What is Good for Women's Rugby

@Crucial said in What is Good for Women's Rugby:

@booboo said in What is Good for Women's Rugby:

Another name change for the thread.

How can Rugby, particularly NZ Rugby, make the most of the event and occasion that was RWC2021?

Need to grab the young'uns while the 3 second attention span hasn't wandered.

Some thoughts:

1. Get England back here in 2023 (or at least France)

Play a 3 test series, and maybe some mid weeks. Black Fern Maori?

Play tests in times outside of AB and other rep games and make them accessible to a family audience.

Sunday arvos is a good time - free of men's rep Rugby, and family friendly. (Noting that back in my day women played club footy on Sundays.)

Play at venues where they didn't play in the RWC: Welly, Dunners and anywhere that's not as embarrassing as Chch.

Do same for any Pac4 games in NZ.

Maybe one or two as curtain raisers good for crowds and awareness? But think they could make these into decent events and money spinners.

That's the short term look out.

2. Create more age grade opportunities.

Ensure there are girls club and school comps available.

Work with clubs and schools to combine any interested girls (coz I'm convinced that the number of girls wanting to play may still be below the threshold) into combined club teams. Don't let them slip through because of club parochiality (if that's a word).

3. Get merch into the shops.

May be an immediate issue due to supply chain.

4. Educate the masses ...

Any other thoughts?

2023 is a shit year for home games in NZ for all rugby. FIFA have sewn up the stadiums for a big chunk of the season.

That's not the whole season though is it?

They're not stuck with having to fit a long Super season in before the Test season.

Also, gives opportunity to take games to provincial centres. I'm assuming Tauranga, Napier, Palmy Nelson aren't on FIFA's list of venues? 5-10k crowds would still be a win.

Clubs working together would be an idea

An excess at one school could provide an opportunity at another.

Tried to hint at that above. It's in club's long term interest to build the base. Pathways come as a result.

@Rapido great post

@Crucial said in What is Good for Women's Rugby:

So how do you make this kind of story better and get more players through the system instead of just accelerating talent from schools?
Clubs working together would be an idea.

The women's club comp in Hawke's Bay was won by a combined team Taratech (Taradale & Napier Tech). There is also a combined team for the entire (rural) central Hawke's Bay.
I assume this is happening in more provinces.

Composite school teams from regions to play each other within provinces either at a tourney or short comp too.

Also already happening. I don't know about this year, but in Hawke's Bay Napier Girls HS combined with William Colenso College. Again, I assume this is happening in more provinces, but maybe it could be improved/increased.

Several years ago, Gisborne GHS was competing in the Hawke's Bay girls' school competition, but not anymore. Obviously, there was the travel factor (GGHS played all their games against HB schools in Wairoa for that reason). I assume they now play in a Poverty Bay comp. If the distances weren't so big, it would be great if they could combine both provinces' girls comp, to have more schools, so more games in a longer comp.

@booboo said in What is Good for Women's Rugby:

That's not the whole season though is it?

No but FIFA lock out the stadiums (EP, Waikato, Caketin, FBS) for their games plus a month beforehand. The knockon effect pushing mens games around does make things a mess. I am really only referring to this as an organisational hurdle that makes things difficult should a BF game opportunity arise.

Agree with feeding off FPC as much as possible to try and push the 'new' way of attending games as an affordable family outing

@Rapido said in What is Good for Women's Rugby:

Interesting. I'm not sure how would be best.

I think one thing that is proven, is that running it as its own event rather than piggy backing off the mens event as a curtain raiser - is actually the way to go.

E.g. The FPC as curtain-raisers to NPC games are non-events, apart from being 2 hours of filler for Sky early on a weekend afternoon. Same with Black Ferns as a curtain raiser to an All Blacks test.

The number of double header FPC - NPC games have been drastically reduced the last few years. For those watching games on tv it's a pity that some FPC games are played at the same time as NPC games or other FPC games (which is unfortunately also happening with NPC games being played at the same time, esp on Sunday).

Where as the standalone Womens World Cup generates it's owm buzz and momentum.

Yep. Those standalone tournaments/games is what the women's players want themselves, too.

But, I have my doubts about professional momentum. Maybe I'm just to negative with the modern refereeing of rugby. But, I find it pretty terrible game to watch now, and only nationalism (and history) keeps me still watching it at Al Black level. I don't have enough energy in my life to get driven insane by also watching this version of it at a franchise or provincial level anymore. All the little micro decisions at maul and rolling away, and scrum time drive me nuts. But. that may just be me ....

