I hate it as much as anyone, CB, but if laughingstock is the biggest worry, then I’m not too concerned. These sorts of things blow over. Look at SA now!

EJ’s has only made himself a laughing stock, not Australian rugby.

Eddie isn’t actually a bad coach. He made a strategic blunder, but if he sticks with his current team, his plan could still pay-off for the Lions and home WC.

Don’t think the Wallabies looked badly coached, just young, no experience or cohesion, and adjusting to a new way of playing. With all those factors at play, I don’t think any coach would have made much difference.

To be sure, picking a young team is on Eddie, but it was a decision he thought was right at the time.

Don’t think the ‘damage’ to Oz rugby is going to be enough to sack him. We still don’t really know what happened with Japan. All we can do is take Eddie at his word.

He does talk a big game, but I don’t think we need to pay that much attention.

I think the real issue for Aussies is we like to blame someone.

The WC was a flop, but truth is Oz rugby has been declining for a long time. No coach has proven to be the saviour. The real problem is elsewhere.

Nup

Can’t play more than 14 regular games in SRP. Can’t expect NZ to change their successful system. But you can play SR AU in second half of year to parallel their NPC

Yep, there’s always two sides to the story. You make fair points.

😂

I think the truth is somewhere in the middle.

I think Eddie sold a big game, and that has really backfired. He’s got a lot of self-reflection to do on that front.

But I think he really might have believed the team he picked would at least get out of the pool stage, and be the team in the future that would go on the win the Lions and next WC. In that light, I can understand his player selection and coaching selection.

I also think it’s possible to be committed and to check out a possible escape route. Not saying Eddie is blameless here, but that we should wait till we know the full story.

And I guess the point of the article is to make sure we’re not being hypocritical even if we do feel betrayed.

This is the real key for me. It’s the only thing that can make any significant difference to the Wallabies and Rugby landscape in time for the Lions and WC.

Still the easies, cheapest—and I would argue—most effective change is to play home and away SR AU in second half of year.

Find one extra team (Fiji Dura minus their test players) and it becomes 10 extra games for each SR team.

And could potentially be even be more effective for our SR teams than NPC is for NZ SR teams.

It doesn’t have to be the model in the future, but it needs to be the model for at least the short term.

Club rugby in NSW and QLD will suffer a bit by missing out on SR players returning—but that is the smallest cost of any change we can make.

Now imagine if Oz had two or three teams consistently in the SRP final. Imagine if we had our own ‘Crusaders’ or ‘Chiefs’ team! The difference it would make to SRP and the Wallabies would be huge.

There’s a reason NZ and Ireland don’t mind not having their own professional top-level domestic completion.

I reckon RA should get the chance to say clearly what’s going to change now, and to re-set and redirect Australian rugby. Not just suggest ideas, but implement a clear plan. There needs to be systematic and structural change. If we keep things the same, we’ll keep getting the same result.

RA and Jones need the chance to learn from this, re-set, and redeem themselves.

Changing the Wallabies coach again is not the solution.

It was a mistake to change from Rennie to Eddie when they did—but not because Rennie was so superior—but because the problem with the Wallabies is NOT the coach!

To be sure, Jones has taken a huge risk at this World Cup and it has backfired badly, but THAT IS A SEPERATE ISSUE.

Sacking EJ won’t solve the real problem.
Overall, in the end, there’s not going to be much difference between Eddie and Rennie. We’ve changed the coach so many times since the begging of the decline after 2003 with no coach able to stop the decline—or at least no ability to improve the Wallabies while the rest of the word has gradually improved.

The Wallabies are a product of the system that produces them as players. The coach has much less influence than we think. Not no influence, but much less than we think.

Up until about u20s there’s not a lot of difference between Oz players and NZ players. It’s pretty even from schoolboys to u20. But something goes wrong after that.

Spiro! How good it is to read an article by you again!

FYI, AJ tipped knights, but then says “sharks over knights” in his commentary.

Jacko, please tell me you seriously don’t believe that things haven’t changed because Aussies don’t want to listen to kiwis! This perception problem is worse than I thought.

Constructing the ideal system in Australian rugby is difficult because of how the game is governed.

Yes, exactly OB

Really think it’s almost impossible for the Wallabies to win with so many new combinations and so little cohesion between them, but really hope they show enough to inspire confidence in team for future games.

Then the financial side of things could be my blind spot.

Anyway, my suggestion was born out of the fact that I knew RA weren’t going to change the model just yet. So I thought we need to make the most of it.

The reason I like SR AU post-SRP over 3rd tier NRC is because (a) it will build better team cohesion with combinations and players continuing under the one coaching structure all year. The key is to make SR teams as strong as they can be, and (b) leave the right amount of room for club players to step up. I thought 7 NRC teams was slightly too diluted for player development to significantly increase.

