Prop holding Court in Ireland

[AndyS]

Noticed this on the weekend - thought it might be interesting for anyone thinking that academies and more S14 derbies will do the job for Australian rugby. Of course it is an open question whether he could have learnt what he needed here, but that is a different issue.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
THREE years ago Tom Court was unwanted by Australia's Super 14 teams, but tonight the powerful prop will sit on the reserves bench for Ireland in the Six Nations match with France at Croke Park.

If Court, 28, gets on to the field, it will mark one of the more unusual pathways to Test rugby.

Growing up on 40 hectares near the southeastern Queensland town of Gatton, Court played rugby league as a boy, but his main interest was athletics, particularly the shot put.

An Australian Universities shot put champion for three years, Court tried out unsuccessfully for the Olympic team.

He had bulked up to 140kg and his doctor warned him that his blood pressure level was dangerously high and advised him to take up a more aerobic sport.

He noticed an advertising flyer for the Queensland University rugby team, the Red Heavies, and decided, at 24, that running around a football field would be better for his health. He is now a more streamlined 122kg.

Starting the season in University's sixth-grade side, Court finished it packing down alongside future Wallabies hooker Stephen Moore in the Brisbane first-grade grand final.

After playing off the bench for Queensland A in 2005, Court moved across the Tasman to play for Manawatu in the NPC to gain experience.

When he returned to Brisbane the Reds had already finalised their roster for 2006 and he was only offered an academy contract.

But Court's potential was spotted by Australia's great scrum guru, Alec Evans, who rang him to offer advice and encouragement two days after the Wallabies' scrum was demolished by England at Twickenham in November 2005.

Court had tremendous strength but needed to develop his scrummaging technique and game sense.

He came off the bench for the Reds in the first three games of the 2006 Super 14 series against NSW Waratahs, the Blues and Crusaders. But then his career in Australia came to an abrupt halt.

If Court played a fourth game, the Reds would have been obligated to put him on a full contract, which they were not able to do. They offered him another academy contract, which was worth "next to nothing".

Court, who carries a British passport, accepted an offer from Irish province Ulster.

"I couldn't wait for something to happen in Australia. I needed to play," Court said.

"I'm not sure what would have happened if I had stayed." ....

Rest HERE

[Burgs]

I remember him, he was a big unit alright!

[Cowboy]

Noticed this on the weekend - thought it might be interesting for anyone thinking that academies and more S14 derbies will do the job for Australian rugby. Of course it is an open question whether he could have learnt what he needed here, but that is a different issue.

It makes for an interesting question. Perhaps it is best answered with some more questions.
If the ARC was to be run at something at least close to break even financially would it be able to pay players enough to stop them heading overseas like he did?

If the answer is yes it should be reinstated.

I think everyone knows ARC would be the ideal model for player development, but can it be financially sustainable in Australia's sporting market. IMHO the only reason anyone has thought about alternaltives is because they don't think it can be financially viable.

Maybe we should be thinking about how to make ARC work?

[Burgs]

Catch 22 though isn't it Cowboy, unless you run it and let it get its feet for a few years to attempt to capture the Courts of the Australian scene we will never know.
That was the major failing of the early cancellation.
A one year trial in a World Cup year was crazy, they should of a) waited until '08 &/or b) sucked it and seen for at least a second season.
It is an absolute farce how they handled it.

[Cowboy]

Catch 22 though isn't it Cowboy, unless you run it and let it get its feet for a few years to attempt to capture the Courts of the Australian scene we will never know.
That was the major failing of the early cancellation.
A one year trial in a World Cup year was crazy, they should of a) waited until '08 &/or b) sucked it and seen for at least a second season.
It is an absolute farce how they handled it.

Agreed.

Instead of just hitting it on the head maybe they could have looked at where the loss was coming from and killed that part off. The Melbourne team was a blackhole for dollars, remove that team for a couple of years till the comp gets on its feet. Play the games at grounds which suit the crowd size and cost less etc. In short learn to walk before we run.

An ARC type competition would solve alot of background problems like not enough games for non-wallabies, player development pathway, no product in the sport market for 9 months in Canberra etc. It also builds on rugbys traditions, which are a great part of the game.

[beige]

It also builds on rugbys traditions, which are a great part of the game.

Actually the problem was it didn't.

[Burgs]

Totally agree that the traditions are a great part of the game but in terms of the ARC a lot of that was drum bashing perception from the old school.
If it was given a chance as it was (maybe a trimming as Cowboy suggests) then the parochialism would have come.
The ARU where stuck in a tough place of trying to make an even foundation to each side while covering the population. If some teams had been club based (say Sydney Uni) and others Union based (ie RWA, ACTRU, VRU) there would have been all sorts of on going power struggle issues between the different levels and accusations of say NSWRU favouring a combined side against a Club based side such as SUni. It had to be all of one or all of the other and the Club system can't cover the Super 14 locations.

