Brumbies and Waratahs will rule Aussie rugby
Roar Guru By James Mortimer, 31 Jul 2009 James Mortimer is a Roar Guru
- Tagged:
- Brett Sheehan, Brumbies, Drew Mitchell, Force, John Mitchell, Lote Tuqiri, Matt Dunning, Matt Giteau, Reds, Rocky Elsom, Rugby Union, Stirling Mortlock, Super 14 rugby, Tim Fairbrother, waratah
With the double signings of both Berrick Barnes and Drew Mitchell by the Waratahs, it has become obvious that the Australian Super 14 hopes will be a two horse race in 2010.
More to the point, both the Queensland Reds and Western Force will struggle to compete let alone finish in the top half of the table.
Both teams have not done this in recent Super rugby history.
The Force did finish seventh in their second year, but placed one position worse this year and will not have the services of key players next year, most notably Matt Giteau and Drew Mitchell.
Fortuitously for the three year-old team, they still are able to recruit shrewdly, employing a strategy based on the fact that they are still a rugby State in genesis, banking on the reputation of John Mitchell as a back to basics rugby coach – who is still highly regarded despite this year’s controversies – and pulling over players who are “stuck behind” other front line players in other teams.
Headlined by former Springbok Andre Pretorius, the Force has also signed Brett Sheehan, Nic Henderson, Pek Cowan, Tim Fairbrother, Matt Dunning and Sam Harris.
While all are solid signings, these men are not championship winning additions.
The Queensland Reds, however, a foundation Australian rugby state, are in complete disarray.
They have finished no higher than twelfth in the last three years, and haven’t finished better than eighth since 2003. It is a damning statistic for a team whose history books reflect victories over the All Blacks and British and Irish Lions, and who threatened the Super rugby title in the late nineties.
In the long term, for a rugby nation about to host a fifth team, whether it is actually a local side or a “lodged team” from another country, this could present problems: for the ARU, the already tenuous SANZAR alliance, and the market value of the Super rugby broadcasting deals.
If the fifth team is comprised of local players, how will it be manned considering the gross inbalance of the current Australian rugby stocks?
The Brumbies next year will field eleven Wallabies, most of them first choice. Key amongst their new signings is Rocky Elsom and Matt Giteau.
This allows the two time champions to make a concerted assault on the 2010 title.
With Elsom, Giteau, Stirling Mortlock and George Smith, the Canberra based franchise wields a minimum of four players who could be counted as inclusions into a possible World XV.
For the Waratahs, their position is even more impressive, able in theory to roll out an entire starting team of internationally capped players.
Eleven of their squad featured in the Wallabies last match 22 against the All Blacks at Eden Park, and despite losing both Lote Tuqiri and Timana Tahu, they will look to hoist a maiden Super rugby title.
The strength of these two teams is a reflection of precious little control over Australian playing stocks and movement.
Some detractors will be quick to point out that there is lack of balance in both South Africa’s and New Zealand’s Super rugby squads, but this is not based on the players making decisions to move teams or States.
In South Africa, while the Cheetahs and Lions certainly struggle for success, the Sharks, Bulls and Stormers are legitimate title contenders (despite the Western Province side’s poor season this year – they came fifth in 2008).
The three blue chip South African sides are strongly based on their domestic union allocations, not due to an unfair player trading schedule.
The Stormers draw primarily from Western Province, winners of the most Currie Cup titles (32); the Bulls draw from the Blue Bulls, winners of the second most (22); while the Sharks draw from Natal – the current Currie Cup champions.
In New Zealand, it is similar, with the strength of their teams reflective of the depth of their geographical catchment areas and the sides drawing from the 26 New Zealand domestic unions.
The Highlanders and Blues draw from three, whereas the Hurricanes draw from nine local unions.
All five New Zealand Super rugby franchises can lay some claim to success throughout the thirteen year history of the tournament.
Furthermore, the NZRU has a draft system that allows the teams to protect 24 players, but those outside that safeguard are able to be traded fairly – by and large – to other “super provinces”.
But despite ambitious bids for the 15th Super rugby team from New Zealand and South Africa, this is a moot point.
Australia will host the new side.
But with their domestic house not in order, the likely continued hegemony in the local landscape by the Brumbies and Waratahs will need to be addressed soon.
Recommend this story.
July 31st 2009 @ 8:47am
Bay35Pablo said | July 31st 2009 @ 8:47am | Report comment
Bit hard on the Force suggesting they haven’t been competitive in recent years. I think they have done all right, and no team could take them lightly. Depth has always been their issue, to maintain the level over a season.
Similarly comments on all NZ sides doing well at some stage during the 13 years of Super Rugby. When have Otago done really well again … ? They may have but b#ggered if I can remember when in 13 years of following it.
