I'd like us to have teams in as many things as possible, especially if we can can get a lot of our homegrown players back. :biggrin::king:
Printable View
I'd like us to have teams in as many things as possible, especially if we can can get a lot of our homegrown players back. :biggrin::king:
Yes, but I suspect that any move towards ARS would be closer to TIF's understanding of what A stands for to Rat's Arse.
http://twf.com.au/attachment.php?att...1&d=1530080605
Dunno how you worked that one out, so I googled him just for a bit of fun. Judging by how he was blitz-spamming this Munster Supporters site you are on the money. It looks like he's left them alone for about 5 years now. Wonder what they did right :). And I also wonder how many Rugby sites this Man actually spams. :S
https://www.munsterfans.com/threads/...m-this-morning
https://www.munsterfans.com/threads/...McGahan-Speaks
https://www.munsterfans.com/threads/...battle-with-CF
https://www.munsterfans.com/threads/...ith-Matt-Burke
Having your top players in the NRC (if not SR) and a dev squad in the ARS would obviously be good for player development in WA. I just worry about the authenticity and significance of our national structures.
E.g's
- QLD and NSW have both amateur rep sides and semi-pro (NRC) country teams. Not a problem (ish) if you follow rugby, but it's not going to make much sense to an outsider or potential rugby supporter.
- ACT & Sth NSW decided to give their NRC side the same name and strip as one of their Canberra club sides, The Vikings. Can't see that decision helping community engagement across the region.
- ACT also has a side in both SR and NRC. Once again, non rugby regulars aren't going to get it.
- Same with Bris City/Reds and Syd City/Tahs. We (people who follow the game) know they don't have the same roster, but they are both going to naturally engage the same community respectively. Good for player dev, bad for promoting the game.
I think it depends on what level the ARS is aimed at, and when it's played:
- If it's a semi-pro competition running at the same time as the NRC, then it's going to compete for the same players. There doesn't seem much point, and expand the NRC.
- If it's semi-pro and run at a different part of the year, then I also don't see much point setting up a separate team structure; I'd just elongate the NRC to, eg, make it home and away.
- If it's an amateur comp (and you did mention having teams from North, Central and South Queensland, NT, SA and Tassie) then the long travel involved makes the logistics difficult and expensive. But if it is national, then the inclusion of a Spirit 'B' team would be interesting.
TBH, if it's amateur, then I'd consider the ARS to be a collection of week(?)-long 'rugby festivals', possibly coinciding with existing local festivals, held in the more 'remote' locations (remote from RA influence, eg, Townsville, Darwin, Hobart, Tamworth, Adelaide/Port Augusta). Each 'festival' includes say 3 matches for each side, preferably with some coaching sessions from professional coaches/players (see the WSR requirement for players to do 350 hours of 'community rugby' time). Each festival may have it's own champion and/or the matches count towards a larger year-long ARS championship.
The teams from 'less-remote' areas may complain of always playing away, but they have the benefit of greater rugby infrastructure in their area, so have to suck it up, or they don't get invited back!
Several things wrong with this post mate RA would never stand for it, you can't play rugby anywhere other than the sfs Penrith? The instant those 'less-remote' teams take a breath to whine, RA will give them everything they want, be it compensation, removing the competition, access to better players or all three plus hookers and blow. I thought you were cleverer :sarcastic:
If RA revived the ARS, I think it far more likely that it would be intended as instead of, rather than as well as, an NRC team.