Tasman.

How on earth is it better without them? What has been gained?

'Previous chairman can not be a scapegoat': First salvo fired in bid to spill the Rugby Australia board

Yes, and let’s say the argument is made that the Trans-Tasman competition keeps that international element.

Fine, but that doesn’t need to go for there to also be Super Rugby AU and Super Rugby AO.

Both are possible.

So it still doesn’t make sense.

'Previous chairman can not be a scapegoat': First salvo fired in bid to spill the Rugby Australia board

Of course these laws, determined mainly by the British unions who control World Rugby (their behemoth Bill Beaumont is Chair) have not made any changes to the crucial element that stops running rugby and prevents any of the flightier passages of play.

The turnover.

The British teams realised that by making competition at the breakdown extremely fierce, they could effectively kill running rugby. When it’s easy to turn the ball over it leads to penalties and the ball being kicked out, which allows forward-based teams to win matches through lineouts, mauls etc…
The British isles teams with strong forwards can therefore find a way to win without needing good backs.

The result is that no team in the world can safely run the ball for very long and especially out wide. The risk of turnover is simply too great. So instead they kick it out or if running, just send in a ton of hit-ups as forwards can cluster around the runner to make sure they’re not turned over. No one will risk it ambitious running rugby.

So gone are the game seen as if on the fields of heaven played in the early years of Super rugby and with it the ability to draw in new supporters uninterested in watching the ball repeatedly kicked out.

The southern hemisphere and particularly Australia and New Zealand are too craven and weak in the face of the British Isles unions to demand a better quality of rugby.

So these new rules will do nothing to alter the form of the game which is currently skewed to make it impossible for true running rugby to exist.

No matter the drop in crowds in Australia, New Zealand, the growth of the NRL, RA and the NZR are simply too weak to stand up to dominating figures like Beaumont.

They will even see the game crushed out of existence and send their teams out to kick the ball all day before taking a stand.

WR's mooted law changes are great - but show there's a hell of a lot wrong with rugby in 2024, and that sucks

Why not just go back to Super Rugby AU+Super Rugby Aotearoa plus Super Rugby-TransTasman as in 2021 next year?
If more game time is needed change the pre-season trials to full matches or play through June.
Don’t have domestic followed by Trans-Tasman in that order but play matches from both throughout the season.
Costs no more and even though it’s mid TV deal the broadcaster could be asked for slight adjustment.
Why not?

'Previous chairman can not be a scapegoat': First salvo fired in bid to spill the Rugby Australia board

Indeed, but I still struggle to work out what they’re thinking here.

By the end of the pandemic there was Super Rugby AU and Super Rugby AO PLUS Super Rugby Trans-Tasman.

I simply don’t understand what the goal of eliminating the first two was. It can’t make the game wealthier, appeal more broadly.

It’s not as if the Trans-Tasman element had to be eliminated either.

It seemed to be adding something advantageous while losing nothing.

'Previous chairman can not be a scapegoat': First salvo fired in bid to spill the Rugby Australia board

It’s quite unbelievable that the reactionary Bill Beamont is still carrying the whip over World Rugby.

Next to nothing has been achieved for the expansion of rugby in the entire professional era.

The only improvements were when players from second tier countries became professional and there was a slight boost in the performances of their national teams.

Player numbers in Japan have declined while Argentina have made no actual progress, only taking advantage of weaker Southern Hemisphere rivals.

Italy despite a better year have gone backwards over twenty years while Romania and Georgia after the initial professionalism improvement haven’t advanced at all.

World Rugby under Beaumont’s influence and that of other amateur era fossils have utterly failed to advance the potential of rugby in the world and hardly maintain what’s here already.

What’s more the way the game is played is duller than ever. A mixture of mindless hit-ups and vast kicking duels where the point is simply to move the ball out of play as quickly as possible-so to respond to the question posed in the article-yes it is worse.

How far from the vision of pure rugby in the first running years of Super rugby.

WR's mooted law changes are great - but show there's a hell of a lot wrong with rugby in 2024, and that sucks

It would seem that however much they want to prioritise the Wallabies over everything else, still eliminating Super Rugby AU wouldn’t seem to do that as it would lose potential support and therefore money.

The thinking process behind cutting Super Rugby AU and Super Rugby AO is so utterly weird I can’t begin to see the logic from any point of view.

'Previous chairman can not be a scapegoat': First salvo fired in bid to spill the Rugby Australia board

Ok, so who took the decision that rather than continue Super Rugby AU and Super Rugby AO PLUS Super Rugby Trans-Tasman, the first two national tournaments should be kicked out?
His would have to be one of the most extraordinary decisions in rugby history.

'Previous chairman can not be a scapegoat': First salvo fired in bid to spill the Rugby Australia board

True but Folau was infinitely better.

Wonder kid offered 3-yr, $1.6m deal to stay in Aussie rugby - and why it could see Wallabies stars leave Ballymore

‘The talent spotting and quality of coaching under RA’s auspices and programs will ensure there’s a conveyor belt of high-quality talent to replace him.’

Easily the best joke in here for a while.

Wonder kid offered 3-yr, $1.6m deal to stay in Aussie rugby - and why it could see Wallabies stars leave Ballymore

close