What is Good for Women's Rugby

@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.

@mariner4life

I think the woman's versions can be self sufficient if they can steal netballs market share. Netballers are fully pro on their on merit and TV deals I believe.

Netball is the worst spectator sport around and also gets very little breakthrough into the men's market.

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

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).

I appreciate that you may not have seen the same coverage of the tournament where you are (including the news and 'magazine' type pieces) but the market was far from being middle aged white guys.
It was families, kids, women in much bigger numbers than you now see at the mens game.
It opened up and tapped into something different and created a very different vibe at the games which generated even more interest.
That self-created market is what needs to be fed.

On the Rugby Pod show the other night Parsons was saying that he was talking to a bunch of rugby watching veterans that attend everything from Lions tours to Bled to RWCs etc etc and they all said it was the best rugby crowd they had ever been in.

Obviously that's not going to happen at the Levin Domain but the key aspects of it can be promoted. Some may cringe at the 'women for women' side of it but there is quite obviously a market in that as also shown by Netball.
Hence the reason I think it could be advantageous for the womens game to be driven by women. (No, that doesn't mean to exclude men or not employ the best. It means that the definition of best is through a different lens)

@Crucial oh, now you are labelling criticism of your gender over ability opinion as cringing.

Thinking that only woman can have insight into woman’s sport is pandering virtue signalling. It’s helpful to swap genders when people say silly things like that, imagine saying that you’d have to be a man to employ the best for the men’s game.

You’d be driven off the internet.

@Crucial I'm talking about creating an audience that is prepared to pay for sport beyond those who have invested in the excitement of a one-off event.

@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:

@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.

Leave it out. You have chosen to interpret my comments to trigger an 'equality' argument. My subsequent attempts to clarify what I meant were then met with strawman tactics even after I said I didn't want a discussion on 'political' viewpoints.

To try and put my point succinctly, I think that an assessment of 'best' person for the job may be that women may bring certain views and a marketing difference that would benefit the progression and advancement of the game. No different than listing other attributes for candidate success. Obviously the end selection weighs up the pros and cons.

Netball is mentioned as an example and that is primarily a female sport run by females. It has attracted an audience and stands on its own two feet. I happen to think that this path would have advantages to womens rugby.

It naturally happens to a large extent anyway at clubs and unions. Maybe it is a good time to extend things up the chain a bit and get some voices into decision making areas (if those voices have the credentials of course).. NZR are currently paying a substantial 'fine' to Sports NZ (?) for not having female representation on the board. That's an incredibly easy fix that is draining away money and there is no shortage of appropriate candidates.

To be even clearer, if a male coach is better skilled to coach a team then by all means go ahead. What was found in the report earlier this year is that the support around that coach needs to involve women at levels such as team management or there are potential problems.

There already is a drive to bring many female coaches up the chain as their skills increase. I see that as a good thing even though there is no doubt that there are also very good male coaches that can 'work with' womens teams well. They wouldn't be excluded but supported.

Already in the second year of Aupiki there have been two female coaches promoted to head roles

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

@Crucial I'm talking about creating an audience that is prepared to pay for sport beyond those who have invested in the excitement of a one-off event.

That's the thinking that NZR have to get past IMO

Does Women's Rugby have to be a profit centre? Maybe it can be like a breakeven supermarket product that gets people through the doors and strengthens the overall cashflow. Maybe even a loss leader by itself that drives benefits elsewhere. Eyes on the game are still eyes on the game as far as sponsors go and the task of NZR is not to be a corporation but to maintain the health of the game. Sure, money is a part of that, but it is blinkered views to expect that every cost centre is profitable. NPC is already propped up by the top end but we couldn't have the ABs without NPC.

@Crucial The fact that you just blow past the statement Sports NZ fining an organisation for lack of female represenation on a board and just accept that is an OK policy is exactly why I'm pushing back so hard. These sorts of policies won't help any organisation be more successful at anything.

It's the old equality of outcome over equality of opportunity argument. Once you introduce quotas for anything you by definition are no longer chasing the best candidates.

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

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

@Crucial I'm talking about creating an audience that is prepared to pay for sport beyond those who have invested in the excitement of a one-off event.

That's the thinking that NZR have to get past IMO

Does Women's Rugby have to be a profit centre? Maybe it can be like a breakeven supermarket product that gets people through the doors and strengthens the overall cashflow. Maybe even a loss leader by itself that drives benefits elsewhere. Eyes on the game are still eyes on the game as far as sponsors go and the task of NZR is not to be a corporation but to maintain the health of the game. Sure, money is a part of that, but it is blinkered views to expect that every cost centre is profitable. NPC is already propped up by the top end but we couldn't have the ABs without NPC.

Oh boy. So where is the money supposed to come from to run the game when we run things at a loss?

If we don't plan for woman's rugby to be at least cost neutral (preferably profitable to grow it's niche) then you are just cannibalising the mens game, which is already in poor health. This is wrong thinking, we shouldn't be propping up the NPC either, we should be generating more interest and profit from that too. The game will collapse without being sustainable, at least as a professional sport.

