Still don’t think we need a national competition?
By sheek, 1 Sep 2009 The Crowd is a Roar Guru
160 Have your say
Related coverage
In light of the of the Wallabies’ continuing woes, here’s another angle on a national competition. In the magnificent movie Zulu, commanding officer Rorke’s Drift Lt. Chard (Stanley Baker) instructs his 2IC Lt. Bromhead (Michael Caine) to form up a platoon of sharpshooters.
The principle is simple – the ‘mobile’ platoon will plug any breeches in the defensive perimeter wherever and whenever they occur.
A well constructed and organised national competition ought to work in a similar fashion. Good quality players come and go. Hopefully, when they retire, an equally good player can be immediately slotted into his position.
Sometimes, it may not work as well. Either too many players retire, or of too high calibre, and the replacements take a while longer to be effective. Looking at the history of NZ and SA rugby, more often than not, they can count bad eras in single years, not in batches of 5, or 10 years.
For Kiwis, 1986 was a disaster year, with the country and ABs both split over the rebel tour of South Africa. The ABs lost the Bledisloe Cup at home 1-2. The Cavaliers were crushed in SA 1-3. The year record was 4-6. Yet the following year – 1987 – the ABs spectacularly won the inaugural rugby world cup.
For Saffies of a slightly older vintage than myself, 1965 was a bad year for them. On tour in Australia and NZ, the Boks won just one test out of 6. Yet by their next test year – 1967 – they were back in the winner’s circle.
Here’s another example of the importance of a national competition. The first year i followed cricket was 1968. That very summer – 1968/69 – coincidentally, NSW finished last for the very first time in a 5 team competition in the Sheffield Shield.
Of the first 20 Sheffield Shields following WW2, NSW won a staggering 14, including 9 in a row 1953/54-1961/62. But by the late 60s, NSW cricket, the traditional stronghold of Australian cricket, was in a slump.
In the 70s, NSW recovered slightly to usually finish midfield. But they won no SSs between 1965/66 and 1982/83. While NSW was in a slump, the WA star was rising.
WA won the SS in 1967/68, then added a further 6 titles from 1971/72 to 80/81. Critically, WA had taken up the slack vacated by NSW.
Surely, the morale to the story must be clear!
Every sport in every country has its traditional strongholds. If the strongholds are struggling, then hopefully, the slack will be picked up elsewhere.
If both NSW and Queensland rugby are in a slump, who can we turn to for relief? Had Australian rugby maintained a powerful presence in Victoria, how different might the rugby union landscape be today?
How many more Weary Dunlops, Dave Cowpers, Nicky Barrs and Stan Bissetts might Victoria have produced in the past 60 years had Victoria remained strong? How much stronger might these types of players made the Wallabies?
In the future, if/when NSW and Queensland rugby is in a rut, then we might turn to WA or Victoria to pick up the slack. This is another importance of developing a national focus and national competition.
NSW, Queensland and ACT may be near saturation in the new players they can develop. But what opportunities await the game in WA, Victoria and SA?
A national competition is of prime importance not so much when things are going well, but when things turn pear-shaped. If the national competition is healthy, then the recovery of the national team will be quicker.
Not the current 5 year rut that the Wallabies have endured, and for which there is no immediate end in sight. Perhaps after another 5 years of drought, we will see the light?????
Have you seen the new Wallabies jersey? Want one of your own? We're giving away a brand new 2013 Wallabies jersey to one lucky Roarer, click here to go in the running to win.
Do you have what it takes to become a sports writer? Write for the roar
Rugby Union articles
- Wallabies squad announced: Folau in, no Quade Cooper – yet (252)
- Deans: Should he stay or should he go? (243)
- I was dead-set wrong about Folau (237)
- What gives with Israel Folau? (184)
- Deans promises ball in hand rugby for Wallabies against Lions (183)
- Quade shouldn’t be fly half against the Lions (182)
- My Lion tamers for 2013 (167)
- O’Connor to relish Wallabies’ No.10 role (23)
- Ioane ruled out for Reds with injury
- Folau shocked by Wallabies selection (6)
- SPIRO’s Lions Diary: Deans goes for experience, plus Folau (203)
- Finals talk taboo for NSW Waratahs (18)
- McKenzie defends omitted Quade Cooper (52)
- Wilkinson named Europe’s best rugby player
- Wallabies 25-man Lions squad: analysis (149)
- Wallabies 2013 Lions Tour squad announcement: Live blog (193)
- Picking Quade and Izzy is a no brainer (40)
- Cheetahs vs Reds: Super Rugby live scores, blog (184)
- Michael Hooper in box the seat for Wallabies start (2)
- Can Robbie Deans win me back, and the rugby public? (0)
- Waratahs vs Brumbies: Super Rugby live scores, blog (517)
Recommend this story.
