By Rickety Knees -
September 23rd 2009 @ 1:44am
Get a Roar profile
Loading ...Related coverage
The elite player base in Australia is too small
Through concentrating its growth strategy around its four Super 14 franchises, the ARU has limited the Wallaby selection pool to just 60 players.
The Wallaby training squad starts at 40 players, which is eventually reduced to 30, resulting in every second player playing Super 14 becoming a Wallaby.
This situation is exacerbated by the dual facts that Australian Rugby has no tier-two rugby competition and no meaningful Super 14 Academy competition.
There is no production line feeding into Australian Super 14 sides, and therefore no production line feeding into the Wallabies. As a result, Super 14 coaches buy players from overseas, further exacerbating the Australian situation.
Combine the above with a poor showing by Australian Super 14 sides and there is a recipe for Wallaby disaster – witnessed by the recent humiliating capitulation to the All Blacks in Wellington.
The situation is worsened as every second Super 14 player is feted like a rock star, has his hair tinted, enjoys facials, manicures and earns an incredible amount of money.
And sadly, but not surprisingly, goes missing when the going gets tough.
Recently the ARU has been held to ransom by a few selfish militant metro boys who refuse to play in a Wallaby trial without being paid.
This is madness!
John O’Neill did a good job in sorting out the highly political and volatile nature of Australian football to form the A League.
It is time that he turned his attention to developing a national rugby competition so that Australian rugby will never be held to ransom ever again.
Australian rugby is a house of cards. Will it avoid being blown over?
Get Australia's best Rugby opinion emailed daily.
Like this content? Buzz it up!
Free Email updates:
Our daily emails are only sent if there is content for the sport or that author. You can subscribe to multiple daily emails; or get the daily Roar email with all our content in it. We value privacy. More...
(37)
Maaxy said | September 23rd 2009 @ 6:18am | Report comment
RK – not sure were you get 60 from but there are approx 130 contracted players in Australian Rugby getting a minimum of 50k per year. After this there is academy players, focussed mainly in NSW and QLD and the Sevens players. granted not all can be running out for the Wallabies but there are full time in the pursuit of this goal (thats the theory anyway) Remember when we won in 1991 there was only NSW and QLD and in 1999 there was the addition of the Brumbies. We have more players than ever before
Invictus said | September 23rd 2009 @ 9:05am | Report comment
It’s from the 4 starting XV’s of the S14 sides. Players with regular starts at this level should be first in line for wallaby selection. A national competition will not increase competition at this level (only S14/S15 expansion can do that) but it will increase competition to get to this level, providing better quality players for S14/S15 and therefore the wallabies.
Rugby 1 said | September 23rd 2009 @ 6:52am | Report comment
I agree with this story, I understand. People always bringing up the past. The past is exactly that we were great then (10 years ago now) we are not now. No super 14 title for years no tri nations no bled cup, everyone pull their head out of the sand and wake up”small player pool is exactly what it is!
LeftArmSpinner said | September 23rd 2009 @ 9:23am | Report comment
RK, have a look at grade rugby and aust players OS. plenty of players and I am sure, enough with the onfield mongrel and deepseated respect for jersey and country required.
Rickety Knees said | September 23rd 2009 @ 9:31am | Report comment
Leftie – I do mate and I am inspired by what I see. There is a ton of talent out there with really no where to go. Sheek made a good point on Spiro’s article – 95% of the money goes to the elite few and there is nothing left over to develop the game. Australian Rugby is now paying a heavy price for this.
Terry Kidd said | September 23rd 2009 @ 9:29am | Report comment
I strongly believe that a national provincial comp needs to be established to run as a stepping stone to higher honours. I would forget about establishing independent franchises and instead base it on established clubs in Sydney, Brisbane, the VRU, ACT, Gold Coast and Sunshine Coast. The comp could then draw on established club structures and supporter bases. A pathway would be established to develop players, coaching staffs and referees. I would seek to televise the comp on free to air tv, accepting lower tv revenue if necessary, seek Aust Sports Commission funding, seek only enough to cover costs …. in fact do anything to get the concept up and running because unless it is done then Oz Rugby is dead …. maybe not just yet, but assuredly so in a decade or two.