Although I don't like some of the Laws or the way they are applied, I still enjoy watching the games as much as I did years ago. Just go with the flow. Adjust. Relax. Don't get annoyed so much by things you can't control. Look at the positives (there are plenty of them).

I chuckle at this thread given the new title of it. It's middle aged men discussing what's best for women's rugby. Verity Johnson step on up

@Crazy-Horse Some of these middle aged men are/may be involved with women's rugby, know female players/coaches, are parents of (aspiring) female players, listen to women's views about these subjects.

@Stargazer said in What is Good for Women's Rugby:

@Crazy-Horse Some of these middle aged men are/may be involved with women's rugby, know female players/coaches, are parents of (aspiring) female players, listen to women's views about these subjects.

I know mate and I have no issue with the thread at all.

@Stargazer said in What is Good for Women's Rugby:

@Crazy-Horse Some of these middle aged men are/may be involved with women's rugby, know female players/coaches, are parents of (aspiring) female players, listen to women's views about these subjects.

I am also advocating that women run the game as much as possible. Part of the RWC success was that women saw women driving what was happening.
Board, coaching, management , organisation....let them at it and I'll support from the sidelines.

The growth area has to be in the Primary/secondary girls age group. Even at primary age they need girls only tackle. At tackle age you see one or two girls but there is a fall off from Rippa.

In the Waikato they have school teams that play on Wednesdays. The elite comp is the Chiefs Manawa comp. Most of the rest of the schools have one team. There is a development grade for a couple of weaker schools and 3 U15 teams including a club based team from Tokoroa. At Primary level there are no girls grades but I think they have a few rippa/tackle tournaments. There are sometimes girls only teams at rippa level. The Premier womens grade has no development grade with a lot of hidings till they split towards the end of the year.

Counties ran a club based girls only Rippa comp on Friday nights. The First XV comp was 5 teams playing tens. Manurewa and Wesley played in the Aucklaand comp. Counties club teams play in the Auckland comps. Most teams are in North Counties, Patumahoe being the only one more rural/town based playing in the 10's comp. My home district club Onewhero is trying to get a team for next year, they had a team 20 years ago. After the Black Ferns won in 1998 there was some growth in the region but that fell away.

I see that Auckland have a club based U15's grade as well as 1st XV and tens grades. Girls only Rippa at U9, U11, U13.

@mikedogz hence why I wonder if, instead of following traditional progression structures there is a tackle transition period available that might use something like coloured shorts to help players move into full on play.
At tese ages the levels of development differ quite a bit, as does the reason and mindset for playing. there are little kids that want nothing more than smashing out some physical contact and others that may be a bit shy of it.
Again a reason why maybe getting the mums involved is a better option than having them worried.

The path to success is to have the best people, regardless of gender, run the sport. Picking coaches or adminstrators by anything other than merit is doomed to failure.

For example, picking a female ref for the World Cup final was a mistake IMO. The sport can't afford not to do everything it can to raise standards.

On the flip side, no reason why we can't have female refs (or adminstrators) in the mens game. Pick the best people.

In my son's last year of rippa the best player was a girl who carved up. She played one game of tackle, got hurt, never came back.

There are tough girls that can handle boys rugby but that changes once puberty comes in. Another girl my son played with got stuck in and matched it with the boys and made the Rep teams at intermediate age as a flanker and moved to halfback for her last year. She is at HGHS now and is making rep teams and on the fringe of the First XV.

I'm a sporty admin for my club and I can see that we have about 20 girls, almost enough around the same age to create a ten aside team if there was a girls only tackle grade in the Waikato.

@Kirwan said in What is Good for Women's Rugby:

On the flip side, no reason why we can't have female refs (or adminstrators) in the mens game. Pick the best people.

@chimoaus She any worse that the plonkers Aussie rugby have picked now or in the past? Mark Robinson?

@Kirwan said in What is Good for Women's Rugby:

@chimoaus She any worse that the plonkers Aussie rugby have picked now or in the past? Mark Robinson?

I have no idea how they select these CEO's but the pay packet often doesn't match the ability that is for sure. I have no idea why it is so difficult to get competent leaders.

Never thought I would miss Steve Tew.

lol fuck poor Raelene

Getting judged for the fiasco at RA?

You can only work high up in rugby in Australia without getting white-anted to fuck if you have ties to one of 3 clubs in Sydney. Otherwise you are fucked and will be run out of town.

Being from the right club might not even save you if the NSW old boys network decides you should go.

I wonder how much of the BF success can be pinned to the fact they are largely semi-pro/amateur?

I mean for the mens, obviously on a smaller scale, the English women, are professional players, and as such the way they play the game changes, as I expect your mindset would as well.

