By Spiro Zavos
October 22nd 2009 @ 1:07am
Related coverage
The terrible year for Australian rugby continues
Australian rugby coach Robbie Deans watches his players warm-up before their game against the New Zealand All Blacks in Sydney, Australia, Saturday, July 26, 2008. AP Photo/Mark Baker
Around 3 o’clock on Wednesday afternoon, the ARU issued a press release headed: Super 15 decision heads to arbitration. The SANZAR executive committee, the release stated, “could not reach agreement.” As a result, “no vote was taken” and the matter goes to arbitration where the decision will be binding.
What the bland wording of the release hides is the sheer bastardry of the South African Rugby Union in pushing for a Super 15 spot for a sixth South African team when it already has five teams, along with New Zealand.
The bastardry is compounded by the fact that the Southern Kings, the SARU option, is a mediocre team not even strong enough to do well in the Currie Cup, let alone in the Super 15 tournament.
The SARU option is all about South African politics and the promotion of a black side in a major rugby competition.
SARU can have the Southern Kings in the Super 15 tournament by eliminating one of the current sides, probably the Lions. But it prefers to try to compromise the viability and integrity of the Super 15 by pushing for a bid that has no merit from a playing point of view, in spectator interest, or a balanced tournament structure for local derbies home and away, or from television payment interests.
The nuns taught us to always exercise forgiveness.
But I hope that the ARU, after the arbitrator makes the inevitable decision in favour of the Melbourne bid, never forgives or forgets SARU’s behaviour in this matter.
There will come a time of reckoning for South African rugby when they need something very badly from the ARU. Let’s hope that the ARU screws SARU as ruthlessly as it has screwed the ARU over the fifth Australian franchise and, earlier in the year, over the extended Super 15 concept that comes into force in 2011.
There will be critics of the ARU who will blame it for this failure to complete the Melbourne bid. The fact is that nothing the ARU could have done would have stopped SARU from its determination to press forward with the Southern Kings bid.
It is also a fact, however, that the failure of SANZAR to endorse the Melbourne bid application represents yet another setback (although temporary, hopefully) for Australian rugby in what has been a terrible year for it.
Let me outline the ways it has been terrible.
There has been a massive falling off in ratings and crowds for the Wallabies and for the Australian Super 14 sides.
The rugby public has been disenchanted with the confusion over what laws games have been played under, with the ELVs for the Super 14 and club rugby (which had strong television support in Sydney) and the modified ELVs for the Tests.
The style of play of the Australian Super 14 sides, especially the NSW Waratahs with their ‘win ugly’ game (with only the second word in the phrase being carried out), and the Wallabies in the Tri-Nations, with the exception of a brilliant win against the Springboks at Brisbane, turned spectators and viewers off in their droves.
Even Robbie Deans was disgusted with the performance (or lack of performance) of the Wallabies in their third defeat this season by the All Blacks at Wellington. Deans accused his players of not respecting and honouring the jersey.
The Wallabies had a poor Tri-Nations series, winning only one Test out of six.
No Australian Super 14 side made the finals.
The vicious hostility of RUPA (the players’ trade union) poisoned the attempts of the ARU to get recalcitrant players to do their jobs, on and off the field.
The case of Lote Tuqiri was the trigger for some more RUPA nastiness towards the ARU, despite the fact that the player was not game enough to explain to the public why he was being booted out of rugby.
The coverage of the Tuqiri affair on Fox Sports’ The Rugby Show was biased against the ARU to such an extent that Wallabies were told they could not appear on the show at one point.
The television presentation of Super 14 and Test matches by Fox Sports suffered from an abysmal understanding of the laws by Phil Kearns and boosterism for the Queensland Reds and the Wallabies by Greg Martin that insulted the sensibilities of supporters of teams in the SANZAR countries that did not support Martin’s preferred sides.
The other football codes, especially rugby league, benefit greatly from a brilliant television coverage of their games.
The ARU’s own polling showed that the ‘brand health’ of rugby for the March-June quarter confirmed (hardly surprisingly) Australian rugby’s popularity was on the wane and that the public passion had gone out of the game.
Rugby was deemed ‘exclusive and hard to follow.’ Rugy league and AFL were deemed to be more tribal.
A week or so ago, Greg Growden had an interesting interview with John O’Neill in The Sydney Morning Herald about the sad state of the union in Australia.
O’Neill candidly admitted “the game is not where it should be and not where it has been.” Rugby, he said, has a “very loyal fan base but they are getting very impatient.”
He pointed out that the Wallabies have won only two Tri-Nations tournaments in 14 years; that they finished last this year; that they haven’t won the Bledisloe Cup since 2002; that, despite two Rugby World Cup victories, the Wallabies were somewhere between 5th and 8th in the 2007 RWC; and that only two Super Rugby titles have been won.
“It all revolves around success on the field. People can blame the laws of the game and all sorts of things but, at the end of the day, everyone is operating under the same laws. We can’t blame anyone but ourselves,” O’Neill told Growden.
O’Neill insisted, and it is hard to disagree with him, that a lot of the problems facing Australian rugby will be resolved when, and if, the Wallabies start winning the big Tests.
Robbie Deans has coached the Wallabies for 25 matches (23 Tests and two Barbarians matches) for 15 wins and 10 losses. Nine of the losses have been against the Springboks and the All Blacks, the two best teams in the world.
Under Deans the record against the All Blacks is 6 – 1 to them, and 3 – 3 against the Springboks.
“We’ve got to get ourselves back into the 75 – 80 per cent win-loss ratio,” O’Neill insists.
He also insists that successful sporting bodies are “hallmarked” by the administration, the coach and the captain being “on the same wavelength.”
We see here, I believe, the reason why George Smith and Stirling Mortlock lost their leadership positions in the Wallabies. Mortlock did not (initially) publicly support the ARU on the Tuqiri affair, even though he knew the full story.
A captain like John Eales, who worked splendidly with O’Neill and coach Rod Macqueen through an earlier depressing period to eventually win the 1999 RWC tournament, would certainly have supported the ARU over Tuqiri’s dismissal.
The Super Rugby franchises also need to pick up their game and start delivering strong winning results and attractive rugby to win back their supporters.
Rugby in Australia suffers from a lack of product to sustain a full season.
Deans has joined the clamour for some sort of equivalent of the Currie Cup and New Zealand provincial tournaments. Personally, I think some form of national club tournament in Australia after the local tournaments are completed might be the answer.
The top four Sydney sides, three from Brisbane, a Melbourne side, Canberra and a NSW Country side, and President side of the best of the other unions might provide the answer.
The expanded Super Rugby format in 2011 will provide more matches in Australia, with Test and Super Rugby going on from late February to October. This will make a difference to answering the ‘lack of product’ problem, provided Australia gets its fifth Super Rugby franchise, that franchise is run out of Melbourne by the Melbourne bidders, and that Australian teams perform well in the expanded tournament.
Which brings us back to the absolute necessity of a rational SANZAR arbitration decision.
Going to the Waratahs v Brumbies blockbuster at ANZ Stadium, Saturday 24 April? If you're keen to meet up with other Roarers, register you interest and we'll keep you informed on the place to meet. Register now.
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...
(212)
Billo said | October 22nd 2009 @ 1:25am | Report comment
The problem for rugby in Australia is that when the Wallabies or the Super 14 sides hit a bad patch, which is inevitable at some stage, the fans have two other major football codes they can migrate to during the rugby season. Neither South Africa nor New Zealand have this problem.
So success, and attractive rugby, is more important for Australian sides than for their SANZAR rivals.
The trouble is that the ARU operates under a structure that doesn’t allow it to address this central problem.
If rugby had a second tier competition that was merely Australia wide, the impression of Australian failure across the Super 14 teams would automatically be removed.
I’m coming to the conclusion that SANZAR actually holds rugby back in Australia, and the attitude of the South Africans simply highlights that point.
sheek said | October 22nd 2009 @ 3:40pm | Report comment
Billo,
I actually agree with you that ,”SANZAR actually holds rugby back in Australia”.
Which is why I would like to see the super format truncated to a Heineken Cup style format, & more exposure given to the national comp creation.
You have to keep the super format in some form to retain TV revenue streams. But while S12 was tremendously beneficial for Australian rugby, the high water mark of that benefit was probably reached several years ago.
Australian rugby needs to have more control over its destiny. The time for surfing off the wave created by South Africa & new Zealand is passing. We have to make our own waves (sorry for the poor cliches).
Spiro,
With respect I don’t like your national club concept one bit. Like so many other poster’s suggestions, it’s too itsy-bitsy & too fawning of Sydney.
Contrary to popular opinion, I would support a an existing clubs national club, if I saw one worth supporting. But so far, no-one has satisfactorily convinced me.
general comment,
If by some unbelievable blight of all that is supposed to good & true, & the S15 decision goes in favour of Southern Kings, the ARU should withdraw immediately from SANZAR. I would be surprised if the NZRU didn’t follow suit.
The South African govt, & their dogs, the SARU, are an absolute disgrace!
mcxd said | October 22nd 2009 @ 1:38am | Report comment
Though this be madness, yet there is method in’t ?
Maybe SARU know what the obvious and sensible decision is and know the likely outcome yet may be want to be seen pushing hard for their team due to SA politics ?
Skip said | October 22nd 2009 @ 10:09am | Report comment
I agree mcxd. The Sanzar reps from South Africa have to fight toooth and nail to get the 15th team even if it is not in the best interest of SANZAR and Rugby. I imagine there would have been serious repercussion for SA rugby if they had voted for Melbourne.
sportym said | October 22nd 2009 @ 3:01am | Report comment
The real question, are we really surprised by what the SARU did? Its seems that have very little respect for the SANZAR agreement and only care about themselves. Though I am not sure if OZ can really support a 5th team, I am very confident that SA cannot support a 6th team.
Does anybody know what Eddie Jones record against the All blacks was?
Jerry said | October 22nd 2009 @ 6:44am | Report comment
From memory it’d be 5 wins and 6 losses. Started out well, winning both in 01, then split the series in 02. In 03 the Wallabies lost both TN matches but of course won the crucial WC semi and then they split the series again in 04. In 05 the Wallabies didn’t win a match in the TN from memory.
Lee said | October 22nd 2009 @ 9:02am | Report comment
Since when is looking after your own interests not the SANZAR way? Its what the ARU has done since day 1.
warrenexpatinnz said | October 22nd 2009 @ 3:19am | Report comment
mcxd you are pretty well right, the SARU decision is based aroung it knowing that it will have to have a playoff relgation match to allow the KIngs to play. South African supporters are extremely loyal and unless the SARU wanted to be accused of laying down it had no option.
Regards Melbourne’s impending side, I believe it will succed and very well as a lot of people are forgetting the Super 14 (15) has an obvious international feel about the competition and on a comparison have a look at the Melbourne Storm/Warriors games played in Melbourne, full house as the Kiwi support from its expats in Melbourne is huge.
Yes the fifth side will dilute our player base but very briefly as the increased revenue that can be generated and the extra third party sponsorship for a Melbourne side will attract large numbers of players to its club.
