And your point about kicking is,,,?

Thelma, absolutely correct. Teams win games when everyone does their part – sometimes even that isn’t enough. The whole system has to work and discounting the importance of any contribution appears to suggest that those who do so don’t understand the game – not true for contributers here but it does look like it at times.

Every team and individual flaw has an impact. Missed tackles, dropped balls, bad lineout throws, dropped scrums…but such flaws are often lost in the run of the game. No goal kicker ever won/lost a game by themselves. Unfortunately for kickers the immediate impact of their flawed effort is palpable in terms of points, and team perceptions of how things are going. A kick made at any time means points and almost always gives the team an important psychological boost.

MB, Scotland was not much to look at during Paterson’s run. However, the team knew that he would not let them down if they got anywhere near kicking range. Did he improve their performance? I’d say that he did. If you recall any of their matches during that time frame they battled on knowing that it was always going to be worth it to attack and get at least within kicking range. Patterson by himself could not improve the others but he gave them a legitimate sense of purpose so they did not give up.

The Wallabies have systemic flaws that have plagued them for some time. However, suggesting that kicking is not a high priority is akin to suggesting that the elastic in their shorts isn’t something to worry about. The fact that no one thought Giteau would miss the sitter in the England test speaks well for him generally, but the worry that such things can happen at all is highly problematic. The Wallabies had the match won with that kick – not – but that wasn’t the only one and best case scenario would have been that it did not matter at that point. But it did. Details count – including those from the first minute of the game and players and particularly kickers at the test level need to get a grip on that much more so than the current Wallabies. Each missed tackle, inane penalty, dropped ball has repercussions, psychologically and often in terms of points. Unfortunately for kickers the world is focused on them when they go about their bit of business. A hooker who cannot consistently deliver a ball at lineouts is just as much a liability but the spotlight shifts much more quickly.

Scottish rugby hasn’t been much to watch in recent years, but both Patterson and Parks (an Aussie) have both been instrumental in providing a lot of points, winning kicks and hope. A more efficient goal kicker, however boring, would be a blessing – keeping the scoreboard ticking over right from the beginning is just as important as making that last match winner. That match winning opportunity isn’t even there in most cases because the kicking efficiency isn’t there throughout the match.

Between Giteau, Cooper, O’conner, Beale, etc. we have the kicking talent. I’m not convinced that they are sufficiently ‘professional’ about their obligation when given the responsibility.

For absolute, metronomic consistency I believe the stats would support Scotland’s Chris Paterson as the best ‘test’ match kicker of recent years. I am not sure about really long range (perhaps someone else had a go), but on the Wikipedia Chris Paterson site the following indicates he was 100% for almost a year – ‘Paterson successfully kicked 36 consecutive goals for Scotland between 11 August 2007 and 7 June 2008, not missing a single attempt during the 2007 Rugby World Cup or the 2008 Six Nations Championship.’ His recent test record has been skimpy due to relegation to the bench. His teammate Dan Parks is also no slouch but hardly in Paterson’s league.

Apparently it can be done – even in the wet.

If we must use AAC at fullback I would like to see the following lineup in some game – any game will do.
9. Genia
10. Cooper
11. O’Connor
12. Giteau
13. Ioane
14. Hines
15. AAC

WCR

That would be nice. I am the faculty advisor for our university men’s and women’s teams.. Their closest competition is 220 miles away for the women and 140 miles for the men. $$ is a huge issue.

WCR,

Fair enough, but 5 NCAA programs in different divisions does not mean much. There is no provision to provide any particular women’s sport. I work at a Division 1 university. We just started a women’s soccer team to meet Title IX requirements. They could have taken almost anything – including rugby which already has a 33 year history here.

aljay’s point was that the NCAA does not allow scholarships. They have no control if you are not part of their system. The 5 women’s programs could probably have 30 women on scholarship if they had the $$. If there is a limit you just throw in some more on academic scholarships. You can have as many as you can pay for – with or without NCAA permission – in any sport.

