Eddie: ‘Rebels bad for Aussie rugby’

[travelling_gerry]

Eddie: ‘Rebels bad for Aussie rugby’
Eddie Jones says Australia should not have been awarded a fifth Super Rugby team.
The Melbourne Rebels will be Australia’s fifth team in the extended Super 15 next season. However, former Wallabies, Brumbies and Reds head coach Jones lamented this decision.
‘The addition of another Australian franchise is not good for Australian rugby nor for the competition,’ Jones said. ‘The reason they’re in is because of TV rights. The current 14-team competition is just starting to find its feet and this year is the most competitive it has been for a while, with eight or nine teams in contention.
‘Another Australian side is just going to weaken the third and fourth teams. If you consider South Africa, they have a great number of players but can still only support four very good Super 14 sides.
‘It’s unrealistic for Australia to have five teams and it will be bad for Wallaby rugby in the short term, for the next 10 to 15 years. They haven’t exactly signed a whole lot of quality players.’
The Rebels will be allowed to sign 10 foreign players to strengthen their squad. But Jones used the Western Force as an example of why the Rebels will be a flop after a season or two.
‘There are only two areas in Australia that produce rugby union players – New South Wales and Queensland – and if you are a youngster from there and you have a choice between Melbourne or Perth to live in, it’s a no-brainer where you’ll go.
‘So the Western Force (based in Perth) are the side that will really be affected and they’re weak enough as it is. They spent huge amounts of money on players like Matt Giteau and Nathan Sharpe and now what?’.
\
http://www.keo.co.za/2010/04/09/shep...ack-for-force/

[James]

Eddie's a tool but he's right. In two years the Rebels would be fine but right at this moment we are just too thin on the ground in the hooker, lock, openside flanker (with the retirement of Smith) and inside backs. At the end of the day all it would really mean is a couple of lean years (in which time either the depth will grow through or the ARU will allow more imports).

The ARU really needs to invest at least a quarter, if not more, of the kind of money they give to the Shute Shield or the Queensland Premier grade to club rugby in Perth.

[zimeric]

I dont think we are thin anywhere.
Hooker has a number of up & comers that have great futures and we have two incumbants who are world class.
Lock - perhaps you could say we are thin on the ground but Sharpie is in the best form ive ever seen him and we also have a fair few up & comers as well as folks like Horwill, Mumm etc that can step up.
Lets look at Back rowers.. phoar! Pocock, Palu, Hodgo, Brown dog, Elsom, Waugh, Higginbotham the list continues.. openside flanker is not that different that any of these guys couldnt slot in very easily.

Inside backs ??? Giteau, Barnes, O'Connor, Cooper, Halangahu, Faingaa, Smith, Ashley Cooper, Digby... Most of which can play multiple positions.


in short...i do not share your concern James

[Timbo]

‘There are only two areas in Australia that produce rugby union players – New South Wales and Queensland – and if you are a youngster from there and you have a choice between Melbourne or Perth to live in, it’s a no-brainer where you’ll go.
‘So the Western Force (based in Perth) are the side that will really be affected and they’re weak enough as it is. They spent huge amounts of money on players like Matt Giteau and Nathan Sharpe and now what?’.
\
http://www.keo.co.za/2010/04/09/shep...ack-for-force/

Gee - is this part of Eddie's job app for the coaching role??

If there was any evidence needed of his judgement skills..........

[shasta]

in short...i do not share your concern James

Ditto. Given the number of players developed since 2006, bring on the Rebels!

[tragic]

I think we can safely cross Negative Eddie off the list.

Oh - just noticed the sub-forum Good one, Gerry

[James]

I dont think we are thin anywhere.
Hooker has a number of up & comers that have great futures and we have two incumbants who are world class.
Lock - perhaps you could say we are thin on the ground but Sharpie is in the best form ive ever seen him and we also have a fair few up & comers as well as folks like Horwill, Mumm etc that can step up.
Lets look at Back rowers.. phoar! Pocock, Palu, Hodgo, Brown dog, Elsom, Waugh, Higginbotham the list continues.. openside flanker is not that different that any of these guys couldnt slot in very easily.