The Melbourne side, very much like the Western Force will perform well but has greater potential to reach the top and maintain as per the Storm as no baggage, good money and having sports mad Melbourne fans jump on board as the Super 15 competition will get to fill that void of an Aussie side versus an overseas side that lacks on the Aussie sporting calendar with only the current range of trans Tasman netball, league and football being the present options.
Ace said | October 22nd 2009 @ 3:23am | Report comment
Gee Spiro, take it easy. You’ll break your electronic whinge machine.
Viscount Crouchback said | October 22nd 2009 @ 4:01am | Report comment
Yet more parochial poppycock. Only a madman – or an Australian – can truly believe that Australian rugby has sufficient strength-in-depth to form a competitive fifth S14 team. The South Africans have dozens and dozens of fantastic players playing abroad – if the South African government is serious about supporting the Southern Kings, then it would merely require a few cheques from ANC HQ for these players to come flocking home and form a formidable team.
A Melbourne team will merely dilute the quality of the competition still further; a PE team has much greater potential upside.
Knives Out said | October 22nd 2009 @ 4:37am | Report comment
Would a handful of very good players improve the Stormers, Cheetahs, Lions and this new team?
Lee said | October 22nd 2009 @ 5:11am | Report comment
Would diluting the Australian player pool further really improve the Reds, Brumbies, Waratahs or Force?
Knives Out said | October 22nd 2009 @ 6:04am | Report comment
No, but it’s probably harder to argue for a further SA franchise when 3 finished in the bottom five of the table.
Lee said | October 22nd 2009 @ 6:22am | Report comment
Yes, but the point that adding very good players to a team will improve them is valid, I can’t see how adding a Melbourne franchise will help the Reds etc.
Knives Out said | October 22nd 2009 @ 6:28am | Report comment
I’m not really sure what you’re getting at Lee? Of the SA players in Europe a lot of them aren’t Super standard, and others are too old. There is a handful of very good players who would make a difference: Human, Joubert, Brent Russell etc, but there’s also a lot of SA journeymen. How are these players going to aid a 6th team? Further, the more pressing argument is why SA would deserve a 6th team when 3 of the current 5 are so abysmal. You could equally say that adding Australian players plying their trade in Europe would aid the Australian team.
Hendo said | October 22nd 2009 @ 12:43pm | Report comment
Perhaps the added oppurtunities a fifth OZ team would provide would mean more young players that would otherwise go would choose to go with rugby rather than go down the League route.
Australia has great depth in league.
So initially perhaps it wont help the reds – but in a few years time – definitely.
fox said | October 22nd 2009 @ 7:45am | Report comment
VC you are the one spouting a bunch poppycock – and I never use that word! But that is what it is (if poppycock actually means “reactionary, biased, makey-uppey rhetoric”). Save your vitriol for a topic whose issues you can adequately get across. The South Afircans have dozens and dozens of….. Well why the hell are there only really two competitive super rugby teams? Yet people like you criticise Australia for its lack of depth (which admittedly is in some respects a truism) but to say that South Africa have all these great players running around foreign competitions is absolute tripe. There are a few, but they are not going to come home and play for the Southern Kings, unless they are the great black hopes of South Africa – because that is what this team is proposed to be: a political pod of puppets. The Lions are terrible and have been in perpetuity, the Cheetahs not much better and the Stormers despite their ranks of obvious talent are inconsistent at best, perennial disppointments. There I said it. South African rugby is strong. But don’t pretend its strong enough to support a sixth team.
As I said yesterday in relation to kwiis who would want to rob Australian rugby of its growth prospects: How does a weak ARU help other SANZAR nations? The revenue to the respective national unions from super rugby is massive. To suggest it is not in the best interest of everyone that Australian rugby prosper (and so be given adequate opportunity to) is short sighted at best. There is massive room for growth in this market in a relative sense. Stop acting the clown.
taylor bridge said | October 22nd 2009 @ 11:19am | Report comment
well thought out ,Fox and well written. Spiro’s article was ok but it criticises rather than promote solutions. Surely it was expected that the vote would hav eto go to the next step as otherwise it would have representeda we dont care from the SA’s. I am sure if positions were reversed we would do the same.
Having articulate and look them in the eye rugby leaders such as Nick Farr-Jones, Michael Lynagh and the best of all , John Eales runs parallel with success on and off the field.
AC said | October 22nd 2009 @ 8:32am | Report comment
That depends on whether the SA government wants these players from overseas to play for their “black” team?
By chance, do you know how many great black SA players are plying their trade in Europe?
Steve said | October 22nd 2009 @ 4:05am | Report comment
Spiro; lets face it, you just don’t like South Africans and South African rugby. At what point was Australia entitled to a 5th team,even though the non sensical structure that has been proposed by SANZAR (which was heavily influenced by john O’Neill) would make alot more sense with a Melbourne team. I think SARU has been far more than accomidating to Australian rugby:
– sharing the Broadcaster money equally when S.A generates the most income from viewership
– Allowing the the Home and away matches in the conferences,which almost clashed with the currie cup and will surely further devalue it. It will only really benefits Australian rugby as S.A and N.Z both have enough product to fill their calenders(some say to much).
The truth of the matter is that it was a tendering process, there wasn’t a unanimous decision, so it is going to arbitration. Its not the end of the world, Melbourne will get it. But maybe you should see the merit for the kings bid:
Its an amalgamation of 3 professional teams(the combined resources and government backing will mean a very competitive team, without dissolving South Africa’s player base)
A new stadium.
Some of the best rugby playing schools and universities in the country( Selborne, grey, dale college, queens, St. Andrew’s etc. where school matches usually attract 10000+ spectators every week)
A large support base, that have become disillusioned with infighting in the local teams and thus have started supporting the bulls, sharks ext. The Eastern cape population has been wait for this for nearly 15 years now.
If you compare this to the Melbourne bid, it is only the travel factor that swings the vote in favour of Melbourne. Its time to end the charade that is super 14 and call for competition reform. Australia needs it’s own local comp and super14 should become a Heineken cup style comp. As some one so aptly put it super14 should be the icing not the filling.
But I 1000% agree with on Phil Kearns
Nelson said | October 22nd 2009 @ 4:26am | Report comment
“Australia needs it’s own local comp and super14 should become a Heineken cup style comp. As some one so aptly put it super14 should be the icing not the filling”
Absolutely. that’s the best way of putting it I have heard and it seems like more and more people are coming to this conclusion. when are the administrators going to realize this?
mitzter said | October 22nd 2009 @ 7:08am | Report comment
Why do you think the super 15 structure is non-sensical?
Bay35Pablo said | October 22nd 2009 @ 7:34am | Report comment
Why go to the conference system then? Why didn’t SARU just say earlier “You weak Aussies can p!ss off and have a 4 team conference and no wildcard. and we’ll have 6 teams. You Kiwis can just sit there”?
fox said | October 22nd 2009 @ 7:47am | Report comment
Exactly. It’s 11th hour politics driven by non-commercial motivations. The SK bid has absolutely nothing to do with rugby.
Hermin said | October 22nd 2009 @ 12:57pm | Report comment
Neither does the Melbourne bid if we are to believe posters such as reds fan its all about the money.
If it were soley about the rugby neither SA or Australia would get a team it would go to NZ no questions asked if we were to go on results of actual rugby.
reds fan said | October 22nd 2009 @ 1:02pm | Report comment
Spot on Hermin. If it was about Rugby it would be probably 6 kiwi teams, maybe 3 australian and about 4 south african. Super 13…. we never did do that number did we….
Dingbat said | October 22nd 2009 @ 4:37am | Report comment
How delighted Spiro must be to be able to bash South Africa. The venom with which he does so means he loses all objectivity and should therefore be ignored.
Of course it should go to the Spears. SA is the only one of the SANZAR countries with massive rugby growth potential. There is a massive black population to be tapped in that region (from a player and marketing perspective). I keep hearing complaints from Kiwis that moms are forcing their sons to play soccer and in Aus union is the poor third brother to Rules and League. The only growth either country has in rugga is Saffas moving there/producing rugga offspring.
Aus can hardly put a national first XV together, so how the hell can they justify a 5th team?
altus said | October 22nd 2009 @ 5:05am | Report comment
Anybody who read Spiro’s book about the rivalry between the Springboks and All Blacks knows exactly how he feels abou South African rugby.
The entire premise of the book, which goes back to the English Public school rivalry between Rugby School and I think Winchester, is that South African rugby is the evil (kicking) empire while the All Blacks are the White (running) Knites trying to save the game.
I actually don’t think that the Southern Kins are the better option, but the reality of rugby politics in South Africa means that Saru could not give in. That is Saru’s weakness to be sure, but for Spiro to say that the ARU should forgive and forget, is laughable.
The truth of the matter is that the Super 12 worked and should still be the format of the competition.
Lee said | October 22nd 2009 @ 5:14am | Report comment
Exactly altus.
For people to really believe that SARU think they will be granted the new franchise is laughable – they are doing it for political reasons. They have to show the government they are serious about transformation even if it is just a token jester. Make no mistake, the Kings will join the comp but at the expense of either the Cheetahs or the Lions.
I was actually surprised that this article didn’t take more of an anti-SARU stance, maybe Spiro is changing his ways?
altus said | October 22nd 2009 @ 5:11am | Report comment
And Dingbat and Steve…
Rugby in the Eastern Cape is a basket case. Yes, EP have been better this year since Cheeky Watson have taken over, but the teams are shit and they don’t draw crowds. Border and EP won 7 matches out of 20 in the Currie Cup second division. Not a single player if those teams would start for the Cheetahs or the Lions, the two worst SA teams in the S14.
Face it, even when the Currie Cup, during the 80s, was at its strongest and a five team league, EP was always the worst.
If it wasn’t for the pressure from government, nobody in SA rugby would push the Eastern Cape as a rugby alternative.
Steve said | October 22nd 2009 @ 6:41am | Report comment
The point that you are so clearly missing, is the potential for growth in the Eastern Cape is 10 fold compared to Melbourne, the Eastern Cape is a factory of rugby players which other unions snap up straight out of school(Luke Watson, Ryan kankowski, keegan daniels, rory kocett, Mark Andrews ect.) When the kings played the BI lions there were over 30000 people in the stadium.
Furthermore this is an amalgamation of three unions SWD, EP, Border not 2…SWD made it to the final and are presently playing for promotion to the premier division. SWD were bought by a private consortium and are in the process of setting up academies and structures that will develop young players from the area, convince them to stay and hopefully attract players from other provinces. Subsequently SWD signed both Bevan Fortuin and Gaffie Du toit(who are both former springboks).
Your fact that EP was the worst team in the 80’s is also incorrect, they came second on the log in 1980. The Sharks/Natal were not even in the first division till the early 80’s and have built a successful team the same can and will happen in EP.
