The ARU needs to rethink the strength of our current third tier. At the moment, after the Super season, non-Test Super players are returning to the club ranks, mainly in Sydney, but also Queensland, ACT, West Australia, and (hopefully) soon to be Victoria, as well.
While this is good for club rugby in these parts, it is potentially too broad-a-spread to be helpful for player development among the third tier.
On the other hand, players folding back into only certain club teams is also unhelpful for club rugby in general.
The hope by some, for Super players to return only to the Sydney and Qld club competitions, is also unhelpful for rugby development in the rest of Australia.
The suggestion that a competition be established involving only select clubs from Sydney and Queensland, plus one team each from other parts of Australia, is also problematic (even with promotion and relegation), since most of the current clubs in Sydney and Queensland (not to mention everywhere else) will miss out on selection to this competition.
It also overestimates the appeal of the current Sydney and Queensland clubs to the wider public. They will always be severely restricted to engage spectators on a wider basis by their very nature.
This is where the now defunct ARC fits in.
The ARC idea promised to hit a number of nails on the head that would be good for Australian rugby: national glory for the fans and teams, more professional teams for players, coaches, etc, better player development to provide a better stepping-stone to Super Rugby, and so on.
However, while helpful in many of these ways, it was never going to be helpful enough to balance the financial burden it created.
To relieve this burden created by travel/accommodation expenses, a broadcaster was needed to take it on.
However, it was always going to be too limited in its marketability for a broadcaster to take on and seriously promote without the Wallabies (and possibly even the Australia A players).
This has left Australian rugby with few options to strengthen the third tier, it would seem, except to have an academy/Super B team tournament at some stage of the year.
This would be much more helpful for player development and establishing a stronger stepping stone to Super Rugby from the current club set-up.
Assuming the next Super franchise is in Victoria/Melbourne, one option is to play the tournament after the Super season and have the ARU establish an extra barbarians team made up of the best club players to play out of somewhere like Western Sydney.
While the six teams would be playing for a trophy, perhaps the real prize could be the chance to be selected in a true Possibles Vs Probables match after the Tri-nations, involving all the Wallabies, and perhaps be picked for the end of year tour.
All this has been said before, of course, but are the Roarers convinced this is rugby’s best option in Australia?
Recommend this story.
- Explore:
- ARC, club rugby, Rugby Union
October 15th 2009 @ 10:02am
JF said | October 15th 2009 @ 10:02am | Report comment
Well mate, as I said in my original post, we need to expand the no. of fixtures played by our existing provincial teams. This means a comp post super season involving the 5 teams plus three more (QC, NSWC and another NSW team) Keeping the comp to eight teams will have the best chance of maintaining quality, and will minimise the ‘creation’ of teams. The key is for the competition to be an extension of the current system, rather than a totally new competition. Club rugby should remain club rugby, far too complicated to ever develop into a national competition.
October 15th 2009 @ 10:16am
Terry Kidd said | October 15th 2009 @ 10:16am | Report comment
JF … we don’t currently have any provincial teams. We have local grade competitions, S15 franchises and the ARU Wallaby squad. In order to introduce a provincial competition you either have to invite entry from established clubs or ‘create’ teams, one or the other.
Based on the rest of what you say your provincial competition would be east coast based. What about the ACT, Melbourne (soon to have a S15 franchise) or Perth (with an existing S15 franchise)?
October 15th 2009 @ 10:31am
JF said | October 15th 2009 @ 10:31am | Report comment
Our franchises and provinces are the same thing, the point would be to keep the same branding in each competition – make the best use of the brand identity built up by the brumbies, reds, tahs etc. Maybe they will be slightly different, e.g The Reds compete in the S15, but the QRU compete in the provincial comp, a bit like the Bulls and Blue Bulls. By using Queensland and NSW country teams, again it can build on an existing team / brand, then only 1 team has to be newly created. This is not the ideal solution, but is the best we can hope for in the short-term – what SANZAR should be aiming at is a Heineken Cup style provincial comp where there is no need for hybrid, super province teams.
October 15th 2009 @ 10:39am
Terry Kidd said | October 15th 2009 @ 10:39am | Report comment
The ARU is not SANZAR, nor are the SARU or NZRU ruled by SANZAR. So, if we adopt your thoughts then the 3 national provincial competitions should be taken away from the national unions and be run by SANZAR, with all the attached commercial baggage?