- Explore:
- Bledisloe Cup, national rugby competition, RFU, Rugby Union, wallabies, Weary Dunlop



September 1st 2009 @ 4:00am
ozxile said | September 1st 2009 @ 4:00am | Report comment
Sheek, I could not agree more. I just posted a longish ‘blueprint’ on this a few minutes ago. As I read what you have here my post may function as Part II of this discussion. With a bit of luck the editors will leave it alone – so you can tear it as appropriate.
September 1st 2009 @ 7:31am
sheek said | September 1st 2009 @ 7:31am | Report comment
Thanks for the support, Ozxile.
September 1st 2009 @ 8:12am
Pippinu said | September 1st 2009 @ 8:12am | Report comment
Sheek
full marks for persistence – and I have to admit – it’s not a bad angle on things (the cricketing analogy).
But I still have a bit of trouble understanding:
1. Why five Australian teams in super rugby does not suffice; and
2. How, what would be essentially a second tier, or even a third tier of rugby can be economically feasible in Australia.
By the way, I’m wondering if the Super teams run reserves teams, and if not, whether that could achieve what you’re talking about?
September 1st 2009 @ 9:30am
ozxile said | September 1st 2009 @ 9:30am | Report comment
Pippinu. Why bother with the Curry Cup or the NPC? Do you really think that the Boks and ABs would be the same without those comps?
September 1st 2009 @ 12:42pm
Michael C said | September 1st 2009 @ 12:42pm | Report comment
I would’ve thought the Currie Cup and the NPC in RSA and NZ sit in a vastly different domestic sporting and football codes context than does or can anything the ARU has or can offer in Australia.
It’s hard not to believe that the chance – perhaps a half-chance – was offered some years ago, and the ARU missed it.
You need a Clive Palmer.
September 1st 2009 @ 8:30am
LeftArmSpinner said | September 1st 2009 @ 8:30am | Report comment
the solution is already in front of us.
create a “premier league” of two conferences of 8 teams, (NSW and Qld) invite tenders from anyone on criteria used by FFA, NRL etc. The teams that are likely to emerge are the 4-5 super 14 teams, and then the best three clubs, maybe amalgamating to submit a team. So, for example, Randwick, Easts and Uni, playing at SFS. Open bids to everyone, everyone. Private funding and a TV deal, John O’Niell and his team have done this before, very successfully, at the FFA.
The brand of rugby, the marketing into the schools at local level, the tribal nature, and bingo, a national comp that is vibrant and exciting and great TV product. Stick it on One HD. Everyone can see it. OneHD did a great job launching the trans-tasman netball.
its not that hard.
September 1st 2009 @ 8:46am
sheek said | September 1st 2009 @ 8:46am | Report comment
Leftie,
I would love to ‘lift’ Randwick into a national comp. They deserve it with their history of sustained success. Also Brisbane Brothers. And Parramatta representing the greater West of Sydney.
I wouldn’t have Sydney Uni or Qld Uni in a national comp under any circumstances. Their representation is too narrow & elitist. In any case, the problem is jealousy. If you promote say Randwick & Parramatta in tact, the remaining premier rugby clubs simply won’t accept that.
At least, I sort of think this was part of your suggestion. So in that regard, it’s not simple at all!
September 1st 2009 @ 9:10am
LT80 said | September 1st 2009 @ 9:10am | Report comment
Sheek,
I almost completely agree with LAS. Open up the process such that any club, whether new or existing, can put forward their case to be involved, and each bid is assessed against on it’s merits. Who knows what surprises this might produce. Why do you have this pre-conceived notion that the Uni clubs should be excluded?