But what I was really trying to highlight was Spiro’s constant attacks on South Africa and South African rugby as being baseless and biased. Each team has its merits for being included into the comp, but who cares its time for a comp. revamp rather than keeping a stale comp.(like the super 14 which is completely illogical and an extremely resource heavy exercise) The two semi finals in the currie cup produced some of the hardest rugby and most intriguing rugby ive seen in a long time and was far superior to some of the crap that was dished out in super 14. Further to this point, news from New Zealand is making it out that the public is rengaging with their local provinces in the npc even though super 14 ratings are dropping.
True Tah said | October 22nd 2009 @ 7:11am | Report comment
Maybe Spiro lost a girl to a South African bloke once, might explain the bitterness?
Bay35Pablo said | October 22nd 2009 @ 7:36am | Report comment
Spiro’s being pretty soft. If you think that’s harsh, you’re pretty sensitive.
Rah Rah Rasputin said | October 22nd 2009 @ 10:25am | Report comment
“potential for growth”, how? what sort of growth? it is not going to bring anymore revenue into the game.
As has been pointed out the broadcasters see far more growth in the melbourne market then they do in SA.
Rugby Union in SA is at saturation point. There is probably to much rugby as demonstrated by some poor crowd attendances.
A SA team in an Australia conference will just poison rugby in Australia or any potential growth from an expended S14.
Picking the SK would mean forgoing revenue, incurring extra costs and embracing an inequiltable and confusing draw in order to make up the SARU foresaking the Southern Spears for the Afrikaans in the High Veldt.
Aust and NZ shouldn’t have to cow tow to ANC’s affirmative action policies. How does an all black/coloured team encourage racial harmony and integration? It is beyond me.
This is all about politics and what people appear to be doing. The SARU know they won’t win but mustn’t appear to be rolling over. Its a waste of time and money. Dump the Lions or the cheetahs, and lets get on with it.
altus said | October 22nd 2009 @ 4:54pm | Report comment
Which broadcaster Rah Rah?
Remember News Corp has now presence in SA. They get a set fee from SuperSport (MIH) and therefore has no interest in what happens in the Eastern Cape. They do have a interest in the Australian market and will therefore push that option.
Also the people who always talk about the broadcasters are Spiro and Growden who are basically O’Neill’s sockpuppets. I never take anything seriously that Growden writes about Sanzar because he always just front’s for O’Neill.
steve said | October 22nd 2009 @ 5:52pm | Report comment
A what stage was the team suppose to be an all black\ and coloured affair, if you believe that then you will believe that Spiro loves South Africa and that John O’neill has the best intentions for rugby. The reason why there is such an interest for rugby in the eastern cape region by the ANC (and once again the anc is not a monolithic organisation it is made up of different faction, certain faction don’t even care about it) is because the majority of the ANC members that grew up in the Eastern Cape opted to play rugby instead of soccer and now see an opportunity for rugby to grow in that area.
Further to that point what sort of growth you ask, you have about 1.5 million people in p.e a 1 million people in East London and just under that in George, they have no other substantial pro teams. Whereas Melbourne has 5 Pro teams.
Attendances poor? this is incorrect they not poor the prices of tickets are far to exorbitant, 1100 rand a ticket for the lions matches. The average South African just can’t afford that but if you look at the viewership you’ll see a different story. Plus SARU highest attendances in the last 5 years this. If you look at the super 14 and currie cup attendances you will see very high numbers of people attending.
todd said | October 22nd 2009 @ 5:28am | Report comment
Why should they give the opportunity to a melbourne team when rugby union is incredibly unpopular in melbourne. On the other hand both New zealand and SA have a real passion for rugby union and a new team would flourish in either country.
Vented Relief said | October 22nd 2009 @ 8:38am | Report comment
Yeah I suppose the 80,000 that watched the last bledisloe in melbourne turned up by accident. They must have hated it.
Rickety Knees said | October 22nd 2009 @ 6:04am | Report comment
Good article Spiro and on the money. I especially concur with your comments about the buffoons on Fox Sport who would be better placed appearing with Vautin on the Footy Show. They do the game a disservice.
I agree with the posts re the SARU playing politics unfortunately it sends entirely the wrong message to an already dissillusioned Australian Rugby public. The solution is give Melbourne the S15 gig and move to S18 as soon as possible. This will keep the Saffers happy.
Lee said | October 22nd 2009 @ 6:27am | Report comment
A Super 18??? There isn’t enough depth to hold a Super 14 nevermind a Super 18.
I struggle to understand why everything that SARU does should be in keeping with the best interests of the Australian Rugby public.
reds fan said | October 22nd 2009 @ 8:31am | Report comment
Lee. Have you sent an email to the SARU to ask them why?
I’ll think you find that’s its not always about Australia’s interest, but more so the broadcasters interests, which is in turn to the benefit of all SANZAR members. They are the one who do the market analysis and know where the business opportunity is.
I reckon neither the Kings nor Melb “deserve” a team. No one “deserves” a team.
This is a professional sport driven mainly by eye’s glued to screens which translates into advertising dollars. And Rupert has made the call. He believes there is more advertising revenue to be gained in Melb than in Port Elizabeth.
We all need to get past the paraochial carry on. Its not helpful for three nations that are all trying to counter the wealth of the northern hem.
Firestarter Bob said | October 22nd 2009 @ 6:49am | Report comment
I think the answer to Sanzar’s problem is a merger. Let’s make them the Melbourne Kings.
Play out of Melbourne using SA players. Brilliant!
Vented Relief said | October 22nd 2009 @ 8:43am | Report comment
It’s a shame it is Melbourne bidding for this spot instead of Perth. I could see a Western Kings team/merger much easier than a Melbourne Kings, particularly due to the saffa population in the west (also less travel for all involved). But, thats the way things have played out over the past three years so we’ve just got to live with it.
Redb said | October 22nd 2009 @ 7:01am | Report comment
The shame of this delayed decision it is that it has robbed rugby of a huge chance to get free air in Melbourne with the AFL season and trade week finished with the draft yet to come in November.
These delays do not make sense to non rugby folk, most people in Melbourne dont care enough to understand the internal politics of SANZAR or arbitration.
It’s not doom and gloom, but crikey just get on with it.
Redb
AndyRoo said | October 22nd 2009 @ 8:58am | Report comment
awaits “Rugby codes drop the ball part 2″
Redb said | October 22nd 2009 @ 9:23am | Report comment
that was about on field (crowds), so perhaps an off field – administration slant could work.
kingplaymaker said | October 22nd 2009 @ 7:16am | Report comment
Totally disagree about the ARU’s level of blame in the Tuqiri affair: obviously this was a money-saving exercise, and an unfair sacking, so it was quite right for Mortlock and the Rupa to support him. This problem was caused by the ARU and they could have known it would eventuate.
As for the rest of the article, it could all be ok if a) the Melbourne franchise goes ahead and b) a national competition is created: the only problem being that c) with the current players it’s hard to see the Wallabies improving much. Still, two out of three is something, and in the long if not the short term could be enough.
Yikes said | October 22nd 2009 @ 5:51pm | Report comment
Kingplaymaker, if it was an unfair sacking, why didn’t Tuqiri go public with the reason? It would have made the ARU look like a laughing stock.
No, I think you’re wrong on this one.
Pippinu said | October 22nd 2009 @ 7:19am | Report comment
What’s this rubbish about playing depth?
Has anyone compared the performance of the three original Aust super 12 teams with the performance of the original four SA teams over the last 13 or so seasons?
People are making judgements about a lot of things on the back of a pretty ordinary 18 months for the Wallabies – but that’s just one tiny piece of the jigsaw.
All the great rugby nurseries in Australia continue to exist and do what they’ve always done – they haven’t gone anywhere.
Also it’s unrealistic for O’Neil to base everything on a 75 to 80% winning ratio for the Wallabies – no one can maintain such a ratio for longer than a very short period, so what kind of strategy is that????
Bay35Pablo said | October 22nd 2009 @ 7:39am | Report comment
Pip, agreed. The Wallabies are having a bad episode. The Saafies have been underperforming for years in the 3N and Super comps for years, but no one was saying they should go or have teams cut. I was always worried about when they finally woke up.
fox said | October 22nd 2009 @ 7:50am | Report comment
Spot on. As usual. South African sides have always occupied the lower echelons of super rugby. I am by no means a Bok hater, but that’s the reality.
True Tah said | October 22nd 2009 @ 11:15am | Report comment
in the past three years they have also occupied the upper echeleons of super rugby.
Sam Taulelei said | October 22nd 2009 @ 10:30am | Report comment
The All Blacks can and do maintain a 75-80% winning ratio.
Pippinu said | October 22nd 2009 @ 12:53pm | Report comment
Sam
That’s the All Blacks.
I note that the ABs had only a 50% win rate in the most recent tri-nations, and hover around 67% acros the whole series. That latter percentage is excellent – but it underscores how silly it is to base a whole strategy around a win ratio of 75 to 80%.
Sure – Autralia will reach 80% just playing Japan, Italy and Canada – but I’m not sure if that’s much of a long term strategy either.
Australia might hit a 75% win ratio in the forthcoming tour – but once again – there’s a world of difference between reaching that over a shortish period and maintaining it over the medium term.
People should be under no illusion – an 80% win rate is very, very high.
kingplaymaker said | October 22nd 2009 @ 7:21am | Report comment
Pippinu what’s sad is that everything seems to depend on whether the Wallabies and Super 14 teams win, as if the fans could have no objective interest in the game otherwise.
Pippinu said | October 22nd 2009 @ 7:39am | Report comment
king
all sports have that to a certian degree (fans being drawn to winners), so I can accept that there is always an element of that in any team game – but to bet everything on a 75 to 80% win ratio??!!
You know – there’s unrealistic – and then there’s absolute insanity!!
kingplaymaker said | October 22nd 2009 @ 7:54am | Report comment
Pippinu I agree and it seems like avoiding other problems: England have at times experienced a similarly dramatic decline since 2003, but it doesn’t mean the crowds have simply stopped coming, because the game’s health is based strongly elsewhere, at the second-tier level.
So that’s really the bigger problem, the lack of a broader spectator health in the game. If everyone were watching club rugby, they would be more fans to watch the Wallabies, and they wouldn’t mind as much if the Wallabies lost because they would still be interested in rugby in general.
Basically what I’m saying is that because the Wallabies is almost the entirety of what a rugby fan might be interested in at the moment, interest in the game as a whole is too fragile and liable to fall off when the team loses, whereas if there is club rugby to be interested in too, then it wouldn’t matter so much if the national team lose.
Brett McKay said | October 22nd 2009 @ 7:22am | Report comment
Spiro, I think all the points you make are valid, in terms of SARU pushing a political agenda, and also the ARU’s annus horribillus, but I’m not entirely convinced your two main points here are interlinked.
That SANZAR have been unable – unsurprisingly – to make a decision on Team 15 is more of a blight on the set-up and structure of SANZAR than it is the political agenda of South Africa or the plain horrible year for Australia.
But I am glad you’ve finally made comment on the need for a middle teir in Australia. Your silence on this issue had been noted in recent days..