Having said that, the 5th Aussie side being added does raise issue of where the talent will come from, especially with ACT and NSW stockpiling it. The ARU’s attitude seems to be it will come from somewhere, with the usual waffle about them coming back from Europe (which they said for the Force too) or from Pac islands or other SANZAR nations. However, they won’t be recruiting, and how will the rules on eligibility change, if at all. How will it change from the current marquee rules?
Once again, the ARU seems to be engaging in the blue sky stuff, and leaving the dirt pounding to the states, usually hamstrung by other stuff the ARU didn’t think through. Or will be working it all out in 12-18 months time, all a bit late.
Do we need a draft like NZ? Would it be legal in Australia with the competition laws? Should the ARU play a role in directing centrally contracted players to teams to strengthen teams overall? Should we allow this to happen, and would it just ensure 5 average teams rather than allow winning teams to be built?
Why is this discussion always going on the Roar and amongst fans, and never in the regular rugby media or publicly by rugby administrators?
Could the best thing to ever happen be the Olympics taking on sevens rugby? Because if rugby gets public funding from the government, soccer has shown the government wants proper structure, and answers when they ask questions.
July 31st 2009 @ 9:03am
True Tah said | July 31st 2009 @ 9:03am | Report comment
Pablo
I think a draft would not work in rugby at all. It only really works where you have two criteria in place.
1) There is no real links between the professional club which employs the players and the system which develops them. The main example of this is professional football in the US, where the NFL does not run junior teams, development is left to schools and universities. In the rugby world, the closest example would probably be in Japan, where a somewhat similar system exists. Arguably we may we have this in Australian rugby or moving towards it, with sides like the Brumbies and Force recruiting heavily from Queensland.
2) There is only one pool of players the professional comp draws its players from. Whilst rugby may not be a global game in the same vein as futbol, the fact is, how would say a Pretorius or a Braid fit into the draft system?
James – as a Tahs supporter, Im not prepared to say they are going to rule Australian rugby, Ive heard it too many times before.
July 31st 2009 @ 1:30pm
Who Needs Melon said | July 31st 2009 @ 1:30pm | Report comment
“as a Tahs supporter, Im not prepared to say they are going to rule Australian rugby, Ive heard it too many times before”
Although I count myself as a Brumbies supporter more than a Waratahs supporter, I’m with you. I’m going to assume it will take at least a year for positions to be settled, playing styles and combinations to sort themselves out, etc. – I don’t think Hickey should use that as an excuse of course – he needs to facilitate the decision of the team in taking a clear direction in terms of tactics and game plan and sticking to it.
July 31st 2009 @ 4:16pm
AndyS said | July 31st 2009 @ 4:16pm | Report comment
Not sure I’d agree with the first point, simply because that is not the case in the AFL…the professional clubs are all owned by the same entities that run the feeder competitions. For example, in the case of the Eagles and Dockers, both are owned by the WAFC.
I would have said that the two criteria would be that a) all of the feeder systems would have to buy into the concept (i.e. the sport as a whole is effectively controlled by a single governing entity), and b) the players don’t have the option of just going and playing elsewhere. The second would be Rugby’s biggest hurdle.
July 31st 2009 @ 9:52am
sheek said | July 31st 2009 @ 9:52am | Report comment
I might ask the question – where have all the quality players gone?
And I don’t mean NSW & ACT. We’re kidding ourselves about a 5th super team, aren’t we? We’re struggling to put together 4 competitive teams.
TT,
Apologies for not reading your post in full, but I agree with Pablo. We must have both a salary cap & draft. The best run sports must have a “hands-on” approach from their governing body. I believe the problems in Australian rugby are partly due to the ARU sitting on the sidelines & doing nothing, or very little.
Even the Americans, greatest champions of democracy & freedom of the individual, realise all the entities in their major leagues must be supported, & give the appearance of all being equal, for the competition as a whole to thrive.
The Americans therefore, are willing to introduce some forms of socialism, in order for the integrity of the whole to be successful.
Worst case scenario, if Queensland were to topple over, even if replaced by say Gold Coast, how is this good for Australian rugby? If in 5 years, we have NSW, ACT, Gold Coast, Western Sydney & Victoria, but have lost Queensland & WA, how is this good for Australian rugby?
The above is merely a scenario for purposes of illustration, but I hope I make my point – the ARU must have a hands-on approach to ensure the long-term viability of all its franchises/teams, whatever.
July 31st 2009 @ 10:30am
Hammer said | July 31st 2009 @ 10:30am | Report comment
Bay – Otago don’t play in the S14 …. if you mean the Highlanders they’ve made the semis in 1998, 1999, and 2000 and hosted a final – losing to the Crusaders …
I said this as soon as a 5th team idea was raised – zero depth to fill it … the overseas player recruitment is a myth and in any case those players are has beens or couldn’t cut it in the first place – so zero benefit from a Wallaby perspective
it’s not SANZAR’s role to develop player depth in Australia it’s the ARU’s job … Australia need to prove they have depth first – before being granted a 5th team …. but now it’s on the horizon – it’s evident that this conference will without doubt be the weakest of the 3 and what will eventuate is 2 poor Aust super teams, a middle of the road one and 2 strong outfits … and that over time may impact on player development
August 2nd 2009 @ 6:46pm
Bay35Pablo said | August 2nd 2009 @ 6:46pm | Report comment
hammer, here’s my reply I couldn’t post Friday.