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

@Crucial oh, now you are labelling criticism of your gender over ability opinion as cringing.

Thinking that only woman can have insight into woman’s sport is pandering virtue signalling. It’s helpful to swap genders when people say silly things like that, imagine saying that you’d have to be a man to employ the best for the men’s game.

You’d be driven off the internet.

Only by people that deliberately misread posts to drive their own views.

Where have I said 'gender over ability'? I have gone out of the way to try and remove this misinterpretation but hey, keep going back to it.

"Only women can have insights into women's sports". Again, where have I said that.

This thread is fast becoming the ghost of BSG.

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

@Crucial The fact that you just blow past the statement Sports NZ fining an organisation for lack of female represenation on a board and just accept that is an OK policy is exactly why I'm pushing back so hard. These sorts of policies won't help any organisation be more successful at anything.

It's the old equality of outcome over equality of opportunity argument. Once you introduce quotas for anything you by definition are no longer chasing the best candidates.

That's the political belief arugument that I stated was for another forum. I don't make the Sports NZ rules, nor have I agreed with them. I stated them as a fact.

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

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

@Crucial oh, now you are labelling criticism of your gender over ability opinion as cringing.

Thinking that only woman can have insight into woman’s sport is pandering virtue signalling. It’s helpful to swap genders when people say silly things like that, imagine saying that you’d have to be a man to employ the best for the men’s game.

You’d be driven off the internet.

Only by people that deliberately misread posts to drive their own views.

Where have I said 'gender over ability'? I have gone out of the way to try and remove this misinterpretation but hey, keep going back to it.

"Only women can have insights into women's sports". Again, where have I said that.

This thread is fast becoming the ghost of BSG.

Ad hominem attacks aren't helping your argument. I'm discussing the subject about you try and do the same?

You have clearly said that you think that by just being a woman they'll have more insight than a man for woman's sport. Do you think the opposite with men and the men's game? What exactly are these insights?

It's a ludicrous position that is just accepted these days. To restate what I said earlier, for men and woman's sport the gender is not important, the individual's ability is. I'd have no problem with a woman being the CEO of NZR, I certainly wouldn't be saying that a man was preferable because of some magic insight he has because of his gender.

@Kirwan said in 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:

@Crucial I'm talking about creating an audience that is prepared to pay for sport beyond those who have invested in the excitement of a one-off event.

That's the thinking that NZR have to get past IMO

Does Women's Rugby have to be a profit centre? Maybe it can be like a breakeven supermarket product that gets people through the doors and strengthens the overall cashflow. Maybe even a loss leader by itself that drives benefits elsewhere. Eyes on the game are still eyes on the game as far as sponsors go and the task of NZR is not to be a corporation but to maintain the health of the game. Sure, money is a part of that, but it is blinkered views to expect that every cost centre is profitable. NPC is already propped up by the top end but we couldn't have the ABs without NPC.

Oh boy. So where is the money supposed to come from to run the game when we run things at a loss?

If we don't plan for woman's rugby to be at least cost neutral (preferably profitable to grow it's niche) then you are just cannibalising the mens game, which is already in poor health. This is wrong thinking, we shouldn't be propping up the NPC either, we should be generating more interest and profit from that too. The game will collapse without being sustainable, at least as a professional sport.

A very narrow view IMO. Would you remove NPC from the calendar as well? That is far from being cost neutral.
Have you thought that a Women's game cost centre that runs at a loss may improve the bottom line in the mens game?
All sorts of ways that can happen. More involvement by girls can drive more involvement by boys. Families investing effort into the womens game increases interest in the game overall. More community involvement in clubs = less strain on Provinces = less support needed at that level.......

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

You have clearly said that you think that by just being a woman they'll have more insight than a man for woman's sport.

Correct. But you keep twisting that into this...

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

only woman can have insight into woman’s sport is pandering virtue signalling.

The two statements are not the same and you are either deliberately changing them to make your equality point or can't comprehend.

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

To restate what I said earlier, for men and woman's sport the gender is not important, the individual's ability is. I'd have no problem with a woman being the CEO of NZR, I certainly wouldn't be saying that a man was preferable because of some magic insight he has because of his gender.

I have no issue with what you say here, just that you keep trying to paint my position as something different to what I am saying.

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

@Crucial The fact that you just blow past the statement Sports NZ fining an organisation for lack of female represenation on a board and just accept that is an OK policy is exactly why I'm pushing back so hard. These sorts of policies won't help any organisation be more successful at anything.

It's the old equality of outcome over equality of opportunity argument. Once you introduce quotas for anything you by definition are no longer chasing the best candidates.

I think I can see where @Crucial is coming from (apologies to @Crucial if I am wrong). I don't think he is disagreeing with your assertion of having the best people for the job regardless of gender. I think he is suggesting sometimes that best person may well be a female, simply because she is a female. Take uniform issues for example. For years females were forced to wear white clothing - white shorts in footy or white undies in tennis. As a male I had no idea of the issues this can cause during certain times of the month. It never even crossed my mind and I am betting it didn't cross many men's mind until it was pointed out. This is an issue that is only now starting to be addressed in women's sport because women are getting into positions of power and subsequently getting a voice.

