Olympic sevens rugby is key to player numbers

I forgot to include Durban as one of the ten IRB Sevens tournaments

MikeN You don't give up do you. You want it all on your plate straight way when the decision to include rugby sevens for men and women in the Olympics was only taken two years ago. The Australian womens sevens team will be competing at the World Sevens Cup in Moscow in June next year with 16 other nations (24 nations will be competing in the men's tournament). The best of this years school leavers will be able to compete for places on the team through sevens programs in the the 6 states and 2 territories and the annual national championships. Australia are the defending women's World Cup champions. Prior to Moscow they will be competing in IRB tournaments in at least Dubai, Las Vegas, Hong Kong and London. The intention of the IRB is for women to compete along with men at all IRB tournaments, ie. La Plata, Gold Coast, Dubai, Wellington, Las Vegas, Hong Kong. Tokyo, Glasgow and London. Not a bad incentive for a keen Australian sportswoman to try their hand at rugby sevens. And then there's Rio in 2016 and I'm sure Rugby sevens for women will be included in the 2018 Commonwealth Games - at the Gold Coast in fact.

We are not saying that at all Zippa but when you leaguies say sevens suit league players and sevens is closer to league than then that is BS. Change the record sevens is rugby union and can be played by anyone some takes time and some pick it up straight away.

There were actually many public and league schools who took part in the Queensland tournament and Nudgee, Brisbane State High, Ipswich Grammar and Keebra Park went through to the semis.

There were actually many public and league schools who took part in the Queensland tournament and Nudgee, Brisbane State High, Ipswich Grammar and Keebra Park went through to the semis.

Even though those names were Kiwis and English internationals I think Zippa was waiting for their SOO resume to be mention as thats the pinnacle of rugby league.

I didn't know a Kiwi international player is regard as "little impact in league" .

For god sake the ARU will be pleading with all the Wallabies that played on saturday against SBW not to leave when their contracts are up. Were they all success?

Matt a great debate and i have enjoyed it with you. And i think we have come to the conclusion the word balance i the key. Spain i didn't know the stats, but as you opined them out a good balance. England has gone overkill. But i think 5 per super rugby team is fine in Aust/NZ/Sth africa -Alot of the kiwis you mentioned are frontliners with extended squads a manna tuilagi type would be a starter an deb great for them he wool dbring in moor money than a average outage squad member who fills in. SO i disagree i think kiwi rugby would benefit. -I also believe comps are there to help internationals, so i think if the kiwis catch up to aussies in league that has been good what do we want utter dominance worse than what the ab's have that is not healthy for the sport. -I also think a tuialgi or a wilkinson would draw the crowd but we can agree to disagree. Also improts will become more valuable in NZ as more an dome will leave for urope despite the next v deal being bigger so much money in euro rugby and japan rugby.

Ok then Johnno, giving you specifc answers to these question might just help me get my point across to you...it's all about balance. Messi and Beckham have been great for Spanish soccer. The reason being because the Spanish national side has gone on to dominate the international game and their specific clubs (Real and Barcelona) have also continued to dominate at a club level. The Spannish domestic competition is called La Liga. They have around 38% foreign players, which is the least of the big 5 European domestic football competitions (EPL, Budesliga, Seria A and Ligue 1 being the others). This has allowed the spannish to pick up only quality signings (not always high priced marquee signings either) to give their local players a better level of competition, to sell memberships and tickets and MOST importantly without blocking all the pathways so enough young players are coming through to the national team. Contrast this to the English Premier League, which has around 63% foreigners. Great for the Premiership as a competition, with plenty of big names and lots of good players. BUT, the pathways for local talent have been blocked and the national side has suffered because of this. One Chris Gayle is fine, as is a quota limit in the Indian Premier League. In both cases they have made the competition more high profile and made more fans (and kids watch). But if India just allowed any player from around the world, so long as they are good, then the Indian team would struggle to develop talent. The NRL is not a good example as there are not many nations who can genuinely compete with Australia at international level. There are a huge number of foreign players, mostly from NZ with a handful of Englishmen, in the NRL. But already you can see that it has lead to a Kiwi win at the world cup, despite the still massive advantage Australia holds from so many more pro players. Which brings us back full circle to NZ rugby. Who are the current Bledisloe Champions, World Cup Champions, Super Rugby Champions and heavy favourites for the Four Nations champions. This season they've had big TV audiences, large crowds and consistent success. Why would they need to change their system to bring in more import?. They don't need a Tuilagi when they've got a Nonu, Kahui, Smith, Fruean, Ellison and Williams already. Not to mention a new young generation of Pacific Island stars of tomorrow like Saili, Savea, Piutau and Nanai-Williams. If there was a gap in the talent pool, like at the Cheifs this season, then the NZRU allowed three World Cup playing Pacific Island internationals. But they also make sure that with only 5 teams they don't block too much local talent. The Irish have now also taken note. They have placed a restriction of the number of foreigners in Munster, Elsom and Thorns's Leinster and Ulster. The IRFU know they only have 4 teams, so they have said that only 15 foreigners, one per position, is allowed in these 3 main clubs. That's 5 foreigners per squad on average. The Irish provinces have done really well with the limited amount of foreigners they've bought, but there is now a realisation that the trend is damanging the future prospects of the national team and that a limit now is the best balance. So, to conclude it's all about balance. The NZRU doesn't need many/any imports. The Spanish and Irish have got a good balance. The English football and French rugby have got it too far in favour of the clubs and the ARU has got it too far in favour of the Wallabies (which is actually hurting the Wallabies due to a weak conference).