I mean when this is your livelihood, you train and train and train, have structures, processes, game plans, sometimes will this detract from ones decision making and ability to simply play the game the way they want to play and enjoy it, as it was clear the BFs did.

I may be off base, but it was something I thought about as a factor about how they play, which seems all but organised chaos at times.

@taniwharugby I think it depends more on who the coaches are than whether they're full-time or semi-pro or amateur. If you get a rigid thinking coach who has mostly had experience coaching men and tries to make female players play like men, then you get England. If you get a coach - man or woman - who understands that you have to let women play to their strengths (which may in some respects be different to male players), then you get the Black Ferns.

I think it's a good thing what they're now doing with Whitney Hansen and the female Super Rugby Aupiki coaches, who are there on merit, have worked their way up via coaching club and/or school teams (male and female), have worked with experienced male coaches to learn, but can now develop their own coaching style that's suitable for women's rugby.

It will be interesting who'll be the next Black Ferns coach. Do they go for the experience of Allan Bunting, who has been very good coaching women's teams, or do they think Hansen is ready for the top job?

@canefan said in What is Good for Women's Rugby:

@booboo said in What is Good for Women's Rugby:

Another name change for the thread.

How can Rugby, particularly NZ Rugby, make the most of the event and occasion that was RWC2021?

Need to grab the young'uns while the 3 second attention span hasn't wandered.

Some thoughts:

1. Get England back here in 2023 (or at least France)

Play a 3 test series, and maybe some mid weeks. Black Fern Maori?

Play tests in times outside of AB and other rep games and make them accessible to a family audience.

Sunday arvos is a good time - free of men's rep Rugby, and family friendly. (Noting that back in my day women played club footy on Sundays.)

Play at venues where they didn't play in the RWC: Welly, Dunners and anywhere that's not as embarrassing as Chch.

Do same for any Pac4 games in NZ.

Maybe one or two as curtain raisers good for crowds and awareness? But think they could make these into decent events and money spinners.

That's the short term look out.

2. Create more age grade opportunities.

Ensure there are girls club and school comps available.

Work with clubs and schools to combine any interested girls (coz I'm convinced that the number of girls wanting to play may still be below the threshold) into combined club teams. Don't let them slip through because of club parochiality (if that's a word).

3. Get merch into the shops.

May be an immediate issue due to supply chain.

4. Educate the masses ...

Any other thoughts?

That pretty much covers it. Close the thread .

Regular games is a must. The cheap ticket model worked a treat. Foster a strong test comp in the Pacific which means trying to encourage a stronger Aussie. Getting a couple of aussie based super teams into our comp might help them in that regard

A little perspective on the state of the game this side of the ditch. There's a paucity of young women who want to play. Of that there's a wide distribution in talent and athletic ability. The best of those young women are being targeted by league and AFL as well.

The last two years coaching rep u18 females shows to me how competitive this area is to keep talent. Once they leave school/ get jobs/ got to uni/ dating etc. it proves very difficult to sustain numbers sufficient to have a broad competition.

Clubs could be mandated to have a women's senior team, but the problem is fielding a side. Not just a competitive one, but a match day 23. The drop off from about u16s through to senior squads is huge.

@Kirwan said in What is Good for Women's Rugby:

The path to success is to have the best people, regardless of gender, run the sport. Picking coaches or adminstrators by anything other than merit is doomed to failure.

For example, picking a female ref for the World Cup final was a mistake IMO. The sport can't afford not to do everything it can to raise standards.

On the flip side, no reason why we can't have female refs (or adminstrators) in the mens game. Pick the best people.

Ignoring the 'political' aspects to stop thread diversion, I think that there is a good counter argument to this.
I don't think that anyone is saying to remove male involvement but direction would mean that design of comps, understanding of problems and drivers etc would be better. Avoid the "designed for women....by men" aspect.
Whether right or wrong a big aspect to the success of the WRWC was the buy in by women that saw how other women were driving much of what was happening..if that is what needs to happen to accelerate growth then I'm happy with it.
As for refs, the womens game is played a little differently, the focus aspects for refs is a little different, allowances are made in some areas etc That can come through in what constitutes advantage, time given to clear the tackle area and plenty of other areas. Unlees there are other 'better' refs that can also adjust to these aspects then we are better off having specialists. The other aspect is providing clear pathways for female refs which is very important as getting refs is one of the hardest things.
Is it perfect? No, but it may be the best as the game grows in its own way.
I have seen refs (male and female) control a game as they would a mens game and that subtle change makes a difference to flow and enjoyment. Much more noticeable at lower levels.

