Club rugby as the basis for a rugby evolution
Roar Pro By Bruce Ross, 14 May 2009 Bruce Ross is a Roar Pro
- Tagged:
- ARU, National Club Rugby Competition, Rugby Union, Super Rugby, Super Rugby 2011, Sydney Club rugby, Sydney Premiership Clubs, Tri Nations
Because of our involvement in Super Rugby and the Tri-Nations, rugby decision-makers in Australia have looked to the New Zealand and South Africa provincial competitions as the blueprint for the development of a third tier here.
What is not realised is that the provincial structures in those countries are an aberration based on historical and geographic factors. The rest of the rugby playing world base their competitions around clubs.
Unlike in Australia, Northern Hemisphere club rugby appears to be thriving.
A major reason for this is that clubs are organised into hierarchical divisions with regular promotion and relegation between divisions. The same sort of model applies almost universally in football’s most successful code, soccer.
In 2007, I circulated a proposal to the Presidents of the Sydney Premiership Clubs and Board members of NSWRU for a two Division club competition designed to produce more competitive football.
I am now suggesting that an additional tier be added to that structure which could in time lead to a genuine National Club Competition.
Restructuring of the Sydney club competition and possibly the Brisbane competition:
1. There would be two Divisions – Premier and First. The number of clubs in each Division would be subject to negotiation. As well as current Premiership clubs, the First Division might include Central Coast, Illawarra and some Sub-Districts clubs.
2. Clubs would be permitted to apply to enter both divisions. Initially, it is likely that many of the Clubs in Premier Division would also be competing in First Division.
3. In both Divisions, the Club would be required to field two Grade and two Colts teams. Games would be played on a home-and-away basis, with both Grade and Colts teams playing at the same venue.
4. At the conclusion of each season, the winner of the Club Championship in First Division, provided it had met all its playing commitments and was not also competing in the Premier Division, would be entitled to challenge the lowest placed Club in the Premier Division Club Championship for the right to play in Premier Division in the next year.
The major problem with the present competition is the imbalance in playing strength between Clubs.
Some Clubs are developing increasingly professionalised coaching and training programs, while others have inadequate training resources and are still locked into what was appropriate decades ago.
A great difficulty for the currently weaker clubs is the requirement that each Club field seven teams – four Grade and three Colts.
This can mean that resources are too thinly spread, with the result this year that teams have been withdrawn and games forfeited. At the same time, there are other clubs that have no difficulty fielding seven or more teams.
Under this proposal Clubs could choose whether to field four or eight teams.
A further weakness of the present competition is that Grade and Colts games are played at different venues, meaning that Club officials and supporters rarely get to see the emerging talent in their Club playing.
An Eastern League
Clubs from Sydney, Brisbane and Canberra would be invited to apply to play in an Eastern League competition. Assuming the present Super 14 structure continues, the competition would begin after the end of the Super 14. Eight to ten teams would play a single round on Sunday afternoons at their own venues, followed by a finals series.
Sunday afternoon rugby could be expected to draw substantial numbers of spectators given that Premiership, Sub-Districts and private school rugby are all played on Saturday. The League would also be very attractive to the additional TV channels coming on line and looking for new sporting product.
Unlike the ARC, most of the infrastructure would be provided by the clubs competing and it would not be essential to have players on professional contracts or to relocate them.
With appropriate sponsorship, the League would not be a drain on ARU finances.
Because Sydney Clubs in the Eastern League would have to field teams on both Saturday and Sunday, the Premiership competition would be of much more even standard.
At the conclusion of each season the highest ranked non-Eastern League club in Sydney could challenge the lowest ranked Sydney Club in the League to take their position.
Eventually, the Eastern League could evolve into a true professional National Club Competition.
The advantage of the model proposed is that it allows for growth and change while building on the traditions and tribalism of Australian rugby. And it gets away from the mess that has been created by viewing our great sport primarily as a business.
Recommend this story.
May 14th 2009 @ 8:49am
cookie said | May 14th 2009 @ 8:49am | Report comment
Good idea in essence but it would be a hell of a task convincing the clubs particularly the strong ones who shouldn’t have anything to fear anyway.