An interesting post Matt but I have only just seen it and so you probably wouldn't see a long reply if I wrote one. If you are still reading this though say and I'll reply.

you probably think Matt too the aussy rugby league team has been damaged by al the kiwi import and the english ones too in the NRL. And you probably think Maradoona was a bad buy in his prime for itlain soccer club Napoli in the 1980's,as he blocked local in itialin soccer.

So was David Beckhambad for spainsh soccer, is messi bad for spanish soccer they have blocked paths for a spanish local, as did zidane,. Was it bad maradona played italian soccer and blocked the path of an itlaian. Is it bad that chris gaily played T20 cricket in OZ blocking the path of an average aussy. Or should i add kevein epterson too wanting oto play in oz, is cricket australia sending the wrong message out to young cricket players in OZ. -Is it bad that souths have signed 4 burgess brothers from england plus kiwi issac luke. -Is it bad brad thorn played irish rugby this year blocking the path of a young irish rugby player matt. Giv emoe some more answers to my examples given on imports. -Is it bad imports play country cricket in england. -Fans of real madrid and barcelona matt only care about winning and standards not about locals or imports, just the best players that will insure there club wins. -And spanish soccer won the world cup, and thank the star improts for contributing by bringing in massive revenues in tv ratings $$ to help pay for gate receipts. -NZ rugby would love a Manu Tuilagi, or a O'driscoll in his prime or a wiklinson, or a big argue prop, like a Noreiga who played for wallabies , or some of those fence forwards are you saying matt Theirry dusaotir would not be handy his experience for the young super rugby players, and same with Johnny wilksinson in his prime. -or a Martin johnson or a lawarnce daliigo, or a Jason Robinson in his prime.

I think it's pretty clear that 7's should be rolled out on a few platforms. Firstly, junior levels (as mentioned) tend to be played with reduced numbers per side. In the UK they're experimenting with as few as 4 per side for the really young ones. This allows each kid to touch the ball more, so passing skills and spacial awareness go up. It also means a team is easier to form, as less kids are needed. This is the perfect link to provide an obvious pathway from youngsters to senior Sevens players. Sevens should also be used as a Summer spectator option. It can be played in tournaments, so doesn't require huge week to week commitment. The proposed school kid series are a brilliant example of how to create a framework to get more people having a go. The biggest issue right now (and in the future) is probably publicity. Because it is a tournament only game, not a week to week league, and because you don't get the current stars of the Rugby codes playing it, you also don't get a lot of print media or TV coverage promoting/advertising it. Maybe the ARU could look to also create more prizemoney type tournaments, where the winning team (regardless of where the players are drawn from - League, Aussie Rules, Cricket etc) pick up a cash prize. This might attact amateur and semi-pro players who can put together a team of mates and have a go at the game. There might be a couple of gems found at each tournament who have what it takes to go fully pro. The other MAJOR factor, that no one has mentioned yet, is that it is surely a matter of time before a professional club type series is started somewhere. The biggest factor that affects the current Sevens game is the simple fact that the money in 15 a side Union and League is much larger than the HSBC Sevens series or any other level of the Sevens game. But that migth not always be the case, certainly not the same degree. It is quite right to state that no right minded NRL player would quit a lucrative contract to spend a season learning Sevens ahead of the Olympics. Similarly, you won't see any All Blacks giving up on the 2015 World Cup or the 2016 Super Rugby season to take a pay cut in order to go for Olympic glory. BUT, if there existed a Sevens Pro Series, with maybe 8-12 sides, who played a series of tournaments over 6-8 weeks during the NH summer... It would dovetale perfectly following the conclusion of the HSBC World Series a before the Olympic games. That would provide a guaranteed income stream leading into an Olympics games and might provide enough cash to see THE best rugby players in the World opting for Sevens. Because, unless the sport can produce athletes which the fans believe are the best in the World then it will forever be a novelty for players who can't quite nail a full time XV a side contract. And if that continues to happens then it will never be the powerful tool it can be for attracting talent on a stand alone basis.