However, this solution would necessarily give a lot of power to the clubs, and the ARU have publicly stated that they see this as a problem to be avoided.
September 1st 2009 @ 9:11am
reds fan said | September 1st 2009 @ 9:11am | Report comment
And sheek I understand your motivation regarding Uni and elitism, but I think it would be wrong to turn our backs on tradition. Its almost as though rugby would be ashamed of the very thing that fed it during its amateur days.
I think the Uni’s should be retained. But the balance will come with thenew teams in new areas.
Every comp has its “silevrtails” that everyone loves to hate. As they have the ‘old foundation’ clubs vs the new kids on the block (great band… NOT!)… it all adds to the narravtive of the sporting contest. I think it woudl provide the comp with great diversity.
September 1st 2009 @ 11:13am
Bay35Pablo said | September 1st 2009 @ 11:13am | Report comment
Wasn’t there a rumour in the SMH recently that Parra was looking at moving to Castle Hill? Which means you would only be covering the north west …
September 1st 2009 @ 8:39am
sheek said | September 1st 2009 @ 8:39am | Report comment
Pip,
For the national comp to present itself front & centre on the national landscape, the super series needs to change its structure from the present set-up to a Heineken Cup style format.
This means the top teams from the domestic comps of each of Australia, NZ, SA & perhaps Argentina would ‘qualify for the say, S12 (top 3 from each of 4 nations). So you would still have a super series, but in an abridged format.
This requires a huge paradigm shift in thinking which presently is beyond too many people, including the administrators.
The national comp teams (8 to 10) would all have private equity overseen by the ARU. The states & territories would still be responsible for producing, developing & organising comps from juniors up to district, suburban & regional.
There are no reserve teams as such. Each province has an Academy, which plays an inconsequential amount of games as far as I’m aware.
My model would have no reserves teams. The highest level below the national comp would the premier rugby comps in each capital city.
I mentioned that the national comp teams would be funded mostly (hopefully) by private equity. Let’s look at a 10 team model. 15 players only per club would be fully professional. The remaining 20 players per club would initially be only semi-professional until the game generated more money.
With the ARC in place to act as an incentive pathway for youth, developments officers would have to flood the states & territories, & especially the rapid youth catchment areas (Western Sydney, Central Coast, Gold COast, Southern Brisbane) to entice schools & individuals across to rugby union.
The ARU would be required to provide every assistance to the development officers in what will undoubtedly be a very difficult & stressful assignment.
The provincial teams would be consigned to history.
Sydney will become the Waratahs; Brisbane the Reds; Canberra the Brumbies & Perth the Force. Add Melbourne Rebels, Adelaide Falcons, East Sydney Fleet, West Sydney Rams, Central Coast Rays & Gold Coast Breakers. Later on, all going well, we can add Newcastle & North Qld, etc.
September 1st 2009 @ 8:49am
reds fan said | September 1st 2009 @ 8:49am | Report comment
I’d actually think that you need to hang onto the strong club cultures as best as possible. The NRL and AFL have both shown that a national comp can be created from established provincial club comps. I’d like to see the “big” clubs in both Sydney and Brisbane have teams in the comp, and then have them augmented with additional “new” clubs that are established in obvious markets… which is exactly what the NRL and AFL did.
So the big clubs in Sydney are Uni, Randwick, etc… they’d all be the foundation clubs. But then perhaps the western sydney clubs could become feeder clubs for a new western sydney team that is created in a private equity JV with those unions.
Likewise the Force may enter a “b” team, along with one from Vic. Smaller markets being one team towns.
The heart ache comes when some clubs need to be left behind in the remaining inferior comp (like the Newtown Jets). And people are going to say “but it’ll ruin the sydney and brisbane comps” or “what about the shute??”… well I actually think the improved pathway might mean the lower comps see more players sticking at it longer.
Ayway… just some of my thoughts….
September 1st 2009 @ 8:59am
reds fan said | September 1st 2009 @ 8:59am | Report comment
My reasoning for the above is that if yo are after tribalism, you need to found the comp on the established tribalism. This is something that is built up over decades, not one or two years. It worked in football cos they were starved. The ARC showed that it wont work in rugby. Its too “manufactured”.