[beige]

I actually preferred the original APC before they shunted it to the end of the season as a one-off. Didn't like the w*nky name but least you could support the same team. Each to their own I guess...

[Cowboy]

Actually the problem was it didn't.

Looking at it from an outsider the structure club-arc-super14 is closer to the amateur type structures of first grade and so on.
When we start to look for alternaltives like academies etc the structure starts to look more like American professional sports where they have huge numbers of college players going on to small numbers of professionals.
The amateur type structures give late developers and late comers to a sport more of a chance.
The ARC didn't achieve "buy in" (to use w*nky jargon) from the clubs, but the structure was closer to traditional ones IMHO.

I guess its all a matter of perpective really.

[AndyS]

I actually preferred the original APC ... least you could support the same team...

Problem being exactly that - it is the same team. It doesn't widen the base of professional or semi-pro players, it just gives the academy some better game time.

Actually the problem was it didn't [build on rugby traditions].

Problem being, for mine, the exclusive nature of traditional rugby and the tribalism that everyone celebrates. It would have been interesting to see what would have happened had the ARU leaked a plan to promote three Sydney clubs, and then nominated Penrith, Warringah and Eastern Suburbs for geographic spread. Would all those Randwick and Sydney U supporters celebrated the leveraging of the Shute shield and vowed their support? That said though...

If some teams had been club based (say Sydney Uni) and others Union based (ie RWA, ACTRU, VRU) there would have been all sorts of on going power struggle issues between the different levels and accusations of say NSWRU favouring a combined side against a Club based side such as SUni. It had to be all of one or all of the other and the Club system can't cover the Super 14 locations.

I'm not sure if I agree with that...I wonder whether the smart move for the ARU could be to simply say 1 team each from WA, SA, Vic and ACT and two from NSW and Q'ld, then leave it up to the state unions as to how it is done. The single team states would probably elect to control their own teams, but if NSW wanted to give it to established clubs, so be it. Everyone gets a travel and base salary budget, then they are on their own from there. They can decide whether to get sponsors, allow private equity etc - it is their team.

So long as all contracts clearly define the primacy of international duties.

[Burgs]

That seems fine but perceptions are your cancer and if (the obvious #1) Sydney Uni ended up with one team and the other clubs decided to back away and let NSWRU run a combined side then every week you would be reading something in the SMH about allegations of favouritism, player poaching attempts by big brother etc etc. Basically "poor bugger me, I'm just a Club up against all you big shots" type thing.
I feel sorry for especially SU, knowing just how many players they churn out to higher honours, but I can't see a Club model finding a niche to service the breadth of Australian Rugby.
Certainly the doomsayers from Clubland have never presented a viable alternative that isn't centralist and pocket lining for the old school.

[AndyS]

Agreed, but at least the bitching would be entirely internal - the ARU and everyone else could just shrug and say "NSW problem, sort it out amongst yourselves." A worse case for mine would be for the ARU to decide to involve clubs etc, as they then retain some responsibility for the result. I think I just like the idea of the clubs and grass-roots unions being told to put up or shut-up...

[beige]

Problem being exactly that - it is the same team. It doesn't widen the base of professional or semi-pro players, it just gives the academy some better game time.

I don't quite agree with that but anyway...

Reading all the arguments flying back and forth, I think the problem with the ARC is that it was trying to tick too many boxes because everyone had different expectations from it.

By that, I mean that there seem to be two competing schools of expectation:
1. That a national competition was a development tool to broaden playing depth around Australia by providing the top club players a higher level of competition.
2. That a national competition was a way to have a high level competition for Australia’s professionals to play in if they weren’t involved with the Wallabies, and to counter the ‘free kick’ that rugby gives to the AFL and NRL once the Super 14 is finished.

Perhaps it's unrealistic to try to tick both boxes simply with one competition. Maybe Super 14 expansion is the only way to keep everyone happy – it would tick the second box (and inject some much needed funds), meaning that any national competition can just focus on the development aspect.

[Burgs]

The trouble with club based is obvious, "which clubs"?
I think the model they had with "catchment areas" was correct if pehaps the actual catchments not so.
At the time and even now, I am supportive of the final solution they had as a working model, the only complaint being they didn't allow it to run long enough for true answers to come out and that it should never have been in a fixture saturated RWC year.
Sadly now, I really can't see anything taking its place in the next decade and certainly not for as long as the messiah is at the helm.

[Cowboy]

he's not the messiah, he's just a naughty boy