@antipodean said in What is Good for Women's Rugby:

@canefan said in What is Good for Women's Rugby:

@booboo said in What is Good for Women's Rugby:

Another name change for the thread.

How can Rugby, particularly NZ Rugby, make the most of the event and occasion that was RWC2021?

Need to grab the young'uns while the 3 second attention span hasn't wandered.

Some thoughts:

1. Get England back here in 2023 (or at least France)

Play a 3 test series, and maybe some mid weeks. Black Fern Maori?

Play tests in times outside of AB and other rep games and make them accessible to a family audience.

Sunday arvos is a good time - free of men's rep Rugby, and family friendly. (Noting that back in my day women played club footy on Sundays.)

Play at venues where they didn't play in the RWC: Welly, Dunners and anywhere that's not as embarrassing as Chch.

Do same for any Pac4 games in NZ.

Maybe one or two as curtain raisers good for crowds and awareness? But think they could make these into decent events and money spinners.

That's the short term look out.

2. Create more age grade opportunities.

Ensure there are girls club and school comps available.

Work with clubs and schools to combine any interested girls (coz I'm convinced that the number of girls wanting to play may still be below the threshold) into combined club teams. Don't let them slip through because of club parochiality (if that's a word).

3. Get merch into the shops.

May be an immediate issue due to supply chain.

4. Educate the masses ...

Any other thoughts?

That pretty much covers it. Close the thread .

Regular games is a must. The cheap ticket model worked a treat. Foster a strong test comp in the Pacific which means trying to encourage a stronger Aussie. Getting a couple of aussie based super teams into our comp might help them in that regard

A little perspective on the state of the game this side of the ditch. There's a paucity of young women who want to play. Of that there's a wide distribution in talent and athletic ability. The best of those young women are being targeted by league and AFL as well.

The last two years coaching rep u18 females shows to me how competitive this area is to keep talent. Once they leave school/ get jobs/ got to uni/ dating etc. it proves very difficult to sustain numbers sufficient to have a broad competition.

Clubs could be mandated to have a women's senior team, but the problem is fielding a side. Not just a competitive one, but a match day 23. The drop off from about u16s through to senior squads is huge.

look at the NRLW. Currently 6 teams, expanding to 10 next year. Rugby league is massively popular and yet getting teams up and running is incredibly difficult.

AFLW has a full 18 teams. But only play 10 games. And the AFL is pouring money in to development pathways the length and breadth of the country. Because of its nature i think this sport has the most chance of actually "succeeding" in its own right.

I firmly believe it to be fantasy territory that the women's versions of mens football become self-sufficient. Maybe the AFL can on player numbers, but not commercially. No chance is some AFLW player getting Buddie's contract.

@mariner4life said in What is Good for Women's Rugby:

@antipodean said in What is Good for Women's Rugby:

@canefan said in What is Good for Women's Rugby:

@booboo said in What is Good for Women's Rugby:

Another name change for the thread.

How can Rugby, particularly NZ Rugby, make the most of the event and occasion that was RWC2021?

Need to grab the young'uns while the 3 second attention span hasn't wandered.

Some thoughts:

1. Get England back here in 2023 (or at least France)

Play a 3 test series, and maybe some mid weeks. Black Fern Maori?

Play tests in times outside of AB and other rep games and make them accessible to a family audience.

Sunday arvos is a good time - free of men's rep Rugby, and family friendly. (Noting that back in my day women played club footy on Sundays.)

Play at venues where they didn't play in the RWC: Welly, Dunners and anywhere that's not as embarrassing as Chch.

Do same for any Pac4 games in NZ.

Maybe one or two as curtain raisers good for crowds and awareness? But think they could make these into decent events and money spinners.

That's the short term look out.

2. Create more age grade opportunities.

Ensure there are girls club and school comps available.

Work with clubs and schools to combine any interested girls (coz I'm convinced that the number of girls wanting to play may still be below the threshold) into combined club teams. Don't let them slip through because of club parochiality (if that's a word).

3. Get merch into the shops.

May be an immediate issue due to supply chain.

4. Educate the masses ...

Any other thoughts?

That pretty much covers it. Close the thread .

Regular games is a must. The cheap ticket model worked a treat. Foster a strong test comp in the Pacific which means trying to encourage a stronger Aussie. Getting a couple of aussie based super teams into our comp might help them in that regard

A little perspective on the state of the game this side of the ditch. There's a paucity of young women who want to play. Of that there's a wide distribution in talent and athletic ability. The best of those young women are being targeted by league and AFL as well.