Firestarter Bob said | October 22nd 2009 @ 7:25am | Report comment
Didn’t I read on The Roar last week that Rugby 7s being in the Olympics was going to fix all of Australian rugby’s problems?
Bay35Pablo said | October 22nd 2009 @ 7:42am | Report comment
Spiro, usually I find at least a few points to quibble on with your articles, but you are on the money with every point today.
As for those complaining about you being biased against SAF or not-objective, they need to wake up. Why is it certain Saafies can’t seem to cope if you don’t agree with them wholeheartedly? It is worth noting a number of Saafie supporters have indicated they agree the Kings don’t deserve it, and Melbourne should get it.
Next time SARU wants to play chicken, they might get surprised, and that Trans Tasman Cup concept might come out of the cupboard again.
fox said | October 22nd 2009 @ 7:58am | Report comment
Yep. Agreed. My South Afrtican mates think the whole SK bid is a joke, uncommerical, political and completely unhelpful. They believe it protrays their country in the wrong way to the rest of us. There’s no arguing with that logic, unbaised as it is.
Hoy said | October 22nd 2009 @ 8:37am | Report comment
I have said the same on an old thread. Whenever you say somthing negative about South Africa, you are automatically a Saffa Basher, and are howled down.
Even if you state the obvious truth.
They are very precious.
In all honesty, I am not sure what is better: a poor team that can’t compete, but already exists, or a new franchise in an unknown territory.
I would honestly hate the new franchise to drain my beloved Reds anymore than the Force did. Jeez we were boned there. Perhaps a new coach with a winning record, and the fact that all that is left at the Reds are basically those that previously would have left to get a start elsewhere as there were incumbants ahead of them, all might mean the team stays together, for what good that is.
Bay35Pablo said | October 22nd 2009 @ 11:48am | Report comment
Hoy, unless NSW does well in 2010, I suspect it is the tahs that will have an exodus this time next year.
steve said | October 22nd 2009 @ 5:54pm | Report comment
And then rugby in Australia wil truly fail
Hatchet said | October 22nd 2009 @ 8:44am | Report comment
We need to clean-out the RUPA hardliners in the Wallabies , then we may progress.
The Truth said | October 22nd 2009 @ 8:53am | Report comment
SA and NZ compromised their local comps, a level which Australia has failed to replicate, just so the Super rugby season could be extended as Australia wanted. Now you are complaining that South Africa, with their registered player base almost five times larger, wants another squad over Melbourne, which has little rugby union culture beyond select immigrant communities and some private schools? Sorry, but SA is the one owed here (along with NZ), so if they come begging for help from the ARU like you predict then the Aussies should politely oblige. That time just passed and the only thing which saved the chest-thumping Aussie crowd was this new conference format. The South African audience is what kept that country involved in this comp, but suddenly the AFL-mad city of Melbourne is the true economic titan of rugby union? I don’t buy it at all.
reds fan said | October 22nd 2009 @ 9:00am | Report comment
How do you think Rupert Murdoch came to his conclusion that Melb is better for rugby business then? And is willing to up the broadcast deal if they are involved? He is no fool. They will be all over the demographics and advertising revenues available.
Analogue Cheese said | October 22nd 2009 @ 12:10pm | Report comment
he’s an idiot like the rest of us – exhibit A, myspace.
Rupert gets it plenty wrong all over.
TommyM said | October 22nd 2009 @ 9:01am | Report comment
Perhaps the Wallabes should stop playing so many games against the Springboks and All Blacks. We now play 2 extra tests against them every year, so surely to maintain as high an overall winning percentage is going to be difficult.
Imagine if the wolrd’s 3rd ranked tennis player in the world had to play 60% of his games gainst Federer and Nadal- “Oh, he’s useless, he loses almost all his games!!”
Pippinu said | October 22nd 2009 @ 9:05am | Report comment
Can anyone honestly say that Australia hasn’t held up its share of the bargain in relation to super rugby?
Consider:
Title wins by Country
Country Wins Runner-up
New Zealand 10 6
Australia 2 5
South Africa 2 3
And I note that the average attendances for Super rugby are around 21,500, with the Waratahs averaging a couple of thou above that, and the Reds slightly under that.
Hermin said | October 22nd 2009 @ 12:55pm | Report comment
Pip,
Taking your post further
Australia has had 13 teams contest a semi series with 7 teams reaching a grand final winning 2 titles
South Africa has had 15 teams contest a semi with 5 going onto the final winning 2 titles
New Zealand has had 28 teams play a semi and 16 contest a final winning 10 titles
Now lets reverse that and look at the bottom four since the competitions inception in 1996
Australia 12 times in bottom four with two Wooden Spoons
Reds 09,08, 07(WS)06 05, 04, 97 = 7 – 6years straight with the last 3 in the bottom 3
Force 06(WS) = 1
Tahs 07,00, 97 = 3
ACT 98 =1
South Africa 28 with 10 Wooden spoons
Cheetahs 09(WS), 08, 07, = 3
Lions 09, 08(WS), 07, 06, 05, 04(WS), 03(WS), 02, 99, 98 = 10
Bulls 02(WS), 01(WS), 00, 99(WS), 98, = 5
Sharks 05(WS), 03, 02, 00(WS), = 4
Stormers 06, 05, 03, 98 = 4
Western Province 96 = 1
Transvaal 96 = 1
New Zealand has featured in the bottom four 16 times with two Wooden Spoons both back at the begining of the series of which they also took first place.
Blues 01, 99
Chiefs 03, 00,97
Hurricanes 04, 02, 01, 99, 96
Crusaders 01, 96(WS)
Highlanders 09, 08, 04, 97(WS)
Pippinu said | October 22nd 2009 @ 1:08pm | Report comment
Hermin
obviously the NZ teams are light years ahead – but the Australian teams stack up reasonably well with SA over the journey.
Of course, the SA teams have generally lifted their game the last 5 seasons or so – but we know from all sporting comps that these sorts of things can be cyclical.
I’m not convinced that a trend of Australian under-performance in Super 14s has emerged (although we might only be two poor seasons away from that becoming clearer).
reds fan said | October 22nd 2009 @ 1:14pm | Report comment
And considering the importance placed on Currie and ANZC as develoment paths we’ve done quite well without our own. (except my bunch of lazy good for nuthin’s!)
Pippinu said | October 22nd 2009 @ 5:05pm | Report comment
heh, heh – yeh, well, let’s not go there!!
Hammer said | October 22nd 2009 @ 9:12am | Report comment
Well at least SAFU can argue they actually already have a team … the ARU approach is give us the franchaise first and then we’ll build it … and that’s where the problems will start – further dilution of the quality of the product that is supposed to help bring in and maintain all these new viewers
the argument being made here is circular and a quick fix approach from the ARU – it’s merely the ARU trying to force SANZAR to improve the strength and growth of Australian rugby – by using SANZAR revenue – the ARU should be using their share of the broadcasting revenue generated by SANZAR to grow the game in Australia first to prove they’ve enough players to fill a 5th team – before being granted a new team …. the SK’s need to do this also …
and as for these bilious comments regarding SAFU … ” But I hope that the ARU … never forgives or forgets SARU’s behaviour in this matter ….. There will come a time of reckoning for South African rugby when they need something very badly from the ARU. Let’s hope that the ARU screws SARU as ruthlessly as it has screwed the ARU …”
that’s really going to help out relations – and perhaps, just perhaps O’Neill & Co now realise how the NZRFU have felt a number of times since 2003 (but I doubt it) ..
reds fan said | October 22nd 2009 @ 9:28am | Report comment
Force SANZAR??????? hhahahahahahaha. Kiwi’s and Saffa’s need to grow some “big furries” as one blogger calls them if they always seem to get “bullied” by big bad Australia.
Talk about playing the victim. Oh this is hilarious!! The playground pipsqueek beating up on everyone. hahahaha.
Hammer said | October 22nd 2009 @ 9:36am | Report comment
So RF what do you think SAFU are actually showing here then ? … and when they actually do “grow some big furries” we get piece like this and calling for retribution at the earliest possible opportunity from the ARU
reds fan said | October 22nd 2009 @ 9:42am | Report comment
I don’t have a problem with it Hammer. Good on them.
But you made this comment “it’s merely the ARU trying to force SANZAR to improve the strength and growth of Australian rugby”
That is ridiculous. and it is something we hear continuously from South Africans and Kiwi’s. I wrote the same thing to Hermin.
Why does SARU participate in Super Rugby? What benefits are you gaining? Stop blaming us for the decisions your national union are a party to. Yes on this point they are standing their ground. But this are accusations that are rolled out all the time.
Sa and NZ supporters need to make peace with super rugby and understand the motivations for being a part of it, and why the three nations agree to expand it.
fox said | October 22nd 2009 @ 9:35am | Report comment
Oh come on. If the NZRFU had simply not been ignorant about stadium signage they would have been a part of the RWC 2003 as was the plan from the outset. That was their mistake, not an idiotic political decision borne out of the navel by the ARU which is what the SARFU are essentially doing here. Apple to apples my friend, please! There is no other option for Australia’s fifth team than building the franchise. What do you expect? We just raise Randwick to super rugby status and have it cannibalise the Sydney market? Or get some club team from Victorian club rugby and build it up…. Essentially what the Melbourne proposal is anyway. I’m getting tired of all this nonsense. Melbourne’s bid is the best on the table. Deal with it. Time to move the the next thread.
Hammer said | October 22nd 2009 @ 9:40am | Report comment
well for start off all the existing Australain teams could prove they’re up to competing before bringing another onboard
reds fan said | October 22nd 2009 @ 9:44am | Report comment
Hammer there is more to this than onfield performance. It is something we all need to confortable with. Its about money. Lets not fool ourselves.
fox said | October 22nd 2009 @ 10:45am | Report comment
Get rid of the Highlanders too then. They are hopeless! We could go at this all day. South Africa’s teams have been the weakest all thru super rugby history but now they want a sixth. On your standards they should never even have 5. Maybe we should just populate the super rugby competition with kiwi teams and then everydoby would be happy? Some people…
Hermin said | October 22nd 2009 @ 11:01am | Report comment
Fox,
Unlike Australia and South Africa every single NZ franchise has contested a final.
yes that includes the Highlanders
Some people……………
fox said | October 22nd 2009 @ 3:37pm | Report comment
Hammer said | October 22nd 2009 @ 11:56am | Report comment
Going by that stupid argument – bin the Reds … some people indeed
Hermin said | October 22nd 2009 @ 12:21pm | Report comment
Yes bin the Reds, since the advance from Super 12 to 14 the Reds have landed in the bottom 3 yes the bottom 3 every single year taking the Wooden Spoon in 08 however they did improve to the plastic plate this year in finishing 13th…….Some people……………
reds fan said | October 22nd 2009 @ 12:26pm | Report comment
Personally i’d like to see the kiwi’s the quit Super Rugby and revert back to only their beloved NPC. Player salaries would collapse and a mass exodus would then occur to the north. Now that would be fun.
Hermin said | October 22nd 2009 @ 1:27pm | Report comment
I have not seen one post where any kiwi has said do away with super rugby not even close, What I have seen is the following.