@Kirwan you are the one politicising the subject. Can you, please, stop, even if you disagree with what is being said? Or maybe continue it in "Politics"? Or maybe just accept that you dont' have to win every argument? It's spoiling the thread.

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

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

@Crucial The fact that you just blow past the statement Sports NZ fining an organisation for lack of female represenation on a board and just accept that is an OK policy is exactly why I'm pushing back so hard. These sorts of policies won't help any organisation be more successful at anything.

It's the old equality of outcome over equality of opportunity argument. Once you introduce quotas for anything you by definition are no longer chasing the best candidates.

I think I can see where @Crucial is coming from (apologies to @Crucial if I am wrong). I don't think he is disagreeing with your assertion of having the best people for the job regardless of gender. I think he is suggesting sometimes that best person may well be a female, simply because she is a female. Take uniform issues for example. For years females were forced to wear white clothing - white shorts in footy or white undies in tennis. As a male I had no idea of the issues this can cause during certain times of the month. It never even crossed my mind and I am betting it didn't cross many men's mind until it was pointed out. This is an issue that is only now starting to be addressed in women's sport because women are getting into positions of power and subsequently getting a voice.

A good example. NZRPA had to add clauses into the collective agreement around menstrual cycles being taken into account because they weren't and it was causing problems in areas of expectations and communication.

@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:

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

@Crucial I'm talking about creating an audience that is prepared to pay for sport beyond those who have invested in the excitement of a one-off event.

That's the thinking that NZR have to get past IMO

Does Women's Rugby have to be a profit centre? Maybe it can be like a breakeven supermarket product that gets people through the doors and strengthens the overall cashflow. Maybe even a loss leader by itself that drives benefits elsewhere. Eyes on the game are still eyes on the game as far as sponsors go and the task of NZR is not to be a corporation but to maintain the health of the game. Sure, money is a part of that, but it is blinkered views to expect that every cost centre is profitable. NPC is already propped up by the top end but we couldn't have the ABs without NPC.

Oh boy. So where is the money supposed to come from to run the game when we run things at a loss?

If we don't plan for woman's rugby to be at least cost neutral (preferably profitable to grow it's niche) then you are just cannibalising the mens game, which is already in poor health. This is wrong thinking, we shouldn't be propping up the NPC either, we should be generating more interest and profit from that too. The game will collapse without being sustainable, at least as a professional sport.

A very narrow view IMO. Would you remove NPC from the calendar as well? That is far from being cost neutral.
Have you thought that a Women's game cost centre that runs at a loss may improve the bottom line in the mens game?
All sorts of ways that can happen. More involvement by girls can drive more involvement by boys. Families investing effort into the womens game increases interest in the game overall. More community involvement in clubs = less strain on Provinces = less support needed at that level.......

As I said in my post, the NPC is not sustainable and needs to be improved and have more support from the NZR - not less.

The rest of your post is little more than wishful thinking. If they rob Peter to pay Paul then I expect that the professional game in NZ will get worse not better. While I support woman's rugby in principle, it's not at the cost of health of the sport. So it's extremely important that whatever they plan to do is appropriate to the scale of the game currently, and with planned growth and covered costs.

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

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

@Crucial The fact that you just blow past the statement Sports NZ fining an organisation for lack of female represenation on a board and just accept that is an OK policy is exactly why I'm pushing back so hard. These sorts of policies won't help any organisation be more successful at anything.

It's the old equality of outcome over equality of opportunity argument. Once you introduce quotas for anything you by definition are no longer chasing the best candidates.

I think I can see where @Crucial is coming from (apologies to @Crucial if I am wrong). I don't think he is disagreeing with your assertion of having the best people for the job regardless of gender. I think he is suggesting sometimes that best person may well be a female, simply because she is a female. Take uniform issues for example. For years females were forced to wear white clothing - white shorts in footy or white undies in tennis. As a male I had no idea of the issues this can cause during certain times of the month. It never even crossed my mind and I am betting it didn't cross many men's mind until it was pointed out. This is an issue that is only now starting to be addressed in women's sport because women are getting into positions of power and subsequently getting a voice.

Finally, someone with examples not just throwing out "woman have more insight".

Crucial's first couple of posts on this was leaning very heavily of pick mostly woman and for men to get out of the way. He's slowly moved away from that, which is good because that will throw away a lot of talent and slow the growth of the woman's game IMO.

So my basic point is you don't need to artifically lean towards gender, picking the best people will naturally get a mix of genders and you'll get the outcomes like you describe in your example. Where we have failed in the past is woman didn't get those opportunties. The solution to that is not quotas, and certainly not fining lack of representation on boards.

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

@Kirwan you are the one politicising the subject. Can you, please, stop, even if you disagree with what is being said? Or maybe continue it in "Politics"? Or maybe just accept that you dont' have to win every argument? It's spoiling the thread.

It's a thread about woman's sport, talking about an aspect of what Crucial thinks is good for woman's rugby. We are having a pretty civil conversation about a thorny topic, and we couldn't be any more on topic for the thread.

I thought you got over trying to police what people were posting in threads.