September 1st 2009 @ 9:02am
reds fan said | September 1st 2009 @ 9:02am | Report comment
But the basis of any inclusion should be financial sustainability. If the “Uni’s” with their “narrow” base can meet the criteria, they’re in I say.
I think the two “uni’s” would create a great rvialry from the get go!
September 1st 2009 @ 9:38am
sheek said | September 1st 2009 @ 9:38am | Report comment
Reds, etc,
I hear what you’re saying. But some of your thinking leaves me exasperated. Syd Uni can still exist in Sydney premier rugby & Qld Uni can still exist in Brisbane premier rugby.
There is no place for them in a national comp. It’s this kind of exclusive thinking that holds rugby back.
As for tribalism, tradition, every history has a beginning, I think, is how one of the Star Wars movies begins.
Personally, my first-choice national comp would always be provincial. But even I have had to accept that people for some reason aren’t fond of that anymore. So the next best option is to create the so-called ‘greenfield’ teams we saw in ARC.
I’m sorry, but no wonder rugby union has such little widespread appeal! Also, I think you need to go back & read my post. There are several varying reasons why we need a national comp.
September 1st 2009 @ 9:55am
reds fan said | September 1st 2009 @ 9:55am | Report comment
Dont get exasperated just cos you aren’t agreed with.. you’ll waste too much energy for nothing that way.
I just think calls such as “we should build 8 new teams” is bloody wishful thinking. These things dont just happen overnight… and I am not doing this out of a need to be exclusive! I’m looking at this from a purely business perspective. (my day job is as a product manager, its the way i see the world).
This is about being sustainable. Revenue will be driven by two things – crowd attendance and tv viewer numbers. They in turn drive jersey, rugby ground and tv advertising/sponsors.
You need concrete numbers of supporters, a bedrock. The big established clubs bring this, and their clubhouse operations need to also support this. This in particular is one area where Rugby is way behind League. They are licenced venues but I doubt they are fully leveraging that cost… but I digress….
Utilising the established clubs will bring established crowd numbers that will form the base. And it is from this base that you expand into those new regions like vic, wa, western sydney, north qld etc. (see i’m not exclusive.. i think the inclusion of these new areas is the main strategic driver for a national comp!)
The FFA pulled it off cos they closed down the previous national comp, and the fans were starved. Rugby fans could still either watch their club, state or national sides. Too much competition for a limited number of weekends and viewing hours.
September 1st 2009 @ 10:03am
JF said | September 1st 2009 @ 10:03am | Report comment
What makes you think the Shute Shield folk will let this happen, they won’t let Canberra into the comp, but will be behind building a national competition??
September 1st 2009 @ 10:17am
LT80 said | September 1st 2009 @ 10:17am | Report comment
JF, what makes you think they won’t want to be involved?
Syd Uni publicly stated they wanted to take part in the ARC as a standalone club. Someone on here also mentioned that Randwick had similar ambitions.
September 1st 2009 @ 11:10am
sheek said | September 1st 2009 @ 11:10am | Report comment
Red,
I don’t want to get bogged down with Sydney & Qld Uni, as it diverts from the greater issues, except to say this – England is the most exclusive & elitist minded of countries, yet they don’t have Oxford & Cambridge Uni’s running around in the Guinness premiership, which is effectively their national comp.
I don’t believe the big, established clubs offer what you’re suggesting, certainly not at premier rugby level. Many of these clubs have been around for 100 years, & didn’t take their opportunities to expand in that time.
Admittedly we’re talking about an amateur era, but either way, we need something else beyond premier rugby clubs for a national focus.
I’m sure you have seen or read the TV viewer ratings for the test. very dismal reading. Blown away by a Harry Potter movie. The figures are poor in Sydney/brisbane, & worse elsewhere.
Rugby MUST expand its base – players & fans. It never belonged to the rusted-on diehards!