1. Australia does not deserve a 5th team nor does South Africa
2. Australia simply does not have the infrastructure to support 5 teams
3. South Africas general record is poor considering the place rugby has in their pysche
4. Australians calling to be included into the ANZC
5. Australians telling New Zealanders that a TT comp is needed to replace the ANZC
6. Constant sidestepping of the facts of reality Australia does not supply the revenue you think it does
7. australia trying to get a surrogate domestic competition and using money and potential growth as reasoning why they deserve a team.
8. Posters such as yourself willing to dilute the integrity of the conference by introducing a team that simply put will not be able to be competitive without raiding the ranks of current Aus teams and international players. Melbournians can not relate too. All for the sake of the supposed dollar. and the obvious weakening of the other franchises within Australia
Reds fan its time to breathe even your feloow Australians whilst wanting the team can see that you just do not have the infrastructure to support the team(s)
I challenge all roarers to find a post where a Kiwi is saying that the Super competition is useless.
Melbourne will get the nod I don’t for a minute believe the Kings will get it. However i firmly believe neither country deserves another team!
Hermin said | October 22nd 2009 @ 1:35pm | Report comment
Reds fan,
What is your problem?
Can you not accept the reality that Australias record in super rugby is appalling?
In the last four years Australian teams have missed the top four in 2009 and 2007 and they have taken the Wooden Spoon twice the reds have been in the bottom 4 every single year since the Super 14 came about from the super 12. Whats worse is the have actually been in the bottom 3.
Your statement smacks of someone being backed into a corner with nothing valuable to say. Like I have said elsewhere show me one statement where a Kiwi poster has said that the super concept should be done away with. Come on mate fess up.
As far as I can see there is plenty of Australian posters wanting to join our competition or start another one including Aussies.
Yes thats right you need us a hell of a lot more than NZ or SA need Australia
Daniel J said | October 22nd 2009 @ 1:44pm | Report comment
Please don’t can the Reds! That would be a waste! roast them slowly instead with a lovely drizzle of criticism every week they don’t perform!
reds fan said | October 22nd 2009 @ 1:56pm | Report comment
haha the arrogance of a kiwi rugby fan. never far from the surface.
Hermin said | October 22nd 2009 @ 2:00pm | Report comment
Reds fan how is stating the cold hard facts being arrogant.
You are the only one banging on and on about the same old thing.
its clear many of your other fellow countrymen can see the error in Australian rugby but you don’t seem to think so.
tell me this how long will Victorians support their team if it is getting soundly thumped week in week out and same can be said for the Saffas and the Kings.
Come on do tell me. From my understanding and knowledge of sports around the world not too many people like to see their side getting their arses handed them to them over and over again.
Surely you as a Reds fan like your name dictates must know this.
6 years now they have been cellar dwellers and 3 of them in the bottom three come on RF its time to come out into the real world
reds fan said | October 22nd 2009 @ 2:13pm | Report comment
Hermin.
1. I don’t think it’s you setting the criteria of who is deserving. So let’s leave that to SANZAR shall we?
2. I agree but it’s not for me to decide whether or not that makes them deserving.
3. Yes it is, but so what? I love the variety of the rugby that is played in Super Rugby by the three nations. It is no reason for deciding who stays or goes or who is deserving. If that was the case where do stop. The top team every year considers the less undeserving.
4. I believe what most Australians propose is that IF super rugby failed that a TT comp could replace the super comp. your NPC would be untouched and continue as it does now. What some have alluded to is that an easy fix would be being allowed into the ANZC.. that is quite different to “calling to be included”. We think it would be an easy fix but completey respect that the NPC is NZ’s and they quite rightly want to keep it purely domestic.
5. See point 4.
6. If you are referring to revenue earned from SANZAR comps, I am not suggesting Australia is contributing some massive portion. What I am saying is that SANZAR rugby allows all member unions to earn more than they would without it.
7. We do not think Super Rugby is a surrogate domestic comp. Have you not noticed the fortnightly thread on here about hwo one might look like? We acknowledge though that it does provide more better quality rugby for our players. I think you would find that is true for NZ and SA. They like that they can play against international opposition.
8. I am not suggesting they pick Melb for the money. I am telling you that Melb is being picked for the money. One would be my opinion the other is what has been reported. The broadcaster thinks it can make more money with a Melb team and is willing to pay SANZAR more if Melb is included. That is not my willingness to dilute the integrity of the competition, that is what has been openly reported.
I posted elsewhere to you that in purely rugby terms the split shoudl be NZ 5/6 teams, OZ 2/3 teams, SA 3/4 teams. That is my opinion.
But that is not the commercial reality.
Hermin said | October 22nd 2009 @ 3:13pm | Report comment
Reds fan,
Lets do it your way.
I’m more than happy to see Australian rugby make a mockery of itself and see the standard drop considerably with a understrength token team placed in Melbourne on the Premise that they will draw fans away from the AFL.
I am more than happy to see another Aussie or Saffa team get pasted off the park every week for the sake of getting more money thanks alot.
Sadly these are the same promises that we were given when the competition was expanded to 14 teams. Do tell me how successful Australian teams have been since??
Two of the last seasons since expansion they haven’t even made the top four and two of those seasons they have ended up with the wooden spoon your only two wooden spoons. if anything Australian rugby has suffered greatly but is getting more money than it did in Super 12,
So here you are expecting me to believe that you will be successful with five teams. What a joke.
With four teams and a bigger slice of the pie you have tried and dumped a national competition, you have dumped Australia A, and only One Australian team has made the playoffs in four years although they managed it on two occasions. its appalling. With three teams Australia had a much higher success rate but hmm yup expand get more money for development.
Well hello the complete opposite has happened, development is non existent and your teams (reds) are languishing in the bottom three and the rest are just not cutting it in the big time.
Seriously your only kidding yourself if you believe half of what you write
Are you telling me you like to see your team get whooped year in year out.
The decline in the standard of the Aussie S14 teams is evident in the lacklustre Wallabies.
yet you still want another team.
Pippinu said | October 22nd 2009 @ 3:19pm | Report comment
Hermin
Here’s a little quiz for you:
How many of Auckland’s current squad are born overseas?
reds fan said | October 22nd 2009 @ 3:21pm | Report comment
Hermin.
I never said that we will be successful with five and I never said I wanted another team. And I hate watching my once proud Reds getting flogged.
what i am saying is that we all -oz, nz and sa supporters – spend our time arguing about “rugby” when our national unions talk “money”.
Our arguments based on “rugby” are never going match the outcomes and decisions SANZAR makes based on money.
I have been merely trying to get you and other Roarers to look at this through the same prism that our national unions do. and then we might understand why certain decisions are made by all three of them. personally i think they bicker about implementation, but i have no doubt that they all agree on the principle – get big, make money.
Hermin said | October 22nd 2009 @ 3:26pm | Report comment
To be honest I couldn’t really care but its not even close to say the reds.
Also please are you telling me these Auckland players were born great atheletes are you.
Also how about you tell me how many of them grew up here went to school here work here yes do tell me pip. Also can you tell me how many of the Western Force boys aren’t Kiwis.
If your going to go down who was born where thread I think you’ll find it will blow up in your face considerably. As is there are more kiwis playing in Australian teams than there is of foreign born players of all nationalities in the 5 super franchises from NZ, yes we have one more team than you so it is astounding you would even dare go down that path. So how about you find another argument Pip because now you are just drawing at straws and its not helping your argument one bit
Hermin said | October 22nd 2009 @ 3:29pm | Report comment
Reds fan,
No use making big money when your teams are turning to shit is it?
or is there something I don’t know.
Since getting the bigger cut your teams have declined considerably.
I see no sense in your argument. More money more teams has meant more failure for Australian rugby. Seriously reds fan take a step back. Your telling us you want more money even if your teams gets worse is that what your saying to us?
reds fan said | October 22nd 2009 @ 3:29pm | Report comment
haha. the Reds are the 6th kiwi team. just cant work out why we get the dud ones.
fox said | October 22nd 2009 @ 3:38pm | Report comment
It’s completely illogical. That’s my point. Some people…. Heh heh.
fox said | October 22nd 2009 @ 3:46pm | Report comment
A note to kiwi rugby: We need you! There I said it. Can we hug and make up now? I personally have no problem admitting that we need super rugby, but I think it’s a little short sighted to think that kiwi rugby isn’t getting a lot out of super rugby. hey, maybe you don;t like watching it. Sorry but the television rights mean a hell of a lot to your union as it does all SANZAR nations.
Of course Australian sides are currently weaker in super rugby than New Zealand sides and have been for quite some time. All time in fact. Does that not make sense considering that we have lagged you in test matches too? And I am not just talking about the past 5 years. I am talking about forever. We know you’re better, that your copmpetition is better, that you are a proud rugby nation with not many other sports to dilute the interest and player ranks. Must we say it? Will you sleep better tonight? Are you loving this? Do you need the reassurance?
What worries me most about all this is that kiwi rugby will benefit from an extra team and an expanded competition, but seemingly if this also favours Australian rugby some kiwis in this forum would rather not have it. Nose despite face stuff!
katzilla said | October 22nd 2009 @ 3:49pm | Report comment
Pip you just got owned.
The who was born where thread is not a place an Oz rugby fan wants to go.
Fox – How will NZ rugby benefit from another team that gets a flogging and no one goes out to see?
I realise that we need the money generated from this competition but to say we in NZ need it? I don’t think so.
We could just as well do without it.
Australia should lose one team and have 3 decent teams. Then maybe Australian players will get into a winning habit which will carry over into International?
Otago can go to, useless plicks. Can’t even make it out of the bottom 4 of the ANZC yet they get a S14 team? Should be relocated to the NI. Or given to Southland who at least make a fist of their lower ranked playing list.
SA don’t deserve even half a new team. Even less deserving.
Why does it have to expand in the first place?
I hope the whole thing stays in arbitration for 10 years.
reds fan said | October 22nd 2009 @ 4:02pm | Report comment
Katzilla. I think we all need the money. It’s about keeping pace with the opportunities and money in the northern hem. If the south falls behind we’re all stuffed.
Pippinu said | October 22nd 2009 @ 4:25pm | Report comment
Hermin/Katz
NZ teams not relying on players born overseas – that’s news to me.
Geez – where have I been the last century.
But I say this to both of you.
Caste your mind back to the inaugural season of Super 12s, when the mighty Auckland team came out to Bruce stadium to take on a Brumbies outfit that had been cobbled together at short notice, full of rejects, and gave the mighty Blues an absolute flogging.
The point?
Don’t worry about where the players are coming from – there are players to spare – they’re waiting to be assembled – it’s a non issue.
And if the new Melbourne team can rely on overseas born players in the manner that Auckalnd does – then so be it – I’m not the least bit fussed about it.
In the professional era – the players can come from anywhere – it’s not a contest of who can put the most local players on their list – it’s a non issue.
In fact, if there is one theme that comes up in these discussions over and over and over, it is that people forget that we are now in a professional era.