Invictus said | September 23rd 2009 @ 9:32am | Report comment
There is a S14 team in Perth. If it is to be a national competition surely Perth should be involved.
For those who haven’t seen this – http://www.petitionspot.com/petitions/NRUC/
reds fan said | September 23rd 2009 @ 11:01am | Report comment
My kiwi mate can’t understand why the strong Bris and Sydney clubs aren’t willing to step up and be the foundation of this national comp… and for the life of me I can’t either.
But there has been plenty of talk… people have such differing ideas… some want to start on the existing base, others want a “new” provincial arrangement separate to clubs… who knows what will ever come of it.
But while you have people like Simon Poidevin believing Sydney club rugby is sacrosanct, you just can’t really see anything happening.
Invictus said | September 23rd 2009 @ 11:19am | Report comment
Perhaps we need to define a few options on how it could be done and let the fans decide. At least you would have popular support for whichever model went forward.
The curse of the digital age is that any idiot with internet access can get online and spout whatever rubbish they want. Growden & Poidevin for example.
Even looser said | September 23rd 2009 @ 10:41am | Report comment
I’m all for doing something constructive to improve the quality of Australian Rugby. People way smarter that me reckon that a national comp is just too expensive and claim that going with the existing clubs is the way to go. Other smart people say that clubs will never get along to cooperate and that the comp will only serve the few strong self serving clubs with political muscle. So what is the truth?
Here’s my take on things:
1. It’s seems pretty clear that we need something done to improve things between club & Super 14/15.; and
2. Money is a problem & the ARC while it produced good results & provided opportunities, was canned because of the lack of $.
Meantime I wonder if more can’t be done with less. By this I mean that way back in the bad old days of amaturism, we used to actually do things for the love of it. Blokes like me would board a slow train from Sydney to Brisbane to play, get flogged, have a good time & take the train back home. I paid for the transport, the accomodation & all my own expenses. I got zero except the fun of being with mates & having a good time playing. That was it.
Yes, yes, I know things have changed and no one with half a brain would do it like that ever again. But maybe just maybe we need to step back somewhat from professional or should I say commercial thinking to perhaps reflect the reality of our situation. If we had people prepared to do more for less, then the money available could go further and more would be achieved.
I just read that Robbie Deans is meeting with Australia’s Super 14 coaches. This is really good news. No doubt they are having a brain storm about what can be done and how to go about it. My advice would be to try asking people if they would be willing to do more for less. They may be surprised that not everyone is only after money.
Jack of said | September 23rd 2009 @ 11:06am | Report comment
Even – You raise some interesting points. Like you are saying, I wonder whether or not there are a whole bunch of willing capable volunteers that could help get things back on course.
At the moment the Rugby seems more like money gone mad. Everyone’s big on expectations and demands but low on responsibility and delivery. Maybe players need to learn about and reflect on our humble beginnings and how we raised money with car washes, BBQ’s or what ever it took to get our team kitted out. Do players today even get it?
mother teresa said | September 23rd 2009 @ 11:26am | Report comment
looser .did you say they were having a brain storm?lets hope the reds physio has ability.
these super 14 coaches excelled last year with none making the finals
mitchells force won the derbys and deans was his assistant when losing to eddie jones in rwc 2003.
RESULT aust needs a provincial comp like nz,sa. gosh even dexter dutton would agree with that
but alas the brains at aru cant fathom the reasoning or cant afford it
why not get the wallies to raise some cash by playing extra games if dempsey persuades them OR
allow some star at aru to initiate sponsorship like other sporting administrators ,take a pay cut, get lote to donate to the cause or get the kids to give up their toys.
surely its the basic function of aru to tidy up once and for all this vexing problem
hard to do deans if the product is shite
Rickety Knees said | September 23rd 2009 @ 10:48am | Report comment
A quote from the Australian:
” A meeting of Wallabies and Super rugby coaches yesterday reached an agreement that Australia needs a second-tier competition to provide depth and a pathway for players.”