The last two years coaching rep u18 females shows to me how competitive this area is to keep talent. Once they leave school/ get jobs/ got to uni/ dating etc. it proves very difficult to sustain numbers sufficient to have a broad competition.

Clubs could be mandated to have a women's senior team, but the problem is fielding a side. Not just a competitive one, but a match day 23. The drop off from about u16s through to senior squads is huge.

look at the NRLW. Currently 6 teams, expanding to 10 next year. Rugby league is massively popular and yet getting teams up and running is incredibly difficult.

AFLW has a full 18 teams. But only play 10 games. And the AFL is pouring money in to development pathways the length and breadth of the country. Because of its nature i think this sport has the most chance of actually "succeeding" in its own right.

I've mentioned before that they're expanding too quickly given the available and willing talent. Perhaps after a decade of continual investment in skills pathways, but the reality is for all codes they're women trying to play sports that have always catered to men, and evolved to suit the best men playing it.

I think what women's versions of traditionally male sport needs is some subtle rule amendments.

I firmly believe it to be fantasy territory that the women's versions of mens football become self-sufficient. Maybe the AFL can on player numbers, but not commercially. No chance is some AFLW player getting Buddie's contract.

Yeah, there's no alternative universe where that's going to happen.

@antipodean said in What is Good for Women's Rugby:

I think what women's versions of traditionally male sport needs is some subtle rule amendments.

Like we do as addendum to the rugby laws for U18s. Yep, or, given that much of rugby reffing is down to interpretation, adjust the interpretation guidance.

When I was rightly shot down for a bad analogy and suggesting better 'education' around the game., this is what I was getting at. You will see different rulings and actions in the womens game. As it grows maybe some will go or change.
The best example is players on the wrong side of the ruck or going off their feet. The leeway given is a little bit more, but deliberate acts still punished. If it was reffed as strictly as pro mens games every tackle would be whistled.

@Crucial said in What is Good for Women's Rugby:

@Kirwan said in What is Good for Women's Rugby:

The path to success is to have the best people, regardless of gender, run the sport. Picking coaches or adminstrators by anything other than merit is doomed to failure.

For example, picking a female ref for the World Cup final was a mistake IMO. The sport can't afford not to do everything it can to raise standards.

On the flip side, no reason why we can't have female refs (or adminstrators) in the mens game. Pick the best people.

Ignoring the 'political' aspects to stop thread diversion, I think that there is a good counter argument to this.
I don't think that anyone is saying to remove male involvement but direction would mean that design of comps, understanding of problems and drivers etc would be better. Avoid the "designed for women....by men" aspect.
Whether right or wrong a big aspect to the success of the WRWC was the buy in by women that saw how other women were driving much of what was happening..if that is what needs to happen to accelerate growth then I'm happy with it.
As for refs, the womens game is played a little differently, the focus aspects for refs is a little different, allowances are made in some areas etc That can come through in what constitutes advantage, time given to clear the tackle area and plenty of other areas. Unlees there are other 'better' refs that can also adjust to these aspects then we are better off having specialists. The other aspect is providing clear pathways for female refs which is very important as getting refs is one of the hardest things.
Is it perfect? No, but it may be the best as the game grows in its own way.
I have seen refs (male and female) control a game as they would a mens game and that subtle change makes a difference to flow and enjoyment. Much more noticeable at lower levels.

It's not a thread diversion at all. Picking the best people, regardless of gender, is the only long term path to success. It's wrong to suggest that men can't organise a woman's game because they are men, as it's wrong to say the opposite.

I find this sort of opinion really condescending to be honest.

Yes opportunities and clear pathways should exist for woman in rugby (in both men and woman's rugby IMO), but as soon as you head down the path of saying they should all be woman, then by definition you're saying don't pick the best people. How is that a path to grow the sport?

As a more general take, the success or failure of this will have little to do with the NZR. They can help to a certain point, but unless woman want to actually play the sport and fans want to watch (and pay) then there is only so much they can do.

If people want womans rugby to be popular then it'll be up to them to support it. To be honest, I don't see it growing all that much - particulary when you look at the decline in mens rugby over the past 20 years.

@Kirwan said in What is Good for Women's Rugby:

Picking the best people, regardless of gender, is the only long term path to success.

I fundamentally disagree with that statement. One which you state as fact.
One for the politics thread (where I don't go these days)

@Crucial said in What is Good for Women's Rugby:

@Kirwan said in What is Good for Women's Rugby:

Picking the best people, regardless of gender, is the only long term path to success.

I fundamentally disagree with that statement. One which you state as fact.
One for the politics thread (where I don't go these days)

Shrugs. Pretty crazy time when people disagree with pick the best person.