The point Johnno is there IS enough imports in NZ because the NZ Super teams keep out performing the South African and Australian sides. And the All Blacks keep beating South Africa and Australia too. It is a system of merit, where if there is a foreign player who is better than a NZer they can be signed. But NZ has so many good players that it doesn't need to bring in loads of extra talent. The NZRU are simply protecting the quality of the teams NZ puts out on the park at both regional and international level. Why would the NZRU want to bring in inferior players, who'd make their Super sides worse AND also block places for potential All Blacks at the same time. The NZRU don't need imports. The French clubs do and so do the Australian Super sides right now. Imagine that the ARU had the same policy as NZ. If they could sign a foreigner so long as there wasn't a local guy of equal or better quality then you'd have most teams half full of foreigners!! NZ doesn't need a Wilkinson or O'Driscoll to draw crowds. James Haskell was barely good enough to get a starting place for the Highlanders and just gave away too many penalties. NZ is the best example of why protectionism CAN work, as they win at all levels. They also produce the best coaches as well at present so don't need imports there either. For the ARU it should be about improving the quality of their Super teams so their home grown players are facing worthwhile opposition each week. For the Pacific Islands, they are always going to have to find avenues to get their players pro contracts, because they don't exist in the Pacific Islands. NZ has 5 pro sides, compared to over 20 pro sides in France and as many again in England. That is why there are more Pacific Island players over in Europe and now Japan(there are simply more teams and more money). Not to mention the number of NZers of Pacific Island decent who have then pledged allegiance to the Islands (particularly Samoa) having been groomed in a NZ Super Rugby environment first. Lelia Masaga will probably be the next to do this, possibly followed by Robbie Freuan and Tim Nanai-Williams.

No Matt i take your point but hardly enough imports in NZ rugby. NZ 5 super rugby squads about 150 contracted players only a handful of imports very protectionist: Those 3, plus Tusi pusi, and James Haskell. 5 out of 150 contracted players harldy inspiring opening the flood gates is NZ rugby. And they the NZRU have a rule they only allow PI players when there is no player they think up to super rugby standard. A silly attitude . NZ would love a johnny wilkinson, or a brian o'ddricoll or the other star PI players who will never represent NZ.

Players from U6 to U8 play 7-a-side as part of the modified game format but we call it Wallace and Mn Rugby. Why wouldn'twesimply call it 7s an the kids would feel far more engaged to the adult game form. Rugby 7s will change world Rugby an unfortunately Australia is behing Asia and North America on investment in this form of the game.

How about Sona Taumalolo, Mahonri Schwalger and Kane Thompson in the Chiefs this year Johnno? Perfect example of the positive impact that import players can have, but also a perfect example of SANZAR not being the protectionist policy makers you think they are.

I agree with Ian and Johnno here Mike. Foreign imports are drastically needed in the Australian super sides. They don't have to all be superstars, but one per team wouldn't hurt. But basically the ARU is currently spending too much money on Australian players who aren't deserving of that level (yet). There would be plenty of Pacific Island and Argentinean players who would be excellent value for money for the Australian franchises. What this would do is immediate increase the level of skill and intensity in the Australian conference and give a better product to the fans and also improve the ability of the Australian players. Then, when you do have young guys who are good enough they'll learn more quickly and be able to step up to test match level quicker. Over time the ARU would then look to phase out the foreign quota (down from 5 per franchise initially, to 4 and then 3 over the course of 4 years) towards the introduction of the a 6th franchise. Then you would put the quoate back up to 5 again to keep the intensity up as the talent evens out across the squads. This method wouldn't actually cost the ARU any more money. It just means more money will be going to foreigners than Australian players. But the teams know that they need to retain tomorrows young stars, so the people who would miss out of contract money would be the journeymen players who probably don't deserve it anyway. I'd also look to reintroduce the academies to each franchise, with a salary cap ($500K for both the playing, coaching and support roster), and have them play a domestic home/away competition in parellel to super rugby.