Winston, I agree with you in many respects. I suppose my comment regarding his potential is based around what people who watch expect a sportsperson to be to qualify as a success. Like anyone in any job as you mention, you do have to uphold certain standards, and to be fair in his chosen career, he doesn’t get fired for poor performance or bad attitude.

I think modern tennis has been heavily influenced by what could be termed the Federer effect. Obviously, (in my opinion the greatest player of the modern era), Federer has enjoyed supreme success all with relative modesty and calmness. I have noted before the last time i saw him smash a racquet was in 2009 in Miami. The crowd on that occasion could not believe it. Lately, we see more and more players such as Djokovic and Murray expressing themselves negatively on court. Djokovic has an extreme temper that he has tamed since hi early days, but still holds him back for even further heights. Murray is nothing but negative. However, we except this because they win. So it is interesting that such behaviour is acceptable to a degree because these players are proven winners. The same with Johnny Mac.

It seems unfair that if we were to apply this logic to our workplaces, that if your most successful employee occasionally loses it big time, has a go at someone at work etc that that would be ok because they are good or successful at their job. Ive experienced people losing it at work as Im sure many have, much in the same way as Djokovic or Kyrgios does in their ‘Job’ and it just passes by. Obviously thats a tenuous argument as im sure you agree.

And just to clarify, I would argue that he does perform regularly. My point is we dont seem to care for his actual play, rather we care when he causes an issue. Being a top 20 player is for many players, a career goal and a highlight that many will never enjoy, winning a tour event, just one, is an achievement. Most do not get there.

I enjoy a hit of tennis regularly, and i can recall a time i hit up with an english bloke who was ranked around the 500 mark. He was an amazing player compared to me but he had given up as a young bloke because it is just too hard to breakthrough. Have no doubt that of all the players we watch on TV, they are indeed the cream of the crop, the best players of the moment.

I wouldn’t be surprised if Kyrgios finishes in the top 10 this year, and even if he doesn’t win another tournament, his daily job is to acquire ranking points and at the moment he is consistently doing that, performing better each time, over the year before.

The Bunker just feels like a rebrand. Its alarming to think that the NRL probably paid a branding or some type of consultant to come up with the idea. A few more screens, a more officious monotone voice track, it all screams of change for changes sake. Every sporting review process is going to have pitfalls and problems, so I don’t hate it but the point of it seems lost on me.

Great summary of that important change. It sort of tracks back to an older day of how mauling used to be (I think…)

Yeah the Federer surgery worries me. I love the bloke, he is the GOAT but that will only make it harder for him to get back. Have a look at his 2013 when he had the back problems, it was his worst year out of many. He still has the ability and drive to do it. I wouldnt be surprised.

I was very impressed with Milos Raonic at the Aus open this year. The big serve has been worked on again, and now he is moving forward a bit better, in fact probably too much. However that addition has altered his game massively, he is not just a big server now, and he is beating top 10 players frequently too.
He was unlucky against Murray i thought in the Semi, it was the worst match he played of the two week event.

Absolutely right.

I agree paying them for mismanagement is not the way. However part of the problem that has leeched down the levels of Aus rugby is that with the increased professionalisation of sport and of rugby of the last decade or so, players expect payment.

A few (many) Shute Shield clubs fell/continue to fall into this trap of using up funds to secure players. Again, I agree not the best way to use members money, or ARU grants. However, that is not entirely the clubs fault that they are presented with a situation where it is the norm for players to expect payments of some kind, even down into colts. Players expect gym memberships, uni books, and fees paid, or “ill go and play somewhere else”…

Again Ill say many clubs have gone about it poorly, but it is hardly their fault if such a new cost to their operation become apparent. Maybe a removal of the ability to make payments to players could level the playing field?

Its easy to see why some of the Western Sydney clubs find it difficult to survive when they constantly lose players to other clubs who offer better perks. Then no good players equals no good sponsors which equals no leg to stand on.

Maybe this could be an option. If the ARU truly believe Shute Shield is not an elite pathway for pro rugby that doesn’t need funding then remove the ability for clubs to pay players. At the moment the ARU sees them as non professional but if you pay people to play rugby in any capacity that makes them quasi professional (at least).

There are a growing number of Rugby and sport based academies that develop young players.

And yes its true Shute shield clubs cant develop players form their birth but as we have all mentioned earlier many of those clubs have junior teams or affiliations anyway that feed into colts and then grade.

Even when a Shute Shield club ‘recruits’ a player from schools or whatever its pretty harsh to say that they dont develop players from that age between when they are 17 to 20 and then leave colts. A hell of a lot of learning is going on at this period in a players career.

From my experience many players dont make the cut at colts and then grade who have played at the highest levels of school and other forms (not Aus Schoolboys etc). For whatever reason the pace of it or whatever is just a step too far.

What would happen if club rugby (shute shield) was not there? Do you think there would be any significant issues with that happening for rugby in Australia?

Just looking to see the ARU allocate proportionate amount of funding, definitely not saying shute shield or club rugby is the most important format. ARU increased participation fees partly to help fund the shute shield broadcast with Club Rugby TV/Channel 7 as far as i know. If they had funded it totally I would see that as sufficient support for club rugby (or more directly shute shield).

http://www.greenandgoldrugby.com/australian-rugby-foundation-a-grassroots-lifeline/

Its clear that many of the clubs are their own worst enemy, and by no means should they be funded carte blanche…

Ferrer does have an very prolonged grunt that does increase in length and decibel as he becomes more desperate or needs more energy. I suspect that if you apply my gym exhale test on David Ferrer’s grunt you would find it not acceptable, and I would agree with that.

