Yeah I don’t see why you need the Rebels to have a decents schools program in Melbourne. It seems great what Orange is doing, but it’s not clear to me why throwing money at a professional rugby program is necessary for it.

I don’t take much notice of Hansen anymore. He’s backed Eddie but he also backed Foster so he’s got form on these underperforming coaches. He’s right that there are too many teams in Australia though and the depth just isn’t there. But I would simply have the Brumbies absorb the Rebels rather than merge them. The Rebels have been a giant disappointment for a long time and haven’t really added anything to Aussie rugby. They’re an example of trying to expand the code from the top down and I just don’t think that works in an international sport like rugby union. The Brumbies on the other hand are a perfect example of a team getting everything they can out of what they’ve got; they certainly don’t underachieve.

Absolutely. This is the first thing that needs to happen.

After NZ lost co-hosting rights to the World Cup in 2003 the NZRU board of directors were forced to resign. RA needs a clean out. This has been a complete disaster and there needs to be accountability. Nothing of the last 40 years comes close and Eddie going won’t be enough.

“Mounga’s pass to Reece was interpreted as not being forward when Reece caught it a metre and half in front of where Mo’unga passed it” – that is *not* the definition of a forward pass. Mo’unga was running at peace when he passed it, so it’s quite possible for the ball to drift forward and still be backwards as per the laws of the game. If he was static when it left his hands then that is a different matter.

I would say less laziness and more a lack of mental conditioning.

You would hope the ARU have learnt from their mistakes and don’t squander the opportunity hosting a WC would provide.

You are right. There were and are other problems. I just think this dilution of talent has been the major one. I remember all the discussions about how to “fix” things in Australian rugby and expansion was seen as the saviour by a lot of people (there was a belief there were a lot of hidden gems that would be uncovered). I also remember a lot of discussion of the national coaching framework, that was definitely seen as a mistake at the time.

I think that’s the problem. Super Rugby isn’t a development competition. If Australia wants to treat it as one then of course New Zealand teams will continue to dominate. Another way (like the NRC!?) needs to exist to help players outside the traditional rugby states find their way into the professional system. The fact is that the smaller provinces in NZ are developing more talent than Rebels. Nearly all Australia’s rugby talent is coming from the same places it came from 20 years ago; there is just no way Australia is producing 60% more Super Rugby talent than it was in 2005.

These articles get more bitter every week. Australian rugby had gotten weaker because they diluted three teams out to five. New Zealand never made this mistake. If NZ had gone from five teams to eight or nine they’d maybe have suffered the same fate. The expansion plans were pushed by the ARU and backed by most fans, but nothing was done too ensure more talent was imported (or developed). This has caused most of the problems in Australian rugby the last ten to fifteen years.

Don’t know why your pieces are not in the expert column. Puts many of them to shame!

That Ireland game is interesting. Because Ireland had no intention of playing any rugby in the second half. They struggled to get into the All Blacks 22. They were leading at the half and decided that just sitting on it was their best chance of victory. If they’d tried to play some rugby in the second half they may well have won, but they didn’t.

I’m pretty sure that the ref had penalised McCaw as well (I could be wrong), so Stirzaker was foolish for more than one reason. Players end up on the wrong side of the ruck all the time, but we don’t see stomping every five minutes. There is also a difference between slowing the ball down, being offside, time wasting etc and actual foul play — no one gets injured if a player isn’t behind the last feet at a ruck, or if a flanker breaks from a scrum early. Stomping, punching, head-high tackles etc — they are a different story.

I’m not a gambler myself, but have less of a problem with sports gambling than with pokie machines. As far as I know (some old stats here http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-05-25/key-facts-gambling-in-australia/2730414) they are the biggest problem regarding gambling addiction etc, but maybe they’re less visible because they don’t advertise on tv.

It’s tough comparing apples with oranges, but that is what the Halbergs have to do. I don’t envy them at all. Often there are strong arguments why a number of teams and individuals should win, but only one can. I do think that rugby gets punished a little bit because people expect success, and so when they have unbeaten or near unbeaten seasons they don’t get recognised. Certainly if the Kiwis or All Whites have seasons like that they’d be expected to win the team or supreme award.

But it’s never going to be a perfect system that satisfies everyone so I think we should just accept that and celebrate all the nominees. It’s great that they have to choose between so many high achievers. I would like to see consistency recognised a little bit more. I know that one-off achievements are great, but surely consistent success (e.g. All Blacks, Valerie Adams, Hamish Bond and Eric Murray etc) should be considered the ultimate.

I agree with many of the comments above. I think the Chiefs were the better team, but also that their win was good for rugby. The Brumbies have improved a lot since White took over, but they still play a limited game. Pressure at the breakdown, kick when outside the opposition 22, and try and earn penalties rather than attempt to score tries.

They’ve followed the same plan the last three weeks. Get out to a bit of a lead, the other team will play more rugby and close the scores up, then it comes down to a bit of a coin-flip in the last ten minutes over who grabs the win. I’m glad that the 2009-Bok-style rugby didn’t win out, and the side that played with enterprise and positivity (rather than cynicism) won.

What did people think of the Brumbies tactic of having the ball sit at the back of the scrum to try and win a penalty? They did this several times against the Bulls, but it only worked once last night. I think it’s a bit of a disgrace when teams do this – I hated when the BI Lions did it – and I hate when the Brumbies did it. What makes it worse was how many times Moore’s knee was hitting the ground as the ball is sitting there at the back of a static scrum! This is rugby, you have the ball – use it or lose it!