October 15th 2009 @ 10:48am
JF said | October 15th 2009 @ 10:48am | Report comment
No, the three domestic comps should be run by their respective unions. What I’m saying is that long-term, the format of super rugby (governed by sanzar) should be changed to include the best provinces of each country – not artificial teams made up by combining domestic provincial teams. Until this is the case, southern hemisphere rugby will never be able to generate the support that the northern hemisphere competitions enjoy.
October 15th 2009 @ 12:26pm
Jim Boyce said | October 15th 2009 @ 12:26pm | Report comment
Sifi – The problem with the ARC was that they had artificial constituencies. The Melbourne Rebels were composed largely of Sydney players with Brown from Queensland as captain. They played interestind rugby but they had no following or a media catchment that would commit to it. If you want media and sponsorship support , you have to have an area where the community has commitment.The third tier is a realistic term, but I forgot we are in the world of spin, so why not call it the Emerging Wallabies compettion a rather facile description which might fit for some . I think the club competitions in the capital cities need greater support with recogniseable heroes and support of the media that covers it. It would be in the interests of the ARU to get behind these competitions because at last count player numbers are still declining. Speaking of promotion , that should not be just the players but great tries, movements and action ie someone has a look at what excites people about the game and that is not just celebrities and tries. This applies at all three levels , the more you celebrate the game, the less it relates to the tier it takes place .
October 15th 2009 @ 1:03pm
sheek said | October 15th 2009 @ 1:03pm | Report comment
Jim,
True the ARC teams were slightly artificial, but all traditions have a starting point. Every histroy has a starting point.
The Melbourne Rebels may have been full of interstate players, but the brand remains very popular with rugby fans, especially from Victoria.
Premier rugby district club competition can never be what it was in the 80s or 70s or 60s or beyond. Not unless wer’e willing to trun the clock back to a maximum of 5-6 tests per year, & 3-4 interstate matches also.
Today, we have 13-14 test matches per year & 13-15 provincial matches in addition. The halycon days of club rugby are gone.
Their role (still vital) in the future is to be the launching pad of careers for first class & international rugby. But because rugby union is structured differently from NRL & AFL, club rugby cannot expect the same profile as in those sports.
This is the brutal truth!
October 15th 2009 @ 2:55pm
Jim Boyce said | October 15th 2009 @ 2:55pm | Report comment
Sheek – I admire your resilience. However in a professional era you have to have an identifiable market to which sponsors can relate and capitilise on , in terms of media advertising etc. The ARC never had that except maybe in Melbourne and I am taking your word for that. The position in capital city club rugby is weak except for Sydney University which has the support of the Finance and Law ends of town. It is undeniable that player numbers are in decline and unless you strengthen the club competitions your player base will continue to decline and the top tiers will ultimately follow.
October 15th 2009 @ 3:09pm
sheek said | October 15th 2009 @ 3:09pm | Report comment
Jim,
Regrettably rugby must now withdraw & re-consolidate. As mentioned, the clubs still have their role to play.
It’s frustrating that it didn’t need to come to this, but it has. Australian rugby must work like hell on developing its junior base. but it also needs a top tier for youngsters to aspire towards.
Especially in a professional environment.
October 16th 2009 @ 7:33am
Bay35Pablo said | October 16th 2009 @ 7:33am | Report comment
“The position in capital city club rugby is weak except for Sydney University which has the support of the Finance and Law ends of town.”
Such a sweeping and incorrect statement about Sydney club rugby – where do I start or stop with rucking it to death?
October 15th 2009 @ 12:46pm
Brett McKay said | October 15th 2009 @ 12:46pm | Report comment
an 8 or 10 or 12 team comp would be great, but in the interim, we’ve got 4 (hopefully 5 shortly) teams that stop playing in May.
An option I mentioned recently was to reinvent the 2006 APC as a first step, and just have the existing S14/15 sides play a home and away series with a one-off Final. 9 or 10 weeks tops, and the teams already exist with strong support. Two games every weekend, and even games as curtain-raisers to Tests if it’d help. It would also give academy players a chance to play rep rugby, and also for fringe Wallabies to build some form.
Expand to 8 or 10 teams down the track if needed, but this would be an easy first step. The solution’s already there in front of us….
October 15th 2009 @ 1:09pm
JF said | October 15th 2009 @ 1:09pm | Report comment
Yes! This is the right direction.