September 1st 2009 @ 9:31am
JF said | September 1st 2009 @ 9:31am | Report comment
The Bris and Syd club comps should be left as is, they have had ample opportunity to be the base of a national comp but have not been interested. Too complicated, too much politics – leave them be. I strongly believe that Southern Hemisphere rugby will never reach its full potential until the Heineken Cup model is adopted and the same teams that play the domestic comps are the same teams that play in the SH cup. But, I don’t hold out much hope for this, and think it is more productive to concentrate on building on what we already have. So, IMO we need to build an 8 team post S15 season, currie cup style competition, minimising the creation of any new teams. The S15 teams will go the way of private equity, VicSuper 15 style, while the domestic teams will remain representatives of their union e.g VRU. Queensland will be represented by the QRU and QCRU, NSW by NSWRU, NSWCRU and the only newly created team “WS Rams” or whatever. ACTRU, WARU and VRU. The idea of this this comp is that there will already be some type of supporter base for each team and the fixtures will be played at small “rugby” grounds.
September 1st 2009 @ 10:10am
reds fan said | September 1st 2009 @ 10:10am | Report comment
JF i am aware of the reluctance of the Brisbane and Sydney comps to go national. And for me it is THE biggest stumbling block. If they wont be a part of it a national third tier comp it will never happen.
I would love to think 8-10 new teams could be created and supported overnight, but they cant. That means the third tier comp would be an ARU created product, and it would be draining funds from national and state unions. That is not a sustainable model and is the very reason why the ARC was cut.
Sorry to sound pessimistic but I dont think it can be wholly funded from the ARU. It needs to be a bottom up creation…. supported by fans, and paid for by fans (and by that I mean by the advertising opportunities their attendance/veiwing create).
September 1st 2009 @ 10:13am
reds fan said | September 1st 2009 @ 10:13am | Report comment
and we also need to be aware that a new 5 year deal is about to be struck for super rugby. so if you want a third tier national comp in the next five years you’ll need to work within that framework.
September 1st 2009 @ 11:34am
sheek said | September 1st 2009 @ 11:34am | Report comment
Red,
We all know the previous ARC model was flawed. But let’s not throw the good of the concept out with the bad of the modelling.
We all know that warehousing the leading 30 Wallabies (because of WC) was a huge mistake. Fans want to see the best, even if they had only played the schedule of games.
We all know having (East) Sydney Fleet play out of North Sydney oval was incredibly stupid, & the compromise helped neither the Eastern Suburbs or North Shore. Then we had the Sydney North Shore players playing out of Central Coast.
The ARC was too ambitious with its choice of stadia, & should have looked at smaller grounds. They might also have considered playing the comp midweek, so as not to clash with AFL & NRL on the weekends.
There are ways & means of making a national comp work. It requires smarter thinking, & perhaps a less ambitious beginning. Start small & grow.
Of course you’re right the ARU can’t fund it by themselves. We have no option but to involve private equity.
September 1st 2009 @ 9:54am
Brett McKay said | September 1st 2009 @ 9:54am | Report comment
Sheek, you’ve hit it on the head (again) with the Sheffield Shield model, that’s the obvious basis on which to build a national comp. Calls for Super rugby to mimmick the Heineken Cup also make a lot of sense. The NPC, Currie Cup, and APC/ARC (plus the Argentians or Asia/Pacific region) feed into an 8-team HK comp over 9 weeks or so.
JF’s post-season comp makes good sense too, if the HK can’t happen..
September 1st 2009 @ 11:24am
True Tah said | September 1st 2009 @ 11:24am | Report comment
Brett
if we ever did get the national competition going say with the 8 teams Sheek as put forward, which I think are the right bases, then a Heineken Cup style tournament should have the top 4 from each of the Air New Zealand Cup and Currie Cup, 3 from the Aussie Comp, 3 from the Argentine Provincial comp and 2 from the Pacific Cup (where 6 Islander teams compete). It could be split into 4 pools and done on a home and away basis.
Alternatively it could be split into two conferences – Atlantic and Pacific, obviously the numbers would need to adjusted to reflect this – this would be one way to potentially reduce travel costs.