Hermin said | October 22nd 2009 @ 6:36pm | Report comment
Pip
Here you go mate had to go searching for the article.
Do remember you said born in another country, I think this will show the stupidity of that statement you made.
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/sport/news/article.cfm?c_id=4&objectid=10558018
Pippinu said | October 22nd 2009 @ 6:42pm | Report comment
Hermin
with respect – you have misunderstood where I am coming from.
Auckland have something like half a dozen players born overseas (sorry, not sure, something similar, but it doesn’t matter what the exact number is).
My point is: what’s stopping Melbourne grabbing half a dozen or even more blokes from any number of places around the world?
Nothing but imagination and some elbow grease.
As I said, personally, I don’t care where the players come from. This is why it is limiting to talk of a dilution of talent. Once you are prepared to think beyond your own backyard, anything is possible.
Hermin said | October 22nd 2009 @ 6:55pm | Report comment
Pip,
Name those players and then tell me how long they have lived in new Zealand. i think you’ll find most if not all have lived here nearly all their lives.
Australia is talking about filling the team with foreigners some who have never even lived a day in the country.
Also it matters greatly in this competition as to be eligible for either the Wallabies or the All Blacks one must be playing in the domestic competition either Super 14 or in NZ case ANZC. How the hell are you going to develop Australian depth by stacking one of your teams full of foreigners and then expecting a place like Melbourne to accept them as their own. If it was full of Aussies from out of state it would be a little more believeable. The fact that these foreigners would then be taking spots otherwise meant for Australian talent is somewhat ridiculous and defeats the purpose of having another team.
Pippinu said | October 22nd 2009 @ 7:00pm | Report comment
It’s probably a similar situation for many of the overseas born players in the Australian teams.
As for the player development argument – yes it’s a good point.
But we all appreciate you’d be lucky to find one Victorian right now who could start with the new team.
So having a third of your roster filled with overseas born players still leaves two thirds of the roster doesn’t it?
Also, if within a few years, a few Victorians are making the grade – well – that’s probably a few more than would have made it if there had been no Melbourne team.
Anyway, your concern for Australia’s capacity to develop players is touching.
fox said | October 23rd 2009 @ 7:10am | Report comment
“I hope the whole thing stays in arbitration for 10 years.” – Katzilla
That is incredibly funny, mate.
Bay35Pablo said | October 22nd 2009 @ 11:53am | Report comment
Hammer,
“the ARU should be using their share of the broadcasting revenue generated by SANZAR to grow the game in Australia ”
They are flat out using it to run the professional side of things. haven’t you noticed the complaints about the lack of support to grass roots development in Australia? Do they have some piggy bank they are putting all this “spare cash” in we don’t know about/ They don’t have any.
“that’s really going to help out relations” As opposed to how well the SARU trying it on with the Kings is doing for relations right now?
Hammer said | October 22nd 2009 @ 11:59am | Report comment
Yeah well Bay – the ARU are hardly angels when it comes to supporting their SANZAR partners are they
Temba said | October 22nd 2009 @ 9:44am | Report comment
Hey all just got back from month holiday in South Africa, I loved every minute of it but as a saffa I am glad to be back in my adopted home Melbourne.
OK down to it… it’s a Spiro article and we all know how he feels about South Africa but I have to agree that Melbourne must get the new team, it’s not only fair but logical. How they will make up the numbers is up to them and performance will come with time and money.
Such is the nature of a country like South Africa that the politician target rugby (as a white sport) and always looking to break it. We have all seen it during the Jake White era and the RWC07. SARU is supporting this with all guns blazing because in the end they will tell the politicians “Look we gave it our best, it’s the white man from the other country that’s to be blamed”. SARU knew from the start it will never work but they have to look like they are targeting transformation.
I find it ironic that the so called “black team” (SK) is supported but under the same deal breaker that stopped the NZ Maori tour. Transformation, colour quotas, black teams, black coaches… politics in SA is the name of the game, keep that in mind. I am not a SARU supporter but then again neither am I a IRB or a O’Neil fan.
Spiro does know how to spit a dummy at old Africa though… I imagine him bashing the keyboard with red eyes after the statement release.
In the end Mellies will get it and SARU will lie comfortable with its master at the ANC…. Thank god Cheaky Watson and co will not be heard of for a couple more years.
Selwyn said | October 22nd 2009 @ 10:53am | Report comment
What a litany of woes.
While agreeing with most to some extent, the one I’m totally in agreement with is the pathetic commentating on Fox Sports from Kearns and Martin. It’s enough of these two. Same old jokes and colloquialisms has made it a irritating to watch the games. With the ads on Channel 7 making that unpleasant as well, it’s no wonder ratings are down.
Ben said | October 22nd 2009 @ 10:57am | Report comment
Hey Spiro – sorry to change the subject but why has the world suddenly turned on George Smith? I have long suspected Greg Growden preferred Phil Waugh to Smith but clearly Smith is Austalia’s best no.7 over the last few seasons. How many Man of the Match, Player of the Year awards and suddenly after the NZ massacre, David Pocock is the go-to guy?
http://www.rugbyheaven.com.au/news/news/smith-hangs-with-b-team/2009/10/20/1255891806109.html
I understand about looking to the future however Smith is 29 ? He is the best player we have and just because he doesn’t enjoy the captaincy hardly means he should be dropped.
kingplaymaker said | October 22nd 2009 @ 11:05am | Report comment
Ben I wouldn’t bother asking as I’m sure Spiro doesn’t read all these responses: not that I would be able to find time if I were him.
The reason Smith is being dropped is a) he’s associated with the old guard who are supposed to be against Deans and b) Deans is confused into thinking that because he has been playing for the Wallabies for a long time he is very old as a result. If he had 100 caps by 25 Deans would probably think he was old and hence past it.
Ben said | October 22nd 2009 @ 11:13am | Report comment
Thanks.
If Smith is about to become No.2 to Pocock, someone better tell young David to get used to either becoming a one-man forward pack like GS has been since 2002 or get someone to take plenty of pictures of him in Wallaby colours because it maybe a short tenure.
Wallabies and their managemnt continue to disappoint.
Vented Relief said | October 22nd 2009 @ 12:51pm | Report comment
Adam Freier said on twitter that he spoke to George Smith and reference the media “they wouldn’t even know man”.
Interesting.
Katipo said | October 22nd 2009 @ 11:09am | Report comment
Make it a Super 16, 3 conferences: SA have 6 teams, Australia 5, NZ 5. Get on with it…
kingplaymaker said | October 22nd 2009 @ 11:11am | Report comment
Katipo almost right: SA 6, Australia 6, New Zealand 6. Then everyone will be happy and feel that they’re getting as much as everyone else. Besides, that’s the plan in a few more years anyway.
True Tah said | October 22nd 2009 @ 11:20am | Report comment
Where would the extra NZ side be based? A Northland-North Harbour combination?
And the sixth Aussie side? How many people are going to want to follow a side that is getting smashed off the park on the fields of NZ and SA.
kingplaymaker said | October 22nd 2009 @ 11:50am | Report comment
True Tah they could find one easily: maybe another in Auckland.
The sixth Aussie side could be made strong by allowing lots of foreign players in, as they do all over Europe. Plus there’s the NRL to take players from.
True Tah said | October 22nd 2009 @ 11:56am | Report comment
kingplaymaker
NZ has the players, but to be frank, I can understand why NZ may want to focus on the Air NZ Cup more.
Taking NRL players does not work.
kingplaymaker said | October 22nd 2009 @ 11:59am | Report comment
True Tah whether NRL players are good for international rugby is one question, but it’s another whether they’re good at Super level and I think they are in general. Look at Ryan Cross, Mclinden etc..all perfectly good Super players. They would be the targets, mid-level, reasonably good NRL players, not the top.
In New Zealand it will happen sooner or later as when SA and Australia get 6 NZ will want 6 too, and it might provide them with more TV revenue.
ohtani's jacket said | October 22nd 2009 @ 11:39am | Report comment
So, Australian rugby has all these problems and somehow a fifth franchise is justified?
The easy answer here is no more teams for anyone, but we can’t have that because News won’t give us any money. The South Africans may be a pain in the ass to deal with, but if it wasn’t for them the ARU and NZRU would be up sh-t creek without a paddle. The SANZAR money is NOT coming from Australian TV ratings.
Bay35Pablo said | October 22nd 2009 @ 11:56am | Report comment
OJ, yeah, I am sure the SARU are just doling out cash to us poor mites because they’re generous. The cut/split was hard bargained I am sure. When was the last time you saw the “hard done by” SARU give anything away without blood on the walls?
ohtani's jacket said | October 22nd 2009 @ 12:02pm | Report comment
Please, if the ARU had any leverage here, do you really think they’d be accomodating the interests of South Africa and New Zealand? That mob? The ARU has to defend Australian interests or else the game is in jeopardy in Australia, but why do the rest of us have to suffer for your own shortcomings? It’s not South Africa and New Zealand’s fault that Australia rugby has little in the way of domestic structure and is trying to expand itself through the Super 14. NZ can’t even support the Highlanders franchise and we’re supposed to bend over backwards to accomodate some pie in the sky Melbourne venture?
reds fan said | October 22nd 2009 @ 12:16pm | Report comment
How are you being asked to support it? The broadcaster is offering more money for a Melb team.
How are you suffering for Australia’s shortcomings? Do you really believe it is only Australia that wants to expand Super Rugby? There is only one union making money out of their domestic comp and that’s SARU.
I just wish supporters from all SANZAR countries would take the time to understand why each union is involved and what it gains. The contributons to this site reveal all the urban myths that surround this issue.
The truth is SA and NZ agreed to expansion. Did you ever consider that they could have said no? And what could have the ARU done about it? Said we’ll withdraw??? We’d be shooting ourselves in the foot.
Each national union gets enormous benefit from SANZAR rugby comps. They do it because not doing it would mean the collapse of professional rugby in the southern hem. Every comp has its perennial losers. thats just life. St Kilda’s lack of success didnt hold the VFL from going national.
Player pay rates continue to grow, and the amount of pound, euro and yen continues to grow. SANZAR needs to continue to grow. It needs more revenue and more revenue streams.
Claims of benevolence from any of the unions is a little rich I would think.
ohtani's jacket said | October 22nd 2009 @ 11:57pm | Report comment
New Zealand and Australia wanted expansion. South Africa compromised so an agreement could be reached. If the Super 14 were anywhere near successful in Australia and New Zealand, they wouldn’t have to expand. They could take the existing product to News and get more money for the same amount of games. As it stands, they’ll probably end up getting less per game than the present deal. What tremendous gains are the NZRU going to get by having a franchise in Melbourne? Some private entity that tries to raid our playing stocks? One more game per season to increase the injury toll and wear our players out faster?
Rin said | October 22nd 2009 @ 12:01pm | Report comment
Spiro, Safa bashing, i would never have guessed, i know sarcasm is the wit of idiocy, but I find it appropriate considering we talking about Spiro here, not someone i hold in high regard as a journalist.
