Perhaps today they would, but if world rugby can get behind growing a global game then I could see player earnings in rugby dwarfing what could be earned in our other codes in the coming decades, at which point the kids follow the cash just like West Indies athletes focus on basketball rather than fast bowling. Paying some tail to get training/mentorship (at a much high level then today’s offering) might be a bargain. I could see a marketing campaign to young school leavers, join the world game, go to the olympics, earn mega bucks, travel the world, participate in world cups.

Employment law aside, if you had a contract that that split benefits/costs between
– the cash payments for playing;
– player development benefits they will receive (training, mentoring, other);

you could reasonably argue for a return or partial return of other benefits.

The ARU might even invest more money into its talent to create a truly world-class pathway. I could imagine a young athlete considering offers from different codes. If I go with Union I will x for x years and participate in this training program which I will have to pay back if I ever leave and take up a mega-deal (soccer level).

Did anyone notice how humble and grounded the Bok team members were after the game and the language they were using? It seems to me that the Bok culture has transformed under Rassie. They were not bad lads previously but the way they communicated seemed like they had been doing a bunch of personal/spiritual development or something. It reminded me of the AB players who for me are not just skilful but also great people and great leaders individually and collectively.

Can you imagine any of the Wallabies except for perhaps CL (who went through cancer) or Kerevi (devote Cristian) talking like Kolisi or Vermulen after the game?

The boks played great this year and are deserved champions, but for me I have so much respect for how they interacted with each other and then the media afterwards. I would be very proud to have that team represent my country and I think this leadership has probably contributed to their success.

If only some of the sporting teams/sportsmen in Australia conducted themselves with such class. Perhaps we would actually become a great sports nation once again. It was never going to happen with someone like Cheika for me the biiggest balls up we made was not appointing Jake White.

That’s an interesting consideration. I don’t know how good or bad that is. I imagine it’s just a commercial term in the contract and upfront setting of expectations.
In terms of player development, it seems like Nick White and Skelton have done all right in terms of development.
My thinking was a larger domestic comp might not be able to create or pay for world class players in the first couple of years. During this period there would be increased migration offshore and development of our players offshore.
With regards to the domestic model I would aim to increase our player base. I would position it as a viable pathway with the opportunity to travel the world and earn mega bucks in coming years to school leavers. I would also ensure that the local domestic comp is fed by the clubs rather than picking players straight out of school. We need the casual players to support their mates to get the domestic comp up and running as soon as possible.
Under a soccer style model we would then tap into a larger player base of former league and union players attracted by travelling the world and earning the mega bucks.

That is where the analysis needs to be done.
The cost base for star athletes would go down and the revenue from broadcasting would go down.
For me the key questions would then be:
Would more money find its way to the grass roots and would there be more engagement?
Can we attract more talent to the sport by promoting a global opportunity and global remuneration?
Would there be more engagement with the club scene if players fed into the rep teams rather than by passed the club scene?
Could we build a quality domestic competition over 5 years to match super rugby?
Can we outsourcing top end development of a larger player pool to the northern hemisphere for a period of time or even indefinitely on a partial basis to increase our competitiveness and rebuild the sport?
Would we attract more sponsorship if Rugby Australia was open and honest that the model is not working and change is required?

Further to the last post. Sponsorship dollars may come down and new broadcast deals would have to be signed. But if the ARU came out and was honest with the public I think you would get support and respect from sponsors and the grass roots.
Some sort of Allblack style reset and public announcement….. We have lost the hearts and minds, We are loosing the talent war. Pay TV has hindered us. We need a more compelling pathway to a good life. We need a system where the top performing club players feed into the rep teams so that you can go support your mate and feel connected. We need a system where there are no short cuts to the rep teams because it kills the grass roots connection with those rep teams. If you have talent you have to prove it.
We believe the future is to invest in our own national competition and the grass roots. It will create more entry and mid level professional opportunities but we may loose some of our top talent abroad for a period of time.
There is risk in this decision, but we have to try something because being mediocre is not in our DNA. We need your support. Not for one year but for many years. If you support us then we will support you. If you don’t support us then it may be the death of Australian rugby. If you support us then we could be great again in as little as 5 years. We have a new generation of players coming through, at wallaby level and through the under 20s. We need to attract more of the top talent that is coming out of the schools over the next 5 years to support that young crop of players.

Geoff, Australian rugby has been experiencing death by a thousand paper cuts for almost 2 decades. We have lost the talent war out of school and do not have the hearts and minds of the kids at grass roots level or the support of parents, meaning our rugby IQ and game sense is poor at senior level and coaching levels. The probability of us executing a successful wallabies team solves all issues strategy is remote at best. I just cannot see it happening again with our current model, and the introduction of 7’s at the Olympics means it is only going to get worse.

I like the soccer economic model and a withdrawal from super rugby as our best hope to get back to the top over a 10 to 15 year period. Let the overseas clubs pay for our top talent and take those funds and invest them back into grass roots and a national competition. The Australian club scene crowds have shown that talent does not necessarily lead to the highest engagement.