Looking at the standings now for the Currie Cup and ANZ Cup, you would have teams like Griquas and Southland, who havent been too successful in their respective competitions, playing in this comp, and presumably getting some share of the TV revenue. Plus it would help share the pool with the Islanders and Argentines, who just might end up having enough $$$ to get their players to have a professional setup for their world cups.
September 1st 2009 @ 11:36am
sheek said | September 1st 2009 @ 11:36am | Report comment
True Tah,
You’ve eloquently expressed some of the things I’ve been trying to get across, & I thank you for that!
September 1st 2009 @ 2:28pm
mitzter said | September 1st 2009 @ 2:28pm | Report comment
I think the problem with a heinekin cup comp is that a lot of these ideas were floated at the start of the super comp and all countries didn’t want some of their national players missing out on it
September 1st 2009 @ 8:53pm
QC said | September 1st 2009 @ 8:53pm | Report comment
I Like what your saying Brett it is a great idea.
However I very much doubt NZ or SA would go for such a thing as their competitions are working fine as they are. Not to mention that rugby is the dominant sport in the two countries and NZ saw in the last few years what happens when there is too much rugby.
It’s a good concept for sure but the uproar in NZ at the moment about teams being cut from the First Division is huge and any future tournament like you suggested would once agian cause reshuffling of the domestic season of both NZ and SA.
Is it the duty of these two countries to bring Australia up to speed?
Why should their competitions suffer to accomodate?
I’m just asking questions as I like your idea but these are two that come to mind when thinking about the cons
September 1st 2009 @ 10:27am
JF said | September 1st 2009 @ 10:27am | Report comment
LT80,
The Shute Shield competition has been in the best position of any competition in Australia to expand into / develop a national club competition, yet no expansion of any sort has happened. It is as if they want to remain an exclusive, amateur club competition, yet they complain when our country’s top professionals aren’t available for club duty. The sydney comp has to decide what they want to be, the premier national competition, or a quaint amateur club competition – they can’t be both!
September 1st 2009 @ 10:38am
reds fan said | September 1st 2009 @ 10:38am | Report comment
JF I think that is something we all agree on. What they need to be “influenced” with is the thought that if they dont become the national comp, there will be one made over the top of them… and then see if they ever have a wallaby running around in their sides again… hmmm.. play for country, state/super team, province… er club?? there’s not that many weekends in a year!
September 1st 2009 @ 11:15am
sheek said | September 1st 2009 @ 11:15am | Report comment
JF,
Add to that on different occasions in the past 15 years, firstly Newcastle & Canberra, then Central Coast & Illawarra, were added to Sydney premier rugby. But the 12 Sydney based clubs complained on each occasion there was too much travel involved!!!
Furthermore, North Shore & Eastern Suburbs clubs still curse under their breath that Parramatta & Penrith are too far away!
Talk about selfish & self-absorbed……….
September 1st 2009 @ 10:43am
Rickety Knees said | September 1st 2009 @ 10:43am | Report comment
Sheekie – my old mate – you are like a dog with a bone. I admire your tenacity and you are right – we do need a national competition and don’t forget a Cockatoo side playing out of Gosford.
Private equity is causing a few kerfuffles around the country at the moment – I can only hope that once JON has his way on this – which will free up some ARU cash and that he turns his attention to a national comp.
I can only hope because if it is not part of his master plan to grow the game then it ain’t gonna happen.
September 1st 2009 @ 11:15am
Rickety Knees said | September 1st 2009 @ 11:15am | Report comment
Oh and I went to watch Avoca Beach play Gosford in the major semi final (under the ELV’s) – it was the best game of Rugby that I have watched all year. Played at pace with the ball moving frenetically around – the score in the balance to the end (Avoca 16 d Gosford 12). The product is there – the Shute Shield has been great. The time is right ot expand the game at the grass roots level.
September 1st 2009 @ 11:19am
sheek said | September 1st 2009 @ 11:19am | Report comment
Rickety,
PE is not necessarily ideal but it is now absolutely necessary. For the ARU to move forward, it requires more funding, which PE can provide.
Good article on SMH’s Monday paper with Roy Masters talking to John O’Neill, who admitted, because of the elite player deals, too much money was tied up with paying them, & not enough available to develop the game. At least O’Neill has publicly admitted what many of us suspected for a long time.