Although I do support Melbourne in its bid as compared to the Kings, so as to grow rugby here, I will admit that the Safa’s have a right to argue especially since there are big questions about the player base in Aus being able to support a 5th team.
Spiro Zavos said | October 22nd 2009 @ 12:05pm | Report comment
Ben and Kingplaymaker, I do read all the responses. But I don’t believe in trying to ’shape’ a discussion too much after I’ve had my say. The Roar is really about the roaring of our readers. I find they are particularly well informed and the discussion/debate currently going on in this thread is most instructive for me as a rugby writer.
The George Smith selection issue is another matter for another Roar piece. But I will say that for one of the Bledisloe Cup Tests I watched Smith and Richie McCaw and came away with the impression that McCaw has far more impact on the matches he plays in than Smith. In fact, I was underwhelmed by what I saw of Smith. Perhaps at over 100 Tests and at 29 his body is just not up to playing number 7, surely the most physically demanding position on the rugby field.
stuff happens said | October 22nd 2009 @ 2:04pm | Report comment
Spiro,
I’m sure George’s body has taken a battering over the years but so has Richie’s ( how many times has he had concussion in the last three years? – not a good sign). I have been amazed how durable both men are.
But there’s a difference isn’t there? Richie McCaw plays in an All Black pack.How often has George Smith seemed like the only test quality forward Australia has?
kingplaymaker said | October 22nd 2009 @ 12:17pm | Report comment
Spiro I’m very pleased to hear that, and I see how a discussion might not follow the range of possible paths if over-determined.
Smith doesn’t look up to shape it’s true, but 29 seems awfully early to decline, and even though he has played 100 tests there are other players who have taken part in many more matches than him by that stage and in very demanding conditions.
It could be that it is a case of two things appearing to coincide whether they do or not in reality: he has been losing form, and he has played 100 tests. The second thing may be assumed to be responsible for the first, but this doesn’t necessarily mean it’s the case.
prowling panther said | October 22nd 2009 @ 12:21pm | Report comment
You would think rugby administrators are sloppier than league administrators. And thats saying something…
Greg Russell said | October 22nd 2009 @ 12:33pm | Report comment
“A captain like John Eales, who worked splendidly with O’Neill and coach Rod Macqueen through an earlier depressing period to eventually win the 1999 RWC tournament, would certainly have supported the ARU over Tuqiri’s dismissal.”
Spiro, don’t you ever wonder why Eales quit rugby just a handful of tests after Macqueen did? His nickname at the time of SOR (“Son of Rod”) probably gives a clue. It’s not clear to me why a captain should back the administration over his players, since surely the captain’s job is to represent his players. If
“Mortlock did not (initially) publicly support the ARU on the Tuqiri affair, even though he knew the full story”
it’s probably precisely because he DID know the full story.
Bay35Pablo said | October 22nd 2009 @ 1:56pm | Report comment
From Wayne Smith in the Oz today (http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,26242844-5015651,00.html):
“It is not simply that the competition would lose eight prized derbies if the Kings fill the vacancy in the Australian conference, but also the fact that broadcasters are aware that rugby’s penetration of the South African market has just about reached saturation point, while Melbourne and Victoria are virtually virgin territory. In terms of growing Super rugby’s television audience, a new team in a major international city like Melbourne offers far more than one in Port Elizabeth, a South African holiday destination.”
“It is understood that as keen as the South African government is to see a virtual all-black Super rugby franchise set up on the Eastern Cape, it decided against putting any money behind the Southern Kings because that would have created an uncomfortable precedent. Seemingly, unless the government was prepared to provide SANZAR with a cheque big enough not only to cover the reduced broadcast revenue but also the additional logistical costs of admitting the Kings, there is no way the SARU could effectively counter Melbourne’s claims.
Hoskins and SARU chief executive Andy Marinos surely recognise how weak their bargaining position must be, which has given rise to speculation within Australia that the South Africans are fighting the issue to the death for domestic political reasons, though well aware that they will lose to Melbourne in the end. ”
’nuff said.
mudskipper said | October 22nd 2009 @ 2:00pm | Report comment
Spiro sorry I can’t buy this one…… I’m surprised at your reprisal targeted at RUPA and Foxsports Rugby commentary team. Every team is bias to some point. Furthermore your “recalcitrant players” comment is extremely unfair, these players don’t have to back every bureaucratic stumble the ARU make. They didn’t make a fuss.
RUPA aren’t pursuing the ARU but looking after their members. The ARU took clear advantage over the Lote affair which didn’t need to be public. The ARU were heavy handed to say the least, no public damage was done to Australian rugby by Lote’s exposé. The ARU made their own circus. The players were shocked at the heavy handedness of the ARU and were very silent.
John Eales never dealt with this ARU heavy handed position and he wasn’t a leader for the professional development of Australian rugby, he was a on field style captain which looked inward to the player group only. In 2009 Mortlock doesn’t have to back everything the ARU do privately as captain but he also doesn’t need to make a public fuss, and furthermore he didn’t. This is malicious hindsight journalism, I believe Mortlock and players were very diplomatic about the mismanaged ARU Lote contract issue. Lote didn’t have to go public over his private life, he broke no laws or cause any harm to anyone but himself and his family. He didn’t have to give the tabloids a story to give him more integrity. What happened to what happens on tour stays on tour.
The ARU on tour now lock the Wallabies down more than the school boys such as Joeys boarders. It’s just ridiculous. Furthermore the ARU pressured young Richard Brown who was Lote’s room a mate over the issue. Brown didn’t want anything to do with the event or comment on the event. Brown ended back in Perth playing in the local comp.
The reality is the ARU banged on about cash flow and running costs all year, they canned many programs, cut Lote to save a buck then paid the QLD school boy James O’Connor a ridiculously high amount. Go figure.
I say the ARU have lost control of the senior players because of their own mismanagement and the player group preformed poorly because of their dysfunctional year administering the team. The players don’t have a choice but to work as best as they can with the ARU in Australia, so they pay RUPA to keep watch.
I say heaven help the Wallabies players because the current ARU administrators are stumbles and autocrats with sincerity and the players now know this… Poor Robbie Deans has just found himself in the middle of this nonsense. It appears that John O’Neill likely peaked several years ago as an administrator.
stuff happens said | October 22nd 2009 @ 2:17pm | Report comment
Mudskipper I’m not privy to the political ins & outs of Australian rugby ( thank goodness) but I have mentioned before that I thought the way the ARU handled Lote Tuqiri was dreadful. This is not the place to regurgitate my views but Australian rugby, which needs all the help it can get, has received no benefit whatsoever from Lote’s sacking.( oh yeah! except money)
Lote on the other hand must have a wry smile on his face! A good year to be out of it mate.
I suspect you’re right about Robbie Deans – stuck in the middle.
Yikes said | October 22nd 2009 @ 6:05pm | Report comment
mudskipper. You do realise that the player payment pool is capped, right?
Which means O’Connor’s payments are simply taking available cash away from other players. And that the canning of programs etc has nothing to do with player payments. ARU can’t cut costs to pay for players; they can’t cut player payments to pay for other stuff.
Which makes your point invalid. Go figure!
mudskipper said | October 22nd 2009 @ 8:39pm | Report comment
Yes I realise accounts would be separate. but i think your point adds to the Lote’s contract being discontinued. While amount and budgets are set the budgets also go over or under.
Yikes said | October 22nd 2009 @ 10:22pm | Report comment
No, they don’t. That’s where you have it wrong. RUPA’s deal with ARU ensures that a set percentage of broadcast revenue MUST go to the players as a group. Every cent must be spent, no more, no less.
There is no over or under.
Bay35Pablo said | October 22nd 2009 @ 8:12pm | Report comment
muskipper, lets look at some of those comments:
“The ARU took clear advantage over the Lote affair which didn’t need to be public.” Yes, they may have taken advantage, but clearly Lote placed himself in the position to be taken advantage of. Whose fault’s that? Further, “didn’t need to be public”. Please explain to me how you sack your most prominent player and not have it public?
“The ARU were heavy handed to say the least, no public damage was done to Australian rugby by Lote’s exposé.” The only heavy handedness was they booted Lote. Apart from they they played it as non-committal as I have seen any Australian sports body play one of these affairs. Usually the peanut admins are lining up to spill details. Not this time. No public damage? Anything like this doesn’t help, especially when union likes to portray itself as the clean skins compared to the 2 other major codes. PT Barnum’s adage of there’s no bad publicity isn’t strictly true.
“The ARU made their own circus.” See above, they appeared to me to be trying to treat it like an HR dismissal. The media made it a circus, as that’s their living.
“The players were shocked at the heavy handedness of the ARU and were very silent.” Any shock was probably because they had been getting off pretty lightly for years kicking quokkas, and seemed to need to break a team mate’s jaw before they’d get the boot. What did you expect them to say “It’s a bit harsh Lote getting sacked for (enter a number of rumours here”? Or “I never liked him.” Or “But tugh, but technically they can sack him for that …”. Wasn’t going to happen. They might let a few leaks go to ole Danny Wielder if they wanted to play games, but for the most part they probably just wanted to get on with life. Sorry to see him go, but what can you do. Next time one of your work mates gets sacked for (rumour no 673) and if it’s true it’s a sackable offence, I look forward to see you telling the boss what for …
mudskipper said | October 22nd 2009 @ 8:43pm | Report comment
Bay the ARU have to treat it like a HR dismissal. My comment was Spiro referred to Lote not going public as in not to the media, I don’t think he has to share this private in formation with the media.
Republican said | October 22nd 2009 @ 2:18pm | Report comment
Hermin
As much as it pains me to say this, Vic are producing GR’s in excess of anything coming out of the ACT or WA and this without an elite presence. This is currently reflected by the 5 to 6 Vic reps in the Oz Schoolboys side to tour Eire and the UK.
The ACT on the other hand have absolutely NO representation in the national squad this year which is quite unprecedented. The Brumby’s have been investing much on the VRU over recent years and this is paying divs for that non Union state it would seem.
Conversely the ACT’s status as an historic nursery is in tatters as the game has dramatically fallen from grace there. The Brumby’s may well be relocated somewhere as a result of the ACT’s ironically poor showing at GR’s Union over recent years. If Melbourne does not get this latest Super gig then the ARU in collaboration with the VRU, will most likely move to make this a reality, by re inventing the ACT franchise in the Victorian capital.
Pippinu said | October 22nd 2009 @ 2:23pm | Report comment
Historically, Melbourne has done ok producing Wallabies, given its very low base and sporting context.
One suspects that that can only improve with a Super 15 presence.
I think it’s far too early to dimiss the ACT.
Tuggeranong remains a strong club and St Eddies will bounce back.
In fact, I thought I read recently that even Royals is making a bit of a come back!!
Republican said | October 22nd 2009 @ 3:23pm | Report comment
Pippinu
The ACT is a dead duck as far as its historical Union nursery cred goes.
The Brumby’s may well be named the Vic Brumby’s these days since their Academy as of next season, will boast approx 8 Vic and diddly ACT locals.