I stand corrected. I knew I would get my head shot off if I was wrong, but frankly couldn’t be arsed spending 30 seconds on a Google search to check. I seemed to recall they had been better a while ago, but recent form had been poor.
I agree we may not have the depth for a 5th side, but I’d rather have 5 years of pain to expand our playing depth by another 30 pro players, to be frank. Given JON & Co seem intent on not building the game lower down. Further, I think the Force have done OK, and the Reds have had as much problems with admin and coaching as with player depth, so we may
not be as weak as would seem. Another couple of years and I suspect those teams would have slowly built/recovered. An extra team is like that repeat set of waves at the beach when you are struggling in the surf ….
In many ways we are going to follow the Saafies, in having a couple of good sides, a half decent side, and a couple of crap sides. yet the Saafies can chirp on about wanting a 6th? Further, in many ways NZ usually has a couple of under performers each season, it just varies who.
I agree the ARU should do more, and many Roarers clearly think the same way.
I like how JON apparently said the ARC lost $5m, and the ARU has $15m, in reserves, “you do the math”.
My response would be (i) are you working out how to avoid losing $5m next time? because we can’t use the S15 as our national comp, and (ii) what’s the $15m for then? That’s a frigging wet rainy day you are waiting for. I am all for having reserves of cash, but we have some issues to resolve too!!!
July 31st 2009 @ 10:51am
Bay35Pablo said | July 31st 2009 @ 10:51am | Report comment
hammer, my longer reply not posting. will post tonight from home.
I hate the no names franchise names, and it was Otago in 1996-1997, so they’ll always be Otago to me. I know it’s not the NZ Cup side, but I loathe this “The (Franchise Merchandising Name Here” approach.
July 31st 2009 @ 4:54pm
Sam Taulelei said | July 31st 2009 @ 4:54pm | Report comment
Don’t mean to nitpick Bay but the NZ Super 12 teams from 1996/97were called :
Auckland Blues
Waikato Chiefs
Wellington Hurricanes
Canterbury Crusaders
Otago Highlanders
They have never been called just by their provincial names. However it does make it easier to identify the general region they emanate from if you don’t closely follow Super rugby than when the provincial names are dropped.
July 31st 2009 @ 11:02am
sheek said | July 31st 2009 @ 11:02am | Report comment
The situation with Queensland Reds is very serious indeed. Perhaps of far greater concern than many of us realise.
Another question from me – what is the ARU going to do about all this?
Right now, the prospect of Australian rugby having a 5th super team is perhaps as far away as Mars.
July 31st 2009 @ 11:21am
Bay35Pablo said | July 31st 2009 @ 11:21am | Report comment
Sheek,
I’ll tell you what the ARU will do – SFA. They will say it is an issue for the Reds admin to deal with. thus ignoring the problems there, and letting it get worse.
While to a degree that is technically correct, they could well be left with a gutted weak team, or having to bail the team out like they did NSW. Then we will all be asking why they didn’t do more earlier. I.e. now!!
given JON has a reputation for commercial sense and decisive leadership, how about he shows it. They should be flying up to Brisbane very publicly, to discuss how the ARU can help the Reds. And make clear they are fully supportive and determined to see Reds rugby strong again. Collaborative approach, etc.
Won’t happen.
July 31st 2009 @ 11:42am
Hammer said | July 31st 2009 @ 11:42am | Report comment
Bay I know what you’re saying – but they’re conglomerate teams – so by calling them just Otago they lose any support from the other provinces that make them up … any true blue Southlander won’t have anything to do with a team called Otago … and seeing Southland provide a good chunk of their player base – they need to have some buy in
July 31st 2009 @ 11:50am
Bay35Pablo said | July 31st 2009 @ 11:50am | Report comment
hammer, I understand, and it has been thrashed out on the Roar before ad nauseam.
As some have said, when people ask where they are from I say “Otago” rather than, “Well, its a bit complicated, basically they are a comglomerate of …”
Until they start calling them the South South Island Highlanders, the Central South Islander Crusaders, the North North Island Blues, the Central North Island Chiefs, and the South North Island Hurricanes … I’ll call them Otago here, and watch what I say when I head across the ditch.
As the 12th Man once said as Bill Lawrie “I’ll just go on calling him Grahame, Max … “
July 31st 2009 @ 11:51am
FRED said | July 31st 2009 @ 11:51am | Report comment
or maybe it gives jon a chance to exert more control under the banner of pragmatism;a gift from heaven
mooney is the aru quintessential man;i dont mean sycophant or obsequious;omnipresent