Watching Murray last night though, his is more an effort thing as you can see that when he moves laterally for a wide ball his inhales are audible. The grunt is a mens and womens issue it seems though.

It might come down to the rival player complaining to the umpire about it for any action to be taken. Im trying to think of an instance of that occurring, because I know it has, but I dont know an exact one to quote. You would find that if the player complains enough the umpire might have to act, by at least asking or making it known to the grunting player that the other player has found the sound distracting.

I have heard that also. Good point.

What kind of measures do you think they could implement? Point penalties, games etc?

You could argue for a number of players entering on the tour ending other players careers (or something like that). For instance the appearance of Federer and the twilight of Sampras (even though a brief one).
Further you could argue… Federer and in walks Rafa and Novak. Of course Fed has won titles etc and slams during their ascendancy but you could also argue that had it not been for Nadal and later Djoko the Fed would have won 25+ slams… would have, could have, should have.

Hewitt is a great example of a real sportsperson. What it takes to maintain a certain level both mentally and physically. As far as i am concerned a player in the top 100 (granted LeyLey is no longer – currently 306) or someone who has maintained thta standard for the majority of their long career, that achievement alone is unbelievable. That what makes Federer’s run of top 10 finishes, 302 no.1 weeks, 17 slams and every other accolade so much more amazing.

LeyLey is the modern day Ken “Muscles” Rosewall” without the number of slams. But similarly a flourish of activity in his early career and then some more action at the very end. gain, not exactly the same because im talking about LeyLey winning ATP250 events in Brisbane and Halle for example in the last few years.

The only thing that has probably pushed him to retirement is injury. You could see how uneasy he was the other day at the Fast4 event when Kyrgios was going on about how he was amazing and leaving the sport. He doesn’t want to stop but he knows he should, and that he’s probably sick of the pain of all those long term injuries. I hope not to read an article about “The Great One” Fed, however he has copped slack the last 7 years saying he should retire. Remember when they speculated and said all that about Fed (End of an era it was)…then he won Wimbledon in 2012… and has subsequently made 3 slam finals since…not bad for an old bloke who should retire!!

Different teams react to different situations in many ways. To say that one way is better than another is hard to do. Everyone reacts however they react. Removing the impulsive nature of sports players makes it a bit robotic. I think both teams played within the spirit of the game during the series, there were no real issues.
NZ decided to go about it one way and thats not the way that Australia go about. No big deal. How boring would sport (cricket) be if every team just smiled at each other and congratulated each other at every milestone and every wicket.

Its a competition when it boils down to it. Both teams are hopefully out there to win. With competition comes emotion, bad and good. So be it!

Absolute classic! Very good!

Shute Shield was on free to air this year (on 7Two and the final on the main 7 channel). However good this was and bad it was that the ABC stopped its telecast, the clubs took a significant hit financially (and culturally) in the eyes of some of their long time supporters to prop up the 7 telecast.

I still think its a good thing but a better balance needs to be found so that the clubs can funnel money into development of players and juniors and not television. Its the old double edged sword, both need each other so its hard to find a balance.

I didn’t call him a cheat Stu. The best thing about rugby is that it’s always a contest. For the ball, for space and mentally.

I think the Wallabies have a plan how to beat the ABs and without doubt they have some thoughts on how they will get us. One of which I imagine will be to restrict Pocock every way possible. The breakdown has always been about more than just the contest for the ball. It’s the place the real contest happens, physically and mentally. That’s essentially what I’m saying.

I suppose we will find out soon enough, no?

Could not agree more with this article. Bray is a great commentator, a rugby brain and expert and lovely bloke too. Credit where credit is due. nice work!

Someone finally said it.. Well done Ronan.

I have to agree that I do not think Phipps actually plays at the ball, and given the speed of the incident Joubert only had a split second to make a call on it.

The only thing I have heard from a reliable pro refereeing contact is that given the moment could be seen as a 50/50 call, it would always be the position of the referee to award the lesser of two charges. In this case a scrum to Australia. However, I still don’t believe Phipps actually plays at it and only makes contact with the ball on his lower arm as he is barged forward by the Scottish bloke behind him.

How do all the other pro refs feel when the leading international referee from all accounts is thrown square under the on coming traffic so as not to tarnish the tournament? I can tell you they are worried about it. Remember Bryce Lawrence during the 2011 Cup, he didn’t ref again after that…

It doesn’t say much for your game when the world body smashes the officials publicly. Just a small blight on already amazing tournament.

I like Greg Martin as a commentator but I thought his comments on O’Cconnor were pretty harsh and had that bitter taste of a disgruntled Reds supporter. I didn’t think it was necessary to smash him while he is down. Poor form I say.

I reckon Wally got the tap on the shoulder from Tennis Australia to (help) bury the hatchet with Tomic. Up until this point Wally has been Kyrgios’ biggest supporter in the media and commentary. I think its strange that he wouldn’t back him when it came to this tie with Britain.

I cant see why else they would drop him because its only Kyrgios that will give Murray a shake. Tomic and Kokk wont last against him now particularly after Muzza has had an extra week off from being knocked out early in the US open.

Interesting to say the least.

Totally agree.

The only person Shane Watson can blame is Shane Watson, and he is/was the first person to question his position, to understand the reasons why he would get dropped.

He showed us all how hard it was to crack elite sport but he never stopped trying to get there.

I think he should be exalted for his continued commitment and effort. Good on you Watto!

There has got to be an investigation into this…!