Will the ARU take notice?
reds fan said | September 23rd 2009 @ 10:56am | Report comment
The Reds sent their physio…. as we are currently missing a CEO, head coach, any assistant coaches etc…. dear oh dear…
Invictus said | September 23rd 2009 @ 11:24am | Report comment
At least they sent someone….
mother teresa said | September 23rd 2009 @ 11:29am | Report comment
invictus,yes probably the most intelligent.Hope he turned the lights off
reds fan said | September 23rd 2009 @ 11:31am | Report comment
HAHAHA. Boom tish!!!
Brett McKay said | September 23rd 2009 @ 12:30pm | Report comment
Knees, taking your info here, and Even Looser’s comments above, it would seem to me the only answer is to find the funding to run the ARC again. The ARC wasn’t a bad model, not too dissimilar to the A-League setup, and it’s one way of forcing the clubs onto a simlar path of future development. If the clubs are too self-absorbed to look outside their own patch of grass, take it out of their hands.
Surely short term pain (the club presidents) is worth the long term gain (more professional depth)??
Rickety Knees said | September 23rd 2009 @ 12:35pm | Report comment
Thanks Brett – I agree that the ARC was a good model – perhaps divide it into a northern and southern conference to reduce the cost of travel. Regardless Rugby will only continue to go backwards until a decent foundation is built.
Even looser said | September 23rd 2009 @ 12:49pm | Report comment
Brett – Agree 100% on the ARC or what ever it is to be called. The question is how do they find the funding for it?
The way I’m seeing things going, unless the ARU acts sooner rather than later, ‘the product’ will become steadily less and less valuable. Or to put it another way, sponsors may not wish to be associated with the Wallaby brand name.
Some serious thinking & decision making needs to be done now. Get it wrong and our chance to be competitive on the world stage against the likes of Sth Africa, the All Blacks, Ireland, Wales, France and England may be lost forever.
We must get the ARC up and running asap. End of story.
Brett McKay said | September 23rd 2009 @ 1:00pm | Report comment
Looser, perhaps it’s the “ARC” teams that provide the ideal opportunity for the ARU to introduce private equity. If that means we have the Sydney Packers playing the Gold Coast Palmers, then I don’t really care, as long as it gets the job done.
I’m sure if the correct amount of planning was done, it could become a reality. Start planning next year, kick it off in 2012. You know, NOT a World Cup year!!
Start speaking with travel partners, hotel partners, apparrel partners, etc all now and give them five-year exclusive sponsorship/partnership deals if needed. ONE HD would love the opportunity for extra FTA content.
Start on smaller grounds if need be, fill them, and then move to the stadiums. That can be your link with the grassroots in the initial years.
There just seems to be so many lessons learnt from the ARC v1 that getting it re-established should be a cinch!! The mistakes have already been identified, just don’t repeat them!!
Even looser said | September 23rd 2009 @ 1:08pm | Report comment
Sounds like a plan to me.
Geeze I tell you what, I’d love to be a fly on the wall to hear what the coaches & Deans are thinking and proposing for an ARC.
There just seems to be so much to fix at the present from head to toe it seems Rugby needs a complete make over. Well as they say about being this low ‘the only way to go from here is up’.
Jay said | September 23rd 2009 @ 1:25pm | Report comment
I dont think you understand the private equity model. Even though they known to be corporate cowboys – their business model is very uniquie. PE purchases business that are making money at the moment, but well below their percieved potential. The PE guys buy the buiness, turn it around and flick it for a profit for their investors typically in 3-5 years.
Why would they want to spend money on domestic rugby teams? The ARC went broke and there is nothing to suggest that the new idea can make any money. How many shirts will they sell? What will their gate taking be? How much corporate sponsorhip can they really hope for? Not much.
Unless there is money to be made, Private Equity WILL NOT be interested.
reds fan said | September 23rd 2009 @ 8:19pm | Report comment
Jay thats not completely correct. Private equity “firms” do what you describe. Private equity is also the shares in any private non-listed company. ie. not publicly listed equity. This is the private equity the ARU refer to. The same private equity that is involved in A-League, NBL, and NRL.