Inside backs ??? Giteau, Barnes, O'Connor, Cooper, Halangahu, Faingaa, Smith, Ashley Cooper, Digby... Most of which can play multiple positions.


in short...i do not share your concern James

Perhaps I should have been clearer. I'm not talking about the Wallabies I'm talking about the individual super 14 teams. In an expanded tournament more depth is needed. I think the Rebels will really struggle to get off the ground. Looking at hookers- we do have a lot of talented up and comers but at the moment Freier is out injured, Tyrrell is out for the season which leaves the Force with one hooker, one borrowed hooker and one guy who can't throw well enough to be a hooker (Cowan), the Tahs have 2, the Brumbies have 2 (since we borrowed their other). It's only the Reds who have 3 (Hanson, Faingaa and Hardman). Those aren't particularly good number and think it'll take a few years before all five teams will be able to field a full compliment of Super 14 standard hookers.

[AndyS]

So you are saying that there should be no expansion until every team has four players for each spot? Team lists are only 30 players, so there are never going to be spares even without injuries and retirements. So it is chicken and egg - there are only so many professional spots, so there are only so many professionals. Everyone else is an amateur, by definition not proven to be up to it, but that is the structure of Australian rugby.

[James]

I think the ARU should allow 2 marquee players for each team and 2 development players. Giving Melbourne 10 was stupid because there was no way that they were going to be able to afford 10. And maybe, if the players were keen, one or two players from each of the existing teams to Melbourne. It just seems like every year Super 14 players are getting younger and younger from the Force's point of view David Pocock, Stefano Hunt, Luke Jones, James O'Connor and DHP have all played games before the age of 20. We are already targetting them that young before Melbourne is even a factor in the competition. Sure expansion is necessary and in the long run it will be very beneficial but for the next two years its going to hurt someone- whether that be Melbourne, the Brumbies, the Reds, the Tahs or us. If only we still had the ARC.

[AndyS]

But a lot of those young players being blooded has to do with players in their prime now all seeing overseas as an option, as well as shrinking player lists forcing a greater reliance on the academies. It is only going to get more so - look at the list of players that have quite openly stated their intention of buggering off post-RWC. It is not just here either, with Q'ld electing to blood young players to cover perennially injured players like Holmes and MMM rather than go scrounging for journeymen.

Certainly I don't see the big benefit in spending loads of additional money on paying for players from other countries rather than taking the chance on our youngsters. It doesn't build depth, it just sends the message that the kids aren't good enough even though there is nowhere for them to become good enough. Say we managed to go down that path and had had more success in recruitment, would Tyrell or Longbottom have got their shot this year or would it just have been another 7% of their playing life spent sitting in the stands?

[force addict]

can someone please write an article titled "Eddie Jones bad for Aussie Rugby"

[hertryk]

can someone please write an article titled "Eddie Jones bad for Aussie Rugby"

Eddie and Campeze.(sic!)

[James]

But a lot of those young players being blooded has to do with players in their prime now all seeing overseas as an option, as well as shrinking player lists forcing a greater reliance on the academies. It is only going to get more so - look at the list of players that have quite openly stated their intention of buggering off post-RWC. It is not just here either, with Q'ld electing to blood young players to cover perennially injured players like Holmes and MMM rather than go scrounging for journeymen.

Certainly I don't see the big benefit in spending loads of additional money on paying for players from other countries rather than taking the chance on our youngsters. It doesn't build depth, it just sends the message that the kids aren't good enough even though there is nowhere for them to become good enough. Say we managed to go down that path and had had more success in recruitment, would Tyrell or Longbottom have got their shot this year or would it just have been another 7% of their playing life spent sitting in the stands?

I don't think so. It's pretty clear that there is a shortage of some players. When Waugh and Smith were injured the Brumbies had Hooper and Alcock play. For both of them this is their debut season in the Super 14. The step down from George Smith to an uncapped rookie is incredibly big. Those players coming in are there because we simply don't have enough depth. New Zealand and South African sides are constantly being raided by European clubs yet its still pretty rare for them to play players under 20.

At the end of the day if Melbourne doesn't win games it might not ever get off the ground. It's all well and good to take a chance on your youngsters but the QRU has just gone into administration and even though poor management was a big factor the Red's performances for the previous 5 years was probably bigger. If you want long term success you have to have at least a bit of success in the short term. The Force recruited Andre Pretorius and then David Hill because there just aren't enough experienced fly-halves going around (not that Force management hasn't squandered opportunities with the likes of Hilgendorf and Brock James) and we'll probably need another for 2011. They do build depth- they help us retain players (like James O'Connor who wouldn't re-sign unless we had an experienced 10) and they mentor the young guys. Marquee players (if they are any good) help win games and a winning team is something the young kids will want to play for.