October 15th 2009 @ 12:56pm
Neville Howard said | October 15th 2009 @ 12:56pm | Report comment
Initially there was 5 bids for looking to become the 15th franchise in Super Rugby. This must imply that there’s 5 clubs with the infrastructure to compete in a domestic cup. So the solution in my opinion would be – After the Super 15, towards the second half or the TriNations, run a domestic cup featuring the 5 Super 15 teams, along side the 4/5 Super bidders – Home and away, with semi’s and a final – That’s 16weeks of good quality rugby!
Is this so far fetched?
October 15th 2009 @ 1:05pm
Brett McKay said | October 15th 2009 @ 1:05pm | Report comment
Neville I don’t doubt the need, I’m just suggesting an easy starting point. And didn’t the 5 bids include 3 from Melbourne??
October 15th 2009 @ 1:14pm
Neville Howard said | October 15th 2009 @ 1:14pm | Report comment
True true. Realistically though- The 2007 Mazda Cup as it was called put a big dent in ARU’s pocket due to the financial losses. I think although the ARU had good intentions with the launch, they went about it the wrong way. Only one game a week was shown on live TV, with one re-run on Sundays – This made it pretty difficult for even a full fledged supporter to become enthusiastic about the product. What they should have done, or could possibly do in the future is get Foxtel, or One HD on board, advertise, and market the crap out of it! Then they’ll draw crowds, turn profits. I’m surprised at how many people didn’t even know about the Mazda Cup, and that Melbourne competed in the finals (David Croft was a legend in the season).
October 15th 2009 @ 2:30pm
Brett McKay said | October 15th 2009 @ 2:30pm | Report comment
actually Neville, just a small point – the ABC did show 2 ARC games live every weekend. One on Saturday on what we now know as ABC 1, and the Sunday game was shown on ABC 2. Not everyone had ABC2 at the time of course, and so plenty couldn’t see it even if they wanted to.
October 15th 2009 @ 1:19pm
Invictus said | October 15th 2009 @ 1:19pm | Report comment
Yes, 3 from Melbourne plus West Sydney, Gold Coast and Sunshine Coast.
I must admit that I found the Sunshine Coast EOI a bit of a shock.
October 15th 2009 @ 1:21pm
JF said | October 15th 2009 @ 1:21pm | Report comment
Where were they going to play out of?
October 15th 2009 @ 1:22pm
Invictus said | October 15th 2009 @ 1:22pm | Report comment
Don’t know – which is one of the reasons I was surprised by their EOI.
October 15th 2009 @ 1:12pm
sheek said | October 15th 2009 @ 1:12pm | Report comment
As many of you know, I’ve usually been the greatest advocate of a national comp on The Roar. I’ve probably bored you to tears ranting on & on about it.
Even I have to face reality. Rugby is stuffed at the moment. And it will take many years to get back to the halycon days of the early 2000s, if indeed we do. We can only hope the game will recover.
SANZAR is offering an Australian conference of 5 teams – NSW Waratahs, Qld Reds, ACT Brumbies, WA Force & Vic Rebels (maybe, hopefully). It’s not a done deal yet, but it must happen.
If not, SANZAR can get stuffed. Then Australia can do one of two things, either combine with NZ for a Trans-Tasman comp, or go alone with a national domestic comp. We’ll cross those bridges if/when they occur.
However, realistically, 5 national teams is the most we can mamage in the short to mid-term. Those 5 teams will play each other twice on a home & away basis. That’s 8 games each per season. Plus an extra 10 matches, 5 each against NZL & SAF teams. That’s 18 matches all home, plus finals.
The top two Aussie teams can then have their own final play-off outside of S15. At present, this is the reality. This will be our national domestic comp in the interim.
The rest is pure specualtion of which I have indulged in too often myself!
October 15th 2009 @ 1:28pm
Invictus said | October 15th 2009 @ 1:28pm | Report comment
You need two things to introduce a new competition – TV coverage and money. How much money decides how many teams you can have and TV coverage will decide how many sponsors and fans you can attract (ie how much money you can get).
We can throw ideas for competition structures around until we are blue in the face but until these two boxes can be ticked we are all wasting our time. The ARU isn’t going to do anything – they have no money and seemingly less interest.
I, for one, would like to hear some ideas on how to attract sponsors to such a competition as marketing isn’t my specialty.