0
![Not allowed!](images/buttons/down_dis.png)
![Not allowed!](images/buttons/up_dis.png)
So I decided to do a bit more googling as the more i think about it, that figure seems sketchy..
I came up with this..
A fortnight after the ARU was forced to issue a statement saying it “strongly rejects” Roy Morgan research, which claimed regular participation numbers fell more than 60% over 15 years, to just 55,000 active players, the organisation’s 2016 annual report claimed total participation was up 2.1% (5,632) to 273,095.
So who knows how many there actually is?
But anyway, who cares? If national performance was based on the number of local players, New Zealand would be about 5th in the world.. Which is clearly not the case.
Ref; https://www.businessinsider.com.au/a...xed-bag-2017-4
Last edited by antiussentiment; 19-08-17 at 05:13.
cheers auss...
fabricarti diem punc
As I said before it's not the actual numbers that are important it is the comparison. As long as the numbers you're comparing are from the same source there is value
C'mon the![]()
![]()
I dun did more googling..
This graph is from Green and Gold Rugby (is that not the South Africans, Gold is out main colour surely?). But anyway, this data came from Rugby Magazine in 2011. Numbers may have changed since then. But if the Aussie ratio as dropped? Well that's an ARU mismanagement thing?
http://www.greenandgoldrugby.com/com...c-nation.9403/
But yeah, back then we had 40% more senior players than NZ...
My feeling that our poor performance is about systems, ideals and management is only getting stronger..
cheers auss...
fabricarti diem punc
Don't panic man, they've appointed rod kafer to fix the flaws in our systems.
His first job was to try and convince 1/3 of the country that rolling over and taking it up the ass was a good idea
C'mon the![]()
![]()
What an absolute load of bullshit the dilution argument is. If dilution was the problem the best in Australia wouldn't be affected, the individual super rugby sides might, with the "talent" being spread too wide, but the "cream of the crop" wouldn't be - yet the Wallabies just had the most points scored against them in the first half of a test EVER. 40 to 6 the ABs way.
Bullshit the dilution argument, we simply aren't anywhere near up to the standard of NZ rugby - try another pathetic argument ARU, you can't blame this shambles on the Force.
That's right, it's not the dilution of the pool that's the problem; it's the size and quality of the pool in the first place.
Australia could have 9, 1, 2 or 6 teams in Super Rugby, the Wallabies would still be in the same predicament.
Japan and the Pacific Islands for Aussie Super 9's!
Let's have one of these in WA! Click this link: Saitama Super Arena - New Perth Stadium?
If there is a lack of player depth it is because the ARU has failed its fundamental job in development... With virtually no assistance from the ARU the Western Force has organised a development pathway through the Future Force Foundation which is now producing players for Super Rugby. The ARU response to lack of players... cut the organisation doing the most to grow the pool of players by bringing on young West Australian based athletes.... Insane...
The thing that makes no sense is that we have players in Europe, who have turned their back on Aussie rugby, being developed in Aussie, being paid more then Aussie clubs can afford, then the ARU is spending millions getting them back. We've spent money on developing the player then we spend millions just to get access to the player. Its like Maccas making a big mac for a dollar, selling it for $5, then buying it back for $50 just to be able to sell it again. Its insanity.
Watching Genia last night just makes my head spin. This is a guy who is commanding $800 000 a year to "return" home, yet watching him play last night, you know you've got problems when Nick Phipps out plays you and Nick Phipps is getting out performed at Super Rugby by Louwrens, Ruru, Powell and Tuttle.
rugby.com.au rated Curtis at 5.5 and Adam ad 7.5, Hooper at 5.
Was Curtis only half a point better than the guy the Kiwis called Australia's "wee Little battler" (I guess they're not scared of the national captain)
C'mon the![]()
![]()