New Zealand don’t hate the franchise model (I’m a New Zealander btw). They just don’t like the decline of provincial rugby. I think the Super Rugby season is too long, and that there is too much international rugby played. Reduce the amount of both and all that’ll do more to address the decline of provincial rugby than anything else.

Australian rugby was doing fine back when it had three teams – the teams were competitive though, and that’s important. I don’t care about the AFL and NRL; they can have a million teams if they like. I just want to see some good rugby. If there is that, then we’re 90% of the way to addressing this “decline” in Australian rugby. My suggestion was allowing PI and Argentinean players to player SR in Australia – this will strengthen the teams; improve the quality, and hopefully help develop Australian players because they’ll be playing in and against better teams.

Yeah not so sure about that. Super Rugby, from what I know, is actually not self funding. It is cross-subsidised by the Rugby Championship. Of course that’s ok, because having Super Rugby makes the Rugby Championship better than it would be if 50% of the players were unavailable in Europe. I don’t see how Australia were to survive in a go-it-alone style comp, even with the extra money for the H-Cup style comp. At the moment Australia is pulling in less viewers and money to Super Rugby and the RC than South Africa or New Zealand, yet is getting an equal share of the pot. Add to that the artificial nature of the concept (these extra teams will be created out of thin air, not like NZ provincial sides – http://www.nzhistory.net.nz/culture/regional-rugby/overview) gives me no confidence your idea would work. Five pro teams is plenty, that’s more than Ireland and Wales, it’s just about getting more out of them quality-wise.

I agree, although both the Force and Rebels management knew what they were signing up to, so you can’t blame the ARU entirely. I’m not sure your idea is pragmatic; dollars will dictate the competition structure, and the SANZAR countries are struggling to stem the tide going to Europe and Japan as it is.

If you ask me they should be giving exemptions to players from countries without professional domestic rugby. So that would include the Pacific Islands and Argentina. Those players wouldn’t be eligible for ARU top-ups (for obvious reasons), but it would add depth to the Australian sides, and not harm the Wallabies depth. New Zealand already does this with Pacific Island players (although not Argentinean), and it has not hurt them. If anything it’s added strength to their SR sides (look at the Chiefs: Schwalger and Taumalolo spring to mind).

Rubbish. Deans can’t be held responsible for what is going on at the Rebels. Can’t blame him for their problems. They signed a guy that said he was moving their to enhance his “brand” – not Deans.

Is this really a shock? The Rebels have had quite a few wins when neither Beale or O’Connor were available. They may have decided they’re better off focusing on other recruits.

The real problem the Rebels have is that they need to recruit nearly all their players from outside of Victoria. Look at the number of New Zealanders in the team – guys that can’t get a contract in NZ. What they really need is a top quality talent identification system, because unlike the Brumbies, Reds and Waratahs they can’t have a look at their local club competition and scout primarily from there. They have the same challenge as the Force in this regard, and you get the feeling they are still finding their feet.

I think the idea that the Reds play this “Australian” style of running rugby to be a bit of a myth. I think they play well with ball in hand in broken play, but the Reds kick a lot – more than many other teams. Will be interesting to see if McKenzie tries to employ the same style with the Wallabies, but if he does, the All Blacks and Springboks will be studying that mauling the Sharks gave the Reds in the play-offs last year.

I’m just not convinced. The focus, in the media at least, always seems to be on the numbers 10-15, but really, if Dan Carter had played 10 for the Wallabies on the weekend would it have made a difference? McKenzie was out coached by Deans at Super Rugby level as well, which doesn’t inspire confidence.

I just think McKenzie has got the job by default; they were never going to give it to White because he’s not Australian, and there is hardly a big line-up of international quality Australian coaches running around. I’m not trying to be a pessimist, but people have to be a little careful not to expect too much.

I’m wondering if people should be careful what they wish for? The Reds have slowly gone backwards. After winning 2011, they finished 6th in 2012 (and were probably helped by a very weak Australian conference the last two seasons), and this season they will probably finish in the top 6, but doesn’t look like they’ll win the Australian conference. Compare that to the Crusaders – last time they finished outside the top four was 2001, and they had to deal with losing most of their All Blacks in the 2007 season!

I’m also wondering how having Cooper back is going to help Australia scrum? The weakness has been in the tight five for the last decade, and I’d be surprised if that changes overnight. The culture problems as well; would love to see him try and change that. I’m just not convinced this appointment is a magic wand that can be waved to make everything like it was in 1999-2001.

Nice to see people complaining about the referee. Can’t say I’m surprised, some of the Bryce Lawrence excuses were being put in before the game had even started.

I thought it was a pretty good game, but didn’t approach the level of intensity of the Stormers – Crusaders clash of a few weeks ago which was quite brutal. I thought Bryce was very tough on the attacking team (I’m not complaining about this), but pretty easy on the tackler releasing the ball carrier, which probably explains the lack of tries. I thought this probably benefited the Reds; for sure both teams got away with a bit in this regard, but to say the Crusaders got the rub of the green is probably a bit tough.

One of the crucial points of the game seemed to be when the Reds kick-off didn’t make ten metres. Talk about massive mistake. I think this just lifted the spirits of the Crusaders and really hit the Reds’ confidence. If you ask me, this point was the most important of the match – really gave the Crusaders a bit of confidence and hit the Reds quite bad.