There would be a reduction in domestic union player salaries for a number of years but there would be a larger player base that would continually be refreshed by young talent committing to the game before heading overseas. Instead of stopping our players from playing abroad, we should promote it to kids leaving school. Highlight the massive difference in earning potential that is likely to occur in rugby vs league over the next decade and the adventure of travelling the world. Perhaps we could start to increase our ability to retain talent out of school and then gradually over time win back the heart and minds of kids and increase general rugby IQ.

One final point. Australia has the talent in league and union to be the best rugby team in the world. Our soccer team doesn’t. We just need to find a way to get people engaged and committed again and that is not going to happen with our current model and a successful wallabies team solves all problems strategy.

I have been thinking about this stuff for a while. Your post gave me the opportunity to share my thoughts with someone who has better capacity to influence the game in Australia. No particular gripes with your thoughts and not 100% sure about any model at present.

Yeah that would be good. It is probably the same stuff though, given tries scored was at the top of the list.
It would be good to give some of this sort of preliminary analysis to someone like Nick Bishop and to then see what he comes up with. He some times sounds like he is part way through a bottle of wine with the start of some of his posts (NB Philosopher mode), but he is easily the most interesting rugby writer/analyst I have come across and I don’t know whether he uses this sort of statistical analysis.

Not really the part of my post that I wanted a discussion on, it was a throw away comment based on some quick google research. I had hoped people might comment about what the root causes of a lack of rugby smarts being developed in Australia or that rugby smarts can be developed later on and that it was just bad tactics from management.

This is a great piece of analysis. I thought we played really dumb rugby last week. We tried to create tries through endeavour and possession, whereas the All Blacks put us in a lot of 50/50 situations with a greasy ball.

Your analysis shows that even in dry conditions our single game plan can not be consistently relied upon. Throw in wet conditions and pressure and it is a recipe to get slaughtered.

It just shows the wallabies don’t have a real feel for the game and how to win. Not sure how we breach this gap. I reckon the gap in the level of rugby IQ passed on to kids by their dads and the subsequent discussions in the play yard in Australia relative to NZ would be huge. 20 years later you see athletes representing the wallabies with out any sense for how to win games.

At least Japan should be dry and fast, so perhaps we will get through the pool stages.

I’m sure we could kill some time yapping on. Particularly if there is a game on. I am Sydney based.

We don’t know. We are making assessments on imperfect knowledge. Imagining we are the coach and what we would do if we were in his position.

Yeah we are missing the sharp shooter. Someone like Morne Stein. It is definitely a hole in the plan. There are lots of holes in the existing structures as well. I had hoped O’conner could tick that box. Maybe he will. We are going to need some luck at this cup to progress. I am not that concerned if we don’t. I just want to see some intent or method with how we think we can win. I feel much the same way about the overall management of rugby in Australia.

Thanks for your considered response. It would be good to chat about it over a pint. There are different ways to score tries. Territory, getting over the advantage line and scoreboard pressure resulting in the other team taking risks can result in more tries. Distribution is not the only way. I do agree CLL is less easy to target then Foley and gives us a bit more than Hodge in game management. I could live with CLL. I could also lith with with JoC or Tomua. For me the game plan is the key thing. Mobility and distribution is not sound when paired with any our options at 10.

I am just as happy with either of those two there or to swap JoC and hodge. I did wonder why the rebels done use him to kick when they are trying to get out of the 22. You think he is to slow to clear?

I do remember. If it is on, he may not hit the target and we won’t score as many tries like that. The question is do we gain more in defence and field position and in close running. I am not sure… I just no our current plan has not been working.

It’s an ok team.

The real problem is our game plan requires a strong 5/8 and we don’t have anyone that can do the job. Plus, the people that we put there end up being weak links in other aspects of our play.

Over the last couple of months, I have been thinking about whether it would be possible to redefine the role of our 10.

My analysis of our 10’s is:
– Foley is too small in defence, has zero distance in his kicking game, and was a running 5/8 who has now lost his pace. No one is really scared of his attack, they target his channel in defence, he is only an ok goal kicker and cannot kick the ball long.
– Lealiifano has a great story and is an ok player but once again no one is scared of him.

A new game plan: We have been building our game plan around attack and mobility. It’s not going to work at this cup. We will be knocked out at the semi’s if we are lucky, most likely the quarters. Instead of building our game around attack I think we should consider building it around territory, defence, and gain line. Pretty successful approach at world cups.

In this landscape, kicking length, size and speed, defence are attributes that become more important than distribution at 10. Creativity is still important for the team, but you look for it in other areas, in forwards that can offload, in a 9 that can probe, in a 12 and 13 that can bend the line and offload, and in a back 3 that can counter-attack and join the line.
If we were to select a team that was to be built around territory and defence and gain line.
– I could work with the pack selected above (but swap Pocock for Hooper in the starting line up).
– I would start White and finish with Genia in the 2nd half for the whole tournament.
– I would have Hodge as my primary 10 and Tomua as my backup to get us moving forward, hitting the line, kicking long, and defending strong.
– Kerevi and Kurindrani would get us over the advantage line and defend strong. Kerevi is pretty good at offloading.
– Beale and banks on the wings to finish, play field position, and add creativity.
– James Oconner at the back to kick goals

I think it would be a bit of a grind, but I believe this team and the game plan has more chance of getting us through to the Semi’s.

Very interested in People thoughts. It’s out of the box thinking that challenges the way we look at a 5/8 and play the game. I think it has some merit though.