Is a Trans Tasman Pacific comp the way towards a national comp?
I’d love something like euro’s club set up for soccer and rugby…..but given the success or model currently used the success of the wallabies and S14 is to the detriment of club rugby and will make that much harder to set up a viable national comp.
Europe don’t have anything Australian rugby’s S14 and Wallabies setup. The 6 nations comp has to fit around the club comp, whereas we do it the other way around here.
May 14th 2009 @ 8:51am
Reg said | May 14th 2009 @ 8:51am | Report comment
“At the conclusion of each season, the winner of the Club Championship in First Division, provided it had met all its playing commitments and was not also competing in the Premier Division, would be entitled to challenge the lowest placed Club in the Premier Division Club Championship for the right to play in Premier Division in the next year.”
so all four teams would play against each other (2 colts and 2 grades) with the winner of 3 (at least) getting to play Premier? If its 2-2 do you go for an against?
May 14th 2009 @ 9:05am
sheek said | May 14th 2009 @ 9:05am | Report comment
Bruce,
Great effort which should generate keen debate. Some thoughts in reply.
1. As you know, I’m one of those who has trumpeted the SA & NZ provincial model as the basis for the Australian rugby model. But we also have the example of Australian cricket, drawn along similar lines to SA & NZ rugby.
2. For me, provincial rugby has two specific qualities – a) it is clearly hierarchical with well defined pathways, & b) it is designed to be truly national, moving ‘excess’ talent from one area to another area that is ‘under-nourished’.
3. The development of the ‘club’ culture in the northern hemisphere, compared to the ‘provincial’ culture in the southern hemisphere, is perhaps due largely to geography. Generally speaking, Europe is smaller with well defined geographical boundaries – mountains, valleys, rivers, forests. Australia & SA at least, are vast, often generally flat expanses of land.
4. Your proposal, as far I can see, offers nothing for the development of rugby in non-traditional rugby regions like Perth, Melbourne & Adelaide. Should rugby in these regions wither on the vine?
5. The problem with two divisions in each of Sydney & Brisbane, is actually mentioned in passing by yourself. Huge differences in standards & resources. Also, this was tried previously in the 1980s with disastrous consequences.
6. I certainly agree the demand for each premier rugby club to carry 7 teams (4 senior, 3 colts) is becoming unworkable, if not already unworkable. And there’s always the anomaly that club officials can never see all their players in all their teams, on the one ground on the same day. Not to mention fans & families.
7. I also like the Eastern League concept in principle & Sunday arvos playing. But how practical is this in expecting players & teams to double-up on weekends, not to mention fans & families? And it doesn’t solve the problem of teams in non-traditional areas.
8. When the ARC was devised, ‘greenfield’ clubs were selected to avoid the painful process of the bone being pointed at traditional clubs & saying, “team A, you’re in the national comp, team B, you miss out”, & so on.
9. Alternately, should the bone be pointed at traditional clubs, & a national comp made up of one-city/one team clubs in non-traditional areas, & clubs with long & successful histories from traditional areas?
10. For example, in Sydney Randwick would be a shoo-in for a national spot as a stand alone club. Ditto Brothers in Brisbane. Back to Sydney, & Parramatta must represent the Western Sydney region. Who else? Two of Manly, Gordon & Eastwood? In brisbane, who else besides Brothers?
11. At the end of the day, I firmly believe any national comp must be truly national. We have to break out of our Sydney/Brisbane-centric mentality, our Eastern seaboard mentality, & make the game truly national. Otherwise, we’ll be condemned to spend our lives as a marginalised, Eastern States sport.
12. The ARU has to lift the code in so many different areas. For me, the three critical areas are – a) fast tracking the increase in player participants at junior level, b) develop more quality coaching, & c) providing a national comp as an incentive for our youth & a viable professional career opportunity.
May 14th 2009 @ 9:13am
Bruce Ross said | May 14th 2009 @ 9:13am | Report comment
Reg, you are right in assuming that what I propose for the promotion/relegation challenge is that all four grades would play each other.