@Kirwan said in What is Good for Women's Rugby:

@Crucial said in What is Good for Women's Rugby:

@Kirwan said in What is Good for Women's Rugby:

Picking the best people, regardless of gender, is the only long term path to success.

I fundamentally disagree with that statement. One which you state as fact.
One for the politics thread (where I don't go these days)

Shrugs. Pretty crazy time when people disagree with pick the best person.

Over simplification.
The argument is that it may be better for female direction of a female sport. If that benefit does exist (due to a better understanding of needs, drivers etc) then the 'best person for the job' would more likely be female.
Pretty crazy time when people can't see generalised observations and twist them into equality arguments.

@Kirwan said in What is Good for Women's Rugby:

It's wrong to suggest that men can't organise a woman's game because they are men, as it's wrong to say the opposite.

Never said or suggested this at all.

@Crucial said in What is Good for Women's Rugby:

@Kirwan said in What is Good for Women's Rugby:

@Crucial said in What is Good for Women's Rugby:

@Kirwan said in What is Good for Women's Rugby:

Picking the best people, regardless of gender, is the only long term path to success.

I fundamentally disagree with that statement. One which you state as fact.
One for the politics thread (where I don't go these days)

Shrugs. Pretty crazy time when people disagree with pick the best person.

Over simplification.
The argument is that it may be better for female direction of a female sport. If that benefit does exist (due to a better understanding of needs, drivers etc) then the 'best person for the job' would more likely be female.
Pretty crazy time when people can't see generalised observations and twist them into equality arguments.

@Kirwan said in What is Good for Women's Rugby:

It's wrong to suggest that men can't organise a woman's game because they are men, as it's wrong to say the opposite.

Never said or suggested this at all.

Weak. You are the one suggesting that somehow woman in general have a better view of the needs or drivers (whatever that means) for the woman's game. My opinion is that people are individuals and have different skill sets, and gender has little to do with people's ability to organise or administrate a sport. Pick the best person for the relevant role.

@Kirwan said in What is Good for Women's Rugby:

@Crucial said in What is Good for Women's Rugby:

@Kirwan said in What is Good for Women's Rugby:

@Crucial said in What is Good for Women's Rugby:

@Kirwan said in What is Good for Women's Rugby:

Picking the best people, regardless of gender, is the only long term path to success.

I fundamentally disagree with that statement. One which you state as fact.
One for the politics thread (where I don't go these days)

Shrugs. Pretty crazy time when people disagree with pick the best person.

Over simplification.
The argument is that it may be better for female direction of a female sport. If that benefit does exist (due to a better understanding of needs, drivers etc) then the 'best person for the job' would more likely be female.
Pretty crazy time when people can't see generalised observations and twist them into equality arguments.

@Kirwan said in What is Good for Women's Rugby:

It's wrong to suggest that men can't organise a woman's game because they are men, as it's wrong to say the opposite.

Never said or suggested this at all.

Weak. You are the one suggesting that somehow woman in general have a better view of the needs or drivers (whatever that means) for the woman's game. My opinion is that people are individuals and have different skill sets, and gender has little to do with people's ability to organise or administrate a sport. Pick the best person for the relevant role.

Fair enough. I didn't think I was alone with the concept that men find women a bit of a mystery at times.
'Organise and administrate' less so. Direct, design facilitate and run? I think there may be some advantages that make one gender 'better placed' than another.
Not trying to make it exclusive at all. Best person for the job but that best person may be so because they bring advantages or are better suited

@Crucial said in What is Good for Women's Rugby:

@Kirwan said in What is Good for Women's Rugby:

@Crucial said in What is Good for Women's Rugby:

@Kirwan said in What is Good for Women's Rugby:

@Crucial said in What is Good for Women's Rugby:

@Kirwan said in What is Good for Women's Rugby:

Picking the best people, regardless of gender, is the only long term path to success.

I fundamentally disagree with that statement. One which you state as fact.
One for the politics thread (where I don't go these days)

Shrugs. Pretty crazy time when people disagree with pick the best person.

Over simplification.
The argument is that it may be better for female direction of a female sport. If that benefit does exist (due to a better understanding of needs, drivers etc) then the 'best person for the job' would more likely be female.
Pretty crazy time when people can't see generalised observations and twist them into equality arguments.

@Kirwan said in What is Good for Women's Rugby:

It's wrong to suggest that men can't organise a woman's game because they are men, as it's wrong to say the opposite.

Never said or suggested this at all.

Weak. You are the one suggesting that somehow woman in general have a better view of the needs or drivers (whatever that means) for the woman's game. My opinion is that people are individuals and have different skill sets, and gender has little to do with people's ability to organise or administrate a sport. Pick the best person for the relevant role.