It simply refers to private ownership, rather than ownership by a recognised sporting organisation.
The Bronco’s and Melb Storm sre private equity, there is no old club with a chairman. Manly also was owned by Mr Delmege, their sponsor, for a while.
Invictus said | September 23rd 2009 @ 10:43pm | Report comment
Yes, I thought that was what they meant by private equity also but wasn’t quite sure.
Sam Taulelei said | September 23rd 2009 @ 2:40pm | Report comment
Brett
In another thread about Melbourne becoming the 15th franchise, I suggested that the additional revenue for the ARU from a renegotiated broadcasting deal could fund a revamped and streamlined version of the ARC. Each competition is individually costed and presented as an entity in its own right for sale to broadcasters so establishing a national comp does offer financial benefits as well as costs because at the moment the ARU can only get cash from Super rugby and Tri Nations rugby from any broadcasting deal.
Brett McKay said | September 23rd 2009 @ 1:28pm | Report comment
Knees, I’ve just read the article from which you got this quote, and the article is part of the problem here. This quote is the LAST paragraph of Bret Harris’ article. It deserves so much more coverage than two lines at the bottom of another article!! If this info popped up in enquiries, what sort of follow up was done??
- How was this agreement reached?
- What sort of structure would the coaches like to see for the 2nd tier?
- Does the ARU agree with its State and National coaches (and the Qld physio!)?
and a thousand other questions that logically flow from here. Instead, it’s just buried at the bottom like an after-thought…
AndyS said | September 23rd 2009 @ 2:33pm | Report comment
Probably because, like everyone else, all they can really do is say “Jees, it would be good if we had a semi-pro competition to help us with player development”. They can’t actually do a damn thing though, unless the ARU and unions buy in.
Rickety Knees said | September 23rd 2009 @ 2:38pm | Report comment
Brett – it was presented as after thought and probably agreed to in this manner. Fleshing out a Tier 2 competition is an ARU matter. The big questions for the ARU are:
1. are they listening
2. do they want to fix the problem
3. do they have a plan
Invictus said | September 23rd 2009 @ 2:43pm | Report comment
Based on current actions (or lack thereof) -
1. Not really
2. Not enough to step on some toes and crack a few heads
3. No
Brett McKay said | September 23rd 2009 @ 2:43pm | Report comment
Andy, Sam, Knees, all valid points, all of them.
Are the ARU listening? My God I hope so….
reds fan said | September 23rd 2009 @ 8:25pm | Report comment
I actually thought it was an exercise in deflecting blame away from the Super coaches. Deans isn’t going well, so he calls the Super coaches to see what they can do, and they in turn look below them to see what the next level can do and whoa… there is no next level. So they say… we need a next level.
It was just blame shifting. Thats why it was only two lines at the end.
Willem said | September 23rd 2009 @ 12:02pm | Report comment
yes you have to say that is the biggest handycap the wallabies face is that they have a small pool of proffesionals to pick from. its a luxury that the boks and all blacks have and will probably always have, infact i think after isolation it was more a burden for south africa then an asset as they struggled to get a settled team until the Jake white era with each coach practically picking his new 22.
The positive to this is that it is easy for the wallabies to get a settled starting team as they arent really spoiled for choice, the obvious setbacks are that if a player does not perform who do they replace him with and if the team suffers a few injuries the strenght of the team is greatly reduced.
This as always been the case though and for periods of time it has been shielded by the fact that the wallabies where able to scrape together a strong 15 that shielded the lack of playing talent in the country.
At the moment i think the ARU are stuck between a rock and a hard place as they need to make money to develop more players and to make money they need to win more and to win more they need to recruit outside of australia to boost their teams and hence block future wallabies from getting exposure, See the visouis cycle. I mean every team is now alowed to recruit two players from outside australia (correct me if im wrong i think it is two not 100% sure) that means that 8 of the wallaby positions could be potentially only be conteasted by three maybe four players. Contrast that to south africa and New Zealand for example who both have five super14 teams plus the currie cup and the NPC backing that up. So they can still pick young players from outside the super 14 which happenes often look at Francouis steyn for example made is Debut for the springboks before playing for the Sharks.