I get the financial difficulties and know we are already losing players. But I really don’t think this model is dead yet. We just haven’t maximised it’s potential. I think we need to give this one more shot before we do something radical we possibly might regret down the track.

If we really could field 2-3 teams as consistently competitive as the Crusaders and Chiefs, that would be an absolute game-changer. That should be our goal up until about 2030. If we can’t make it work by then, I’ll follow your model.

Ahh, I can now see that I misunderstood NIck’s third option. We are in furious agreement.

Happy to disagree. The current teams with the current players could be far, far better in my opinion, with at least 10 extra games post-SRP season.
It would do for us what the NPC does for NZ SR rugby teams.
But I was mistaken in my criticism of your model as you pointed out. While I think my suggestion would be better and less risky and worth trying first, I think your suggion is also good.

You forgot the idea of playing SR AU after SRP.

Cheapest, easiest, most effective way to strengthen our SR teams. And that’s the key to fixing everything else.

If our top 2-3 SR teams were as consistently competitive as the Crusaders and Chiefs, that would (a) fix SRP and make 2nd tier rugby popular in Australia, and (b) make the Wallabies far, far more competitive than they are now.

Fair point Jez.

However, I still think SRP and the Wallabies have far more potential to bring in revenue and fans with stronger teams. I’m still convinced stronger SR teams would make a much stronger Wallabies than brining in players from overseas.

I should also say, if we can’t get to a point where our SR teams are as strong as the NZ SR teams, then no model will ever enable the Wallabies to be as strong as the ABs.

Strengthening the SR teams in the best way possible has to be the goal. SR AU post-SRP will do this better than NPC does for NZ

So glad this is being discussed. It really is the most important issue in Australian rugby.

Nick, why does the model need to “enhances our premier grade competitions below”? We all agree, they are fine as they are.

No third tier should ever be relied on to draw new fans to the game. That can’t be it’s purpose.

It’s sole purpose needs to be to strengthen the tiers above—SR teams and the Wallabies—as the means to draw new fans to the game. If a 3rd tier achieves anything more than that, it is a bonus.

Yes, it’s still the same top down approach. But it’s what all the successful rugby countries do. And it works. We just need to do it better than them.

If the Wallabies were consistently winning, or had the ability to consistently win, we would have no problems. This is already tried and true. Revenue and fans and media attention and participation rates go up when the Wallabies are winning. Just look at 1998-2003.

No second tier can ever draw new fans and revenue in the way the Wallabies can. Let go of SR and we won’t have a 2nd tier that will match the NRL. We will have a second tier less popular than A-League.

The very best way to strengthen the Wallabies is to strengthen the SR teams below them. The very best way to strengthen the SR teams is to play home and away SR AU post-SRP. Test players and Australian A players would come and go. There would be enough room for aspirational club players to step-up. Even our best player’s development would accelerate in stronger cohesive SR teams.

Imagine if Australia could field 2-3 SR as consistently competitive as the Crusaders and Chiefs! Crowds would flock to watch SRP. It would completely fix the 2nd tier comp. Revenue would come in. We wold no long long for our own domestic comp.

And not only would it fix 2nd tier, but the Wallabies would be far, far more competitive than they are now. It would take us back to, and keep us at, the glory days of rugby being as popular as it ever had been when it rivalled NRL in popularity and participation.

And the best thing of all. This fix is also the cheapest and easiest to make.

Why change the current model before trying to make the best of it? If this idea doesn’t work, then feel free to revolutionise. But at least try it before risking too much.

“They hate the vitriol that comes after the Wallabies win and they hate the BS that constantly goes on before a match, but not the Wallabies, thats their fans.”

Ouch! kiwis are usually the masters of the subtle backhander, but this one just lets the spite rip! ????

Having said that, I think it’s a fair comment and agree with it—except to say that I think the hate mostly comes from kiwis (probably because they have to put up with it the most????).

We Aussies have plenty of faults and we need to recognise that.

While kiwis can be over-defensive and sensitive when they don’t get the respect they crave, Aussies can be too mouthy in their confidence, and be too quick to blame others instead of taking responsibility.

This plan has my support.

The true test of whether Australian rugby is improving is we can strengthen all 5 SR teams from within. Imagine if we were able to field two or three teams as consistently competitive as the crusaders or chiefs?!

That’s what our goal should be.

It would be the key to fixing everything. SRP would become a great competition. It would explode with new fans. Revenue would increase.

The Wallabies would become far, far more consistently competitive, bringing back fans and revenue alike.

And the most effective way to achieve this is the idea of the SR teams playing in a post-season comp from late July onwards—home and away with finals.

Wallabies and Australia A players would come and go leaving enough room for aspirational club players to step up before SRP.

This is the best way to build combinations, cohesion, coaching-effectiveness, and more game time for non-test SR players.

I agree with all that.