Fair enough. I didn't think I was alone with the concept that men find women a bit of a mystery at times.
'Organise and administrate' less so. Direct, design facilitate and run? I think there may be some advantages that make one gender 'better placed' than another.
Not trying to make it exclusive at all. Best person for the job but that best person may be so because they bring advantages or are better suited

Yes, there are differences between the sexes, but in terms of abilty and competence they are more alike than different. That's the whole point about trying to remove "glass ceilings" and treat people fairly, replacing that by reversing the genders is a backwards step IMO. We shouldn't restrict opportunities for woman to just the woman's game either. If the best person for the Chairman of the NZR is woman, great. Equally, if the best person to adminstrate the woman's game is man, great.

Where I do agree is having stakeholders involved in organisations (eg Players Associations, etc). Gender is incidental for that however. Blanket calls for woman coaches, refs, administrators for the woman's game is not going to help that be successful IMO. Creating opportunities - based on merit - for woman in both men and woman's rugby helps everybody.

Btw, woman being a "mystery" is weaksauce (I know if was an attempt at humour).

Steve Hansen reads the Fern!

Hansen also believed that Black Ferns stars such as Ruby Tui were comfortable showing their personalities as a result of reduced scrutiny.

“It (the women’s game) hasn’t been tarred by expectation and scrutiny like the men’s game has, that’s tradition, it’s years and years of the All Blacks being successful. We have this massive expectation that they win when we go and watch the game.

“Whereas for the girls you’re going for the occasion and while you still want them to win, that same expectation is not there and that same scrutiny is not there.

“So they get to relax and be themselves, none of them have got their walls up because they have never been punished for having them down and being themselves, it’s the big difference between the two games and long may it last for them.”

Hansen called for rugby’s administrators to preserve “the old way of rugby” in the women’s game.

@Stargazer sort of pricing that will encorage people to come, smart.

@Kirwan said in What is Good for Women's Rugby:

@Crucial said in What is Good for Women's Rugby:

@Kirwan said in What is Good for Women's Rugby:

@Crucial said in What is Good for Women's Rugby:

@Kirwan said in What is Good for Women's Rugby:

@Crucial said in What is Good for Women's Rugby:

@Kirwan said in What is Good for Women's Rugby:

Picking the best people, regardless of gender, is the only long term path to success.

I fundamentally disagree with that statement. One which you state as fact.
One for the politics thread (where I don't go these days)

Shrugs. Pretty crazy time when people disagree with pick the best person.

Over simplification.
The argument is that it may be better for female direction of a female sport. If that benefit does exist (due to a better understanding of needs, drivers etc) then the 'best person for the job' would more likely be female.
Pretty crazy time when people can't see generalised observations and twist them into equality arguments.

@Kirwan said in What is Good for Women's Rugby:

It's wrong to suggest that men can't organise a woman's game because they are men, as it's wrong to say the opposite.

Never said or suggested this at all.

Weak. You are the one suggesting that somehow woman in general have a better view of the needs or drivers (whatever that means) for the woman's game. My opinion is that people are individuals and have different skill sets, and gender has little to do with people's ability to organise or administrate a sport. Pick the best person for the relevant role.

Fair enough. I didn't think I was alone with the concept that men find women a bit of a mystery at times.
'Organise and administrate' less so. Direct, design facilitate and run? I think there may be some advantages that make one gender 'better placed' than another.
Not trying to make it exclusive at all. Best person for the job but that best person may be so because they bring advantages or are better suited

Yes, there are differences between the sexes, but in terms of abilty and competence they are more alike than different. That's the whole point about trying to remove "glass ceilings" and treat people fairly, replacing that by reversing the genders is a backwards step IMO. We shouldn't restrict opportunities for woman to just the woman's game either. If the best person for the Chairman of the NZR is woman, great. Equally, if the best person to adminstrate the woman's game is man, great.

Where I do agree is having stakeholders involved in organisations (eg Players Associations, etc). Gender is incidental for that however. Blanket calls for woman coaches, refs, administrators for the woman's game is not going to help that be successful IMO. Creating opportunities - based on merit - for woman in both men and woman's rugby helps everybody.

Btw, woman being a "mystery" is weaksauce (I know if was an attempt at humour).