Now add that with the future possibality of kiwi and SA players playing for the Aus S14 teams and still being ellegable to play for their countrys.
Who do you think is really going to benefit from this?
Republican said | September 23rd 2009 @ 12:09pm | Report comment
You bet it is too small. It was when the ‘Farce’ were established and it will be further evidenced with the advent of any Vic Super side.
Robbing Peter to pay Paul continues to bandaid the folly of the top down growth approach which only adds to Unions precarious state in Oz. The illussion of growth at the top tier could be likened to what happened to Iceland in the most recent recession.
Until a healthy NPC is established and NOT in conjunction with any Super expansion, Union will continue to regress beyond its current meagre status in this country. It needs to built from the ground up with alot more national fortitude. This is NOT NZ or Saffa and the sooner the custodians of the game here accept this the more hope for it’s future here in Australia.
JimC said | September 23rd 2009 @ 4:04pm | Report comment
This article is spot on. Aussie RU players are overpaid and mostly underworked.
LeftArmSpinner said | September 24th 2009 @ 1:52pm | Report comment
I can build you a super 15 team of Aussies.
1. Sign the likes of Berne, Carter, Davidson, i.e. players who will give you 110% every time. That ensures the culture is strong now and for all incoming players in the future: Team spirit and “Us against them” ethos.
2. Ensure that they are very, very fit;
3. defence that will keep going all day.
4. Then you build from there with a backrow that wins the breakdown every week and
5. an attack based around possession. See, this reduces the amount of energy sapping defence required. Have them attack and support the ball carrier. ride the tackle, slip off loads and short passes through the forward channels and get the backs to run clever lines and loop for support.
6. Add a solid, reliable 9 and 10, say Phibbs and Halangahu,
7. Add a safe 11, 14 and 15 and
8. Add a good goal kicker.
9. Now, who can coach it, because it is quite simple. It is just a matter of “rehearsing” till it is instinctive. current coachs tend to be trying to reinvent the wheel, so go for a “steady as she goes” “man manager” coach, Bennett rather than Gibson.
there you have it: a team platform, culture and cattle that will win more than they lose. Teams can only beat you if they want it more. And that is your strength because you have signed players and built team culture that wants it real bad!!!!!!!
Working Class Rugger said | September 24th 2009 @ 6:48pm | Report comment
So our five ,well, four most senior coaches and a physio have finally realised ‘wait we need a completely new level of at least semi-professional Rugby’. Genius. Maybe now the ARU might listen. Hmmm. The key word are ‘might’ and ‘listen’ so it’s unlikely.
However, if by some miracle they do decide to at least look at a ressurection there was a rather in depth discussion on TheRoar a week or so ago on the ‘how’ such a competition could be run at limited cost to the ARU.
The solution. Independent ‘franchises’ outside of the ARU funding envelope. Essentially each team that wants to compete has to raise through sponsorship and such to be able to pay for their own travel, ground hire, merchandising/promotion and accomodation. The door will be open to any group that can prove they have the ability to run a squad. So if say NSWCountry can prove they can run a squad they are free to enter.
In terms of Sydney and Brisbane Clubs no one club could go it alone. Instead co-op teams would be the ideal set-up. With the four Eastern Suburb club forming say Sydney. The Northern Suburbs Clubs forming North Sydnet and the Western Clubs forming Western Sydney. A similar split could be established in Brisbane. Each Club would hold an interest in the National Rugby Championship club( by the way if it does get up once again they should under no circumstance use the ARC title. It was a failure intially and is forever now associated with failure so NRC would be a good subsitute).
Such a competition should start a month or so after the end of the Super14/15. Run in for one and a half rounds. Wallabies will participate when not on national duty. So somewhere between 12-16 rounds followed by a finals series. Ideally there would be say 10-12 teams. Each representing different areas of the country.