What I envisage for the Club Championship is that points would be calculated according to the existing values, i.e., First Grade x 15, Second Grade x 8, First Colts x 6, and Second Colts x 3.
Then with regard to the challenge playoffs, the same weightings would be applied to the results from each grade, e.g., the winning margin in First Grade would be multiplied by 15 and the winning margin in Second Colts by 3. The right to compete in the Premier Division would be determined on aggregate points.
May 14th 2009 @ 9:13am
LeftArmSpinner said | May 14th 2009 @ 9:13am | Report comment
Bruce,
The underlying concept of your article that we need to use the clubs and club rugby as the basis of a national comp is valid and sound, but as yet, untested.
However, Super Rugby is going to expand: i.e. double in size and length. The Club season will need to survive without the elite Super rugby players. It can. It is about competition between similarly matched teams with tribal followings.
But, please dont call it third tier unless you want to kill it off completely.
Lets get behind club rugby. It is viable in its own right, it is entertaining, it brings the game to the majority of senior, non elite players and it introduces the game to many other non players, future parents and future spectators.
May 14th 2009 @ 9:41am
stillmissit said | May 14th 2009 @ 9:41am | Report comment
Bruce on the face of it, I love this concept as it solves several pressing problems in rugby.
1. How to make the clubs relevant in a world where their existence is increasingly questioned particularly as professional organisations.
2. The suggestion of a play off to achieve promotion relegation takes into account our history with this. It used to be automatic and good clubs with one off season were dumped to Subbies, they lost supporters and sponsors resulting in a weak club that could not come back and an easy beat could be in first grade.
3. The structured approach you are suggesting should mean that players can develop in a competitive competition where most teams are similar, not where teams are losing 80-0 and the players become disillusioned and leave causing more issues.
4. The development path to S14 would be clearer with the job of scouting for talent easier but not fixed.
5. Playing on Sunday is also a great idea most people are busy on Saturdays.
Generally mate I love it. Looking forward to the critics of this scheme to understand what the downside could be.
May 14th 2009 @ 9:51am
Gary said | May 14th 2009 @ 9:51am | Report comment
Sheek,
You are exactly right when you say “4. Your proposal, as far I can see, offers nothing for the development of rugby in non-traditional rugby regions like Perth, Melbourne & Adelaide. Should rugby in these regions wither on the vine?”
As demonstrated in the ARC, WA can and will field a competitive provincal side tommorrow. We were very dissapointed when the ARC was abandoned.
We also have a viable club competition. My Premier Grade Club is celebrating it’s 80th Anniversary this year.
The problem is not that we don’t have Rugby in WA, its that the (Eastern) Australian Rugby Union has been completely ignoring us.
When I played everyone knew that you could be the best player in the world but would never even be considered for the Wallabies if you were from WA. Now with advent of the Force every kid here knows that if they are good enough the sky is the limit. Junior Clubs are battling to find places for all the kids that want to play. My sons U/9 team has 16 players for 10 on field spots.
Any solution must include WA (one third of Australia). Any competition that does not has no right to call itself “National”
May 14th 2009 @ 10:25am
Bruce Ross said | May 14th 2009 @ 10:25am | Report comment
Sheek, thank you for your detailed response. Let me try to respond to some of them.
I have no argument with your first three points.
4. My proposal takes the existing situation as the basis for possible evolutionary change. I would hope that the Eastern League would be a forerunner to a true, fully professional National Club Competition which would represent a genuine third tier.
It may well be that a Melbourne entity could immediately join the Eastern League but I think there are serious financial impediments to Perth being initially involved and Adelaide are not yet of sufficient standard.
5. I believe that there will be “disastrous consequences” if we do nothing about the present situation in Sydney Premiership rugby.
Under the model I propose each of the present Sydney clubs could apply to compete in the Premier Division. If this were to happen it would remove the necessity of forcibly sending clubs back to First Division. But the advantage over the present situation is that clubs would only be required to field four teams. Presently we have two of our clubs fielding only six teams instead of the seven required by their Participation Agreement.