Most schools cannot afford the sports they have right now. They have trouble earning a penny from so-called ‘minor’ sports, i.e., anything but football and basketball. Even football and basketball are problematic for all but the top 100 schools. Regardless, they find numerous ways to subsidize all of them so they can say they have full programs that qualify them for membership in the conferences they play football/basketball in.

aljay;

The NCAA has absolutely nothing to do with US Rugby. If I have enough $$ I can underwrite a team of 100 players at any school I choose. No regulation at all as long as they qualify for academic admission. They can all be foreigners as well. The only real issue is age and prior post-secondary education.

So far no one has stepped up with the money.

K,

Nothing. They have been trying for years.

Kurt:

You need to get out more. Check out http://www.usarugby.org/

North Clubs has:

14 men’s college/university teams
8 women’s college/university teams (probably actually 14)
6 high school
2 U19
10 Men’s Clubs
3 Women’s Clubs

No guarantee of quality but hardly a barren wasteland for the game.

And yes, those schools you mentioned all have clubs for men and women.

Finally, it does not have to be raining for US football to be incredibly boring. It may be better with a few drinks and a bit of sun but my very limited experience you cannot drink enough to make it good enough to go back a second time.

Nam Turk:

Knee jerk reaction/comment at best – actually ignorant and hopelessly ill-informed.

1. USA Rugby has historically resisted making rugby into a ‘varsity’ sport. Lots of regulations that do not promote the game to start with and the list goes on…
2. The perennial national collegiate champion is U. California Berkeley – hardly big kids looking for an excuse for anything
3. The big kids play football and mostly make poor rugby players
4. Virtually every rugby player in the US plays 7s at some point in the year
5.The Olympic’s announcement has already precipitated new, more organized 7s leagues
6. Tacky shirts?

What is irrelevant besides your comment?

This is fun:

Dead Goat – rugby club in Salt Lake City
Haggis – rugby club in Utah somewhere
Missoula Maggots – rugby club in Missoula Montana

Isolation spurs creativity and psychosis.

Andrew:

So far I have very carefully avoided ALL social networking ‘opportunities’. Joining the Facebook group isn’t going to happen. Spiro or Zac have my email address.

Andrew:

If you cannot find someone local to do it gratis I can get my programmers to fix a site up or just host it if you can find someone to build the site. The address I’ll offer is (Whatever you decide to call it).rugbyis.com, e.g., AussieGrassRoots.RugbyIs.com. We already own RugbyIs.com. We are currently working on a platform site just for stuff like this. If we do it I can guarantee that my outfit will kick in the ad revenues if there are any. We can also make sure it has a high web ranking, etc.

Details count.

I’m in for at least $100 anyway. Let me know if you want the help – and where to send the money.

Gents, if we accept the concept of payment as a good faith gesture on the part of the ARU, then lets see the RUPA put up something in return. How about conducting this as a benefit for something, cancer, autism, battered children or whatever, and the players contribute their paychecks to that cause and the ARU whats left of the gate? Then the third piece in this puzzle, the supporters – who ultimately pay all the bills – can show up and feel OK about all aspects of the event. Right now it is ME (ARU), ME (RUPA), and WHY ME? (Supporters) and no-one is going to benefit.

I would go to the game – and cheer for Australia.

Knives, 24 (25 shortly), so, so young and you are already losing it. Your last few posts have been absolute gibberish. Even in London it should be possible to locate a good veterinarian. S/he should be able to give you a shot for what seems to be ailing you. Following up with a booster from time to time should keep you going. In the mean time get some sleep.

Knives, Dean Richards didn’t get paid as these blokes do. Furthermore the current lot no more have the regimen you describe than he did. Perhaps someone in your neck of the woods but not the Wallabies.

BBB, I see elsewhere that Drew Mitchell saved a bit for the Green’s match with Gordon on Sunday so he wouldn’t ‘dwell on’ Saturday’s match too much.

Can’t print what I think about that situation or I’d be permanently banned from the Roar.

I hesitate to suggest this because it means more work, but…it seems that we are in the process of creating a blueprint that might actually be worth properly documenting. If I commit to spending the time looking through all these posts and doing a synthesis will the rest of you hang around long enough to look it over, critique and polish?

We can then say we at least gave it a proper chance and maybe Spiro or someone will push it in the right direction(s).

OK, Shute Shield 12 sides; Qld Premier Comp 10 sides; Canberra 8 sides; Melbourne 9 sides; Adelaide 9 sides; Perth 10 sides. That is a starting point of 58 teams (admittedly uneven quality). With 30 player 1st XVs that is 1740 players. That isn’t even including all the viable high school 1st XV players who might step up.