There’s a lot in that post arguing something I haven’t said at all.
I have never suggested that ability or competence should be ignored in favour of gender.
I have suggested that perspectives and understandings might be an advantage to being the better placed person in some aspects.
I’ve also suggested this in particular areas such as directing and designing competitions as “by women , for women” as a selling point and a product that suits.
Everything else including coaching is a case by case basis but the more “best people” by merit that are women the better IMO. This is especially important with young women who may need to work through issues around a sports schedule and their own personal schedule. A lack of understanding in that area has lead to many and adolescent woman giving up sport.

@Crucial said in What is Good for Women's Rugby:

@Kirwan said in What is Good for Women's Rugby:

@Crucial said in What is Good for Women's Rugby:

@Kirwan said in What is Good for Women's Rugby:

@Crucial said in What is Good for Women's Rugby:

@Kirwan said in What is Good for Women's Rugby:

@Crucial said in What is Good for Women's Rugby:

@Kirwan said in What is Good for Women's Rugby:

Picking the best people, regardless of gender, is the only long term path to success.

I fundamentally disagree with that statement. One which you state as fact.
One for the politics thread (where I don't go these days)

Shrugs. Pretty crazy time when people disagree with pick the best person.

Over simplification.
The argument is that it may be better for female direction of a female sport. If that benefit does exist (due to a better understanding of needs, drivers etc) then the 'best person for the job' would more likely be female.
Pretty crazy time when people can't see generalised observations and twist them into equality arguments.

@Kirwan said in What is Good for Women's Rugby:

It's wrong to suggest that men can't organise a woman's game because they are men, as it's wrong to say the opposite.

Never said or suggested this at all.

Weak. You are the one suggesting that somehow woman in general have a better view of the needs or drivers (whatever that means) for the woman's game. My opinion is that people are individuals and have different skill sets, and gender has little to do with people's ability to organise or administrate a sport. Pick the best person for the relevant role.

Fair enough. I didn't think I was alone with the concept that men find women a bit of a mystery at times.
'Organise and administrate' less so. Direct, design facilitate and run? I think there may be some advantages that make one gender 'better placed' than another.
Not trying to make it exclusive at all. Best person for the job but that best person may be so because they bring advantages or are better suited

Yes, there are differences between the sexes, but in terms of abilty and competence they are more alike than different. That's the whole point about trying to remove "glass ceilings" and treat people fairly, replacing that by reversing the genders is a backwards step IMO. We shouldn't restrict opportunities for woman to just the woman's game either. If the best person for the Chairman of the NZR is woman, great. Equally, if the best person to adminstrate the woman's game is man, great.

Where I do agree is having stakeholders involved in organisations (eg Players Associations, etc). Gender is incidental for that however. Blanket calls for woman coaches, refs, administrators for the woman's game is not going to help that be successful IMO. Creating opportunities - based on merit - for woman in both men and woman's rugby helps everybody.

Btw, woman being a "mystery" is weaksauce (I know if was an attempt at humour).

There’s a lot in that post arguing something I haven’t said at all.
I have never suggested that ability or competence should be ignored in favour of gender.
I have suggested that perspectives and understandings might be an advantage to being the better placed person in some aspects.
I’ve also suggested this in particular areas such as directing and designing competitions as “by women , for women” as a selling point and a product that suits.
Everything else including coaching is a case by case basis but the more “best people” by merit that are women the better IMO. This is especially important with young women who may need to work through issues around a sports schedule and their own personal schedule. A lack of understanding in that area has lead to many and adolescent woman giving up sport.

You started by saying

@Crucial said in What is Good for Women's Rugby:

@Stargazer said in What is Good for Women's Rugby:

@Crazy-Horse Some of these middle aged men are/may be involved with women's rugby, know female players/coaches, are parents of (aspiring) female players, listen to women's views about these subjects.

I am also advocating that women run the game as much as possible. Part of the RWC success was that women saw women driving what was happening.
Board, coaching, management , organisation....let them at it and I'll support from the sidelines.

And I replied that it was preferable to have the best people regardless of gender. You doubled down with another comment about a game for woman designed by men.

The implication is pretty clear that you think woman should be running the woman’s game.

I think the outcome is more important than the gender of who gets jobs. If this about this being successful, then get the best - like they did with Smith.

@Crazy-Horse said in What is Good for Women's Rugby:

I chuckle at this thread given the new title of it. It's middle aged men discussing what's best for women's rugby. Verity Johnson step on up

Would love to hear Verity's thoughts.

To my mind the question is how do we create a market?

At the moment the market is middle aged white guys (you and me).

How do get our dollars into the game?

That's the immediate question.

More Test matches and more shit on Stan we'll pay for.

Longer term term (5-10 years) is how do you create a product that has an audience in the future

@Rapido 's post is more relevant in terms of attracting the kids in "before bed time"
audiences.

Hope I'm making sense.