The clubs with strong player numbers may well choose to participate in both Premier and First Divisions. I think there would be four to six clubs that would be able to put eight teams on the paddock each week. The remaining spots in First Division would probably be filled by areas such as Illawarra, Central Coast, Campbelltown and some of the stronger Sub-Districts clubs. For the first time they would have the incentive of eventually acquiring Premier Division or even Eastern League status.
6. We are in agreement.
7. I don’t envisage players doubling up on Saturday and Sunday. I think that clubs would have to have separate teams for Eastern League and Premier Firsts. This would have an obvious advantage in evening up the playing standard in the Premier grades.
I also think that clubs would soon realise the impracticality of fielding nine teams at three different locations each weekend, with the result that Eastern League clubs would withdraw from First Division to concentrate on five teams in Eastern League and Premier Division.
8. and 9. I could never see any merit in the way the ARC was implemented and I don’t think that a national competition is anywhere near feasible yet. What I am proposing is a modest move in that direction. Most importantly, I believe it is doable now.
10. I believe that there are as many as five legitimate Sydney claimants for an Eastern League spot, and most should be included. I would be very surprised if the committee at Parramatta thought it in their best interests to apply given their present situation. The advantage of the proposal is that the door would not be shut on future participation.
I do not closely follow Brisbane rugby but weren’t the most recent Premiers Easts and Sunnybank? I think that at least three Brissie clubs would be interested in applying.
11. On any journey the best place to start is from where you are at present.
12. Absolutely no disagreement in principle.
May 14th 2009 @ 10:31am
Working Class Rugger said | May 14th 2009 @ 10:31am | Report comment
Bruce’s proposed structure can help the emerging states and help to even out the competitions. Why couldn’t a Sydney or Brisbane club go into the WA,VIC or SA club comps and recruit players to play for one of there teams. These players could then return to assist in lifting the standard of those competitions. Conversely VIC and SA at least could intially enter in the First division and progress into the Premiership. A partnership could be worked in regards to player sharing. Eastern ‘ringers” imported into the WA comp to lift it’s srandard and participation rate.
May 14th 2009 @ 11:08am
Rhys Thompson said | May 14th 2009 @ 11:08am | Report comment
There are some really good points presented here, and i really like the idea of the 8-10 team eastern seaboard comp, as a precursor to a national comp.
In terms of restructuring the club comps in Sydney and Brisbane, the idea of having a Premier and First Division is a good one, but why not add those two to the top of the sub- districts, thus giving every club, even the more social ones, the hope of one day climbing to the top of Sydney or Brisbane Rugby.
I find it really difficult to suppor the idea that club could field teams in both divisions. What if Sydney Uni First division came first in first division, and had the opportunity to get promoted and did so. The following year you could have the farcical situation of Sydney Uni 1 vs Sydney Uni 2, who wants to go and watch that??? And also, how would you control movement in players between the divisions in these clubs?
In reality, if you want a model like this, players not good enough to make the best teams at the clubs should not have the option of playing first division, they should be told to go play somewhere else, go strengthen other clubs ranks, make it a more even competition, so the best team is the best team, not the one that just recruited the best.
So for a start to this comp, premier and first div. have 8 teams each, probably in a make-up something like this in terms of Sydney.
Premier Div.:
Sydney Uni Gordon Eastwood Eastern Subs.
Randwick Warringah Manly West Harbour
First Div.:
Parramatta Penrith Norths Southern Dists.
Illawarra C. Coast Newcastle (1st placed team from 1st Div. Subbies)
After these two divisions, you have a restructure of the subbies comp, with 12 teams in each of those sub-divisions, with all clubs able to be promoted and relegated between all divisions, on the basis of being the club championship winner, and being able to satisfy the requirements of performing in the higher division the following year in terms of facilities etc.
Just some thoughts of mine, sure teams like those from subbies might struggle initially, but you build a stronger competition on the whole, rather than 1 strong permier comp, and the rest which just don’t compare.