I ask again, just how good do you think this competition has to be to be worthwhile? Isn’t the point to lift them up so some of them eventually make it?

Also, I said ‘we may soon have 5 S15’ sides. I did not say we have them right now.

Midfielder, Sheek: Help me to understand this issue of ‘not enough quality players.’ We may soon have 5 S15 sides. If each of them have working squads of 30 we have already identified 150 core players. While not really anywhere near enough for 10 national competition teams, it means that someone has already found half the bodies for a 10 team competition. Are you both suggesting that we cannot find another 70 players to provide them each with a bench of 7 players from all the rest of the bodies in the country? Throw in a few more to make up a decent sized squad and you easily have 10 sides.

On the one hand we lament ad nauseam the lack of opportunity to develop quality players. Now the lack of quality players is presented as a rationale for not doing something that has the potential to develop more quality players. Just how good do you think these teams have to be to make this worthwhile? Have a look at the NPC. It is loaded with unknown but solid players and, if the jersey markings are any indication, they are heavily reliant on local/regional sponsors.

My sense is that a huge part of the problem, even with those of us who want to see this is that the expectations of the level of competition are unrealistic – not the ability to establish the competition itself. It is pointless to expect that this national competition will be the world’s best at the outset. I think we are talking about trying to get something between the top clubs and the S14 competition. These teams and this competition should not be compared to the NPC or the Curry Cup to make this worthwhile. It should address our needs. Period. We do not need competition that involves NZ side or anything else. Lose sight of that fact and the whole thing seems impossible and too expensive.

Try very hard to look at this from the bottom up. I will say this over and over again – don’t underestimate the importance of locals who want to see their ‘local’ super-rep side win a national championship – or for that matter, the interest of players who right now don’t see any chance to break into the big time by playing with and against the putative best. It is far too facile an excuse to say we don’t have the players or resources if no one puts the opportunity out there, or arbitrarily puts the bar to high at the outset.

If we did wake up one morning with all the quality players we want where would we put them? Everything has to start somewhere. Starting with the premise that everything needs to be really top notch is meaningless when there is no platform to develop from. There is nowhere else to start with but the existing local base. While the Shute Shield competition is arguable excellent, restricting this to the top 4 Shute Shield sides, the top 4 in the Qld. Premier league etc. is nothing more than fiddling with the status quo, and importing all the parochial politics along with it. No one will buy that as being a movement in the right direction. It is an approach that will systematically exclude too many important people and players. The local ‘suits’ will kill it.

Whether a national competition works or not is not up to us to debate to a conclusion. The people who have to actually work on it need to get involved. I am not thinking about the ARU. I know, talk is cheap. Believe me if I currently lived in Australia I would work on it. Right now this is about all I can offer.

Midfielder. My point is that we can only look at this from the local perspective if we expect it to ever work, be sustainable, and be good for the game at the local level. Would you let the ARU run this?

Just for illustration IF it cost A$1.6 million – that is a average of $100K/per select side drawn from a pool of about 4-5 senior sides per region + all the rest of the clubs. Double it and it still doesn’t sound like too much to me. For the bulk of the competition the travel is minimal so that big cost is largely gone from the picture. Consider that it is not going to come from club coffers. The money comes from good local promotion and merchandising. Bad product – no money. Good product – pay the bills.

Examined this way, the total amount is a red herring. Let the locals have a chance to figure it out – if they and their sponsors get the primary benefit from it they will make it happen. If not good for them it is fundamentally unsustainable anyway. This just suggests a way to start the discussion without the ARU saying no because that TOTAL does not leave much left for their ‘business’ junkets to HK and Twickenham.

Oh yes, this might actually help that rebuilding from the club sides – if not it isn’t working.

Whoops. Overlooked Tasmania. Draft them into Victoria suburban/country

Pippinu. Why bother with the Curry Cup or the NPC? Do you really think that the Boks and ABs would be the same without those comps?

Sheek, I could not agree more. I just posted a longish ‘blueprint’ on this a few minutes ago. As I read what you have here my post may function as Part II of this discussion. With a bit of luck the editors will leave it alone – so you can tear it as appropriate.