The Brumby’s and gullible ACTRU fraternity have been very benevolent towards the VRU over the years, fostering Vics potential GR’’s while the local scene has been left to whither on the vine.
Conversely our Aust Footy pedigree continues to impress having the wood over Vic in recent years, certainly in the country stakes anyway. The staus quo of codes in respective demos is as ever, a fluid thing and I have heard that Vic is experiencing a waning Aust Footy interest so the time may just be right for Union to pounce in the southern capital. We in Canberra live in hope that we still may see the day when our rightful place at the AFL elite table of clubs is acknowledged.
Cheers
Photon said | October 22nd 2009 @ 5:09pm | Report comment
A sixth Super 14 side would serve as great benefit to South Africa, it is no coincidence that with the advent of the Super 14 and additional travel for the Australasian sides South Africa has begun to perform better in Super rugby, the Stormers Sharks and Bulls are all beginning to prosper, sides like the Cheetahs and Lions are both new franchises that are growing and will begin to perform better as their players gather experience and knowledge and become accustomed to the challenges of Super rugby. The whole Kings in an Australasian conference being dumb is flawed as it has been shown time and again that the Kings would play only one extra game on the road. Finally one of the biggest reason for South African opposition to the additional Aussie sides is not political pressure but the fact that when the Aussies realise they don’t have the players, they’re gonna come fishing for youngsters here, as the Waratahs are already doing. So Spiro F*ck the Aussies we will also be looking after our own interests and only our own interests as the ARU and John o Neil have always done and Saru should have been doing from the start. And Fox you don’t have South African friends only racist ex pat buddies who only know how to say deride their birthplace, hey but I guess everyone needs to find a way to fit in and when you’re surrounded by a*rse holes the only way to fit in is to become the whole of the *ss
Hermin said | October 22nd 2009 @ 6:20pm | Report comment
I think everyone knows by now that I am not a fan of Australia gaining the fifth super team however I am no more keen on South Africa getting it either.
In 14 years Photon South African teams have only cracked the top 4, 15 times out of a possible 56 berths that is truly woeful nothing to skite about really is it. Australia and South Africa are level pegging when it comes to titles won and as yet they both have a long long way to go before equaling the record of the NZ franchises where every single team has made a Grand Final, not to mention two teams have amassed 10 titles between them.
South African teams have also propped up the bottom four placings once again out of 56 placings South Africa has taken 28 of the coveted spots and with it takes the great honour of taking 10 Wooden Spoons in 14 years.
I don’t see how anyone would want another team when clearly the teams they do have at the moment are under perfoming bar one or two in South Africas case. Yes everyone will get more money but the quality of the tournament is set to take a nosedive by admitting another two teams when at present there is no less than 6 teams including the Highlanders from New Zealand who are struggling greatly. Where is the sense in that?
Pippinu said | October 22nd 2009 @ 6:32pm | Report comment
Hermin
from your calcs, once you account for the fact that two NZ teams have dominated the comp from its inception – there’s no real big story to tell.
Hermin said | October 22nd 2009 @ 6:46pm | Report comment
Pip yes two teams have stood out in this competition however all the New Zealand teams have made finals yet south Africa especially can not boast the same record and yet their rugby culture is just as big if not bigger than that of New Zealand.
Sorry Pip but you are losing more face every time you post at the moment and I’m tiring of even debating with you anymore I think it best you stick to AFL where you know a hell of a lot more and would clearly own me. But sadly your going round and round in circles.
As I pointed out to Reds fan, since expansion and a bigger slice of the pie Australian rugby has gone into a freefall, Even with more money the National competition failed after one year, Australia A failed due to having no money. Australia has taken two of the four wooden spoons on offer since expansion the reds have never climbed out of the top three and before expansion had spent the last two years of Super 12 in the bottom four. It is a classic case of robbing Peter to pay Paul.
If I had to pick between the two I would say it should go to Australia but in saying that nothing stacks up for either bid. Financially Australia has proven to us they do not know what to do with the extra money the have been nothing but failures since expansion. Seriously Australias situation worsened with the extra team and now you want another, thinking that it will fix all your problems.
Pippinu said | October 22nd 2009 @ 6:54pm | Report comment
The other aspect is that from inception, NZ teams have had more home games than Australia (especially in the Super 12 era) – that’s a very big advantage – and SA has had the disadvantage of extra travel the whole way through.
At five teams a piece – that aspect becomes more equitable, as far as NZ and Australia are – of course SA will always suffer the enormous tyranny of distance – and their results have to be viewed in that context.
Hermin said | October 22nd 2009 @ 7:27pm | Report comment
Your just looking for excuse and it simply doesn’t work PIp,
the reason why New Zealand teams beat Australian teams and regularly is because they are better than them most of the time. They are better managed and they have another high level of rugby to keep them honest when the super season is in hiatus. NZ has a development infrastructure as does SA. This is Australias biggest downfall is its lack of infrastructure.
Your results are woeful and the endless excuses are about as Pitiful as Jon O and the ARU
Pippinu said | October 22nd 2009 @ 7:31pm | Report comment
Hermin
Yes – of course they are better with a bigger talent pool – all the more reason why the advantage of less travel will cause an even bigger gap in results than may otherwise have been the case.
Hermin said | October 22nd 2009 @ 7:43pm | Report comment
Yawn
)
Pippinu said | October 22nd 2009 @ 7:50pm | Report comment
You may well yawn, but think back to the original super 12s, NZ with 5 teams and Australia with 3 – that naturally meant that the NZ teams had far less travel than both SA and Australia (and was, and remains, particularly tough on the SA teams).
In Australia, we have a real understanding of what a disadvantage regular lengthy travel is.
Temba said | October 23rd 2009 @ 8:20am | Report comment
Guys you could say that SA have been looking better of late and Australia not, so over the next two years all these historical stats will fade. Looking to the future the prospects of SA teams are looking far better then Aus. Stats are great over a long period but to calculate the present they are useless. In the last three years SA has left the Aussie S14 teams behind. Even the poorest of the SA teams managed to beat some of the top teams.
SA did not start good in the S12 and S14 but they are getting better and better each year as the franchises come to grips with professionalism.
I still don’t believe the SK should get it.
Hansie said | October 22nd 2009 @ 5:43pm | Report comment
I don’t see that the SARU pushing for an additional team is an act of bastardry. Surely the SARU is just doing its job? Given that none of the 4 Australian teams are regular finalists these days, it is extremely doubtful that the 5th team will be competitive, especially as Victoria will not supply players for the team. In truth, the failure by the ARU to secure the 15th spot is yet another failure by the 2nd O’Neill administration. The ARU might think that Smith is past his prime, but in truth O’Neill is much more past his prime.
Working Class Rugger said | October 22nd 2009 @ 6:12pm | Report comment
I’m with the suggestion of foregoing the S15 and jumping directly to a S18. That way SA gets the Kings, we get Melbourne aswell as Western Sydney and I reckon both Taranaki and Hawkes Bay could field a very competitive team. 6 teams each. More local derbies, even less travel and happier fans. I’m a fan of working toward establishing the conference into National Competitions and playing Super Rugby on a HC and ECC formats. By the way I’m not saying that either NZ or SA have to give away either the ANZC or Currie Cup, instead they could play those competition in more extended formats. Similar to the Top14,GP and Magner’s. League games most of the time with the top say 4/5 team playing in Super rugby and the rest playing in another lower competition.
Pippinu said | October 22nd 2009 @ 6:18pm | Report comment
WCR
it sounds like an attractive option – especially the bit about more derbies – but I get the impression that very few rugby fans are interested in an extended super comp.
I wonder whether the independent arbiter has the power to make such a recommendation?
sheek said | October 22nd 2009 @ 7:02pm | Report comment
What intrigues me is the ARU’s fallback position if by some calamity the Southern Kings get the 15th license. It could only happen through a massive bribe.
Awarding the license to anyone but the Victoria Rebels would constitute the greatest sporting blunder of modern times. Maybe the whole process is a facade, maybe not.
But I would expect the ARU to say anything other than a Victoria license is unworkable & impractical, & Australia is withdrawing from SANZAR.
I would be surprised if NZ didn’t support us. As Pip obliquely suggests, the longer this crap continues, the more Aussie rugby fans are tiring of SANZAR (which might not be a bad thing!).
Photon said | October 22nd 2009 @ 6:48pm | Report comment
Hermin
The super 14 is not the same as the super 12, the super 14 is a more challenging competition for New Zealand and Australian sides. They both tour for longer and are more greatly subjected to the troubles of being on the road, Ask the Hurricanes. Like I said there’s no coincidence in the fact that our sides have performed better in the Super 14 than the Super 12. If we get the sixth side, our performance in not just this competition, but also of the boks in the long run, will only get better. If one more person says SARU should not only think about themselves in this I’m gonna go crazy, Aussies will never do anything that doesn’t benefit them first, they couldn’t even get Wallabies to play a trial, without trying to get paid
sheek said | October 22nd 2009 @ 7:07pm | Report comment
So Photon,
Let’s put the boot on the other foot, shall we? Let’s forget about personal prejudices against another country.
Let’s consider the reverse – If SA only had 4 provinces & Australia 5, it would be okay for Australia to demand a 6th province be based in SA? While keeping SA to 4? And it would be okay for SA to lose 4 extra home games by their 4 provinces having to travel to Australia for the extra fixtures?
So according to your logic, this is perfectly sensible???
Hermin said | October 22nd 2009 @ 7:17pm | Report comment
Photon,
You have performed no better than the New Zealand sides. Both SA and NZ have two titles apiece to the Bulls and Crusaders respectively
So in 4 years of Super 14 SA has two titles, of 16 finals berths they have taken 5 semi spots New Zealand has taken 9 and Australia has taken 2 spots
The reverse is of 16 bottom 4 placings South africa has taken exactly 50% in 8 spots, Australia has taken 6 and NZ 2
Once again showing your record of filling the cellar is not getting any better. Of the four wooden spoons on offer SA and Aus have taken two apiece.
so going through past tables its pretty easy to make the summation that the SA teams are either hot or absolutely shite the latter is more the norm.
Don’t for a second think South Africa deserves a team anymore than the Australians.
how about we get the Super 14 up to a high standard and working well before we start thinking about adding extra teams.
The problem is here both SA and AUS are only worried about themselves, maybe the best bet is to merge the two together and drop it up in Broome just to stop all the bickering
Republican said | October 22nd 2009 @ 7:02pm | Report comment
Pippinu
That ‘cobbled together’ side that defeated the Auckland Blues you refer to in a post to Hermin were 60% ACT locals. How things have changed in that respect. The bulk of the Brumby line up are looking more and more like a fully fledged Victorian line up these days, so I rest your case – and mine.
Most Kiwis have a pragmatic rationale re this expansion thing and I tend to agree with their logic however their motive is more to do with fear of this game actually taking on in Oz rather than it failing. This is because their unquestionable status of being the worlds best Union country, which they so fervently covet, would be seriously threatened and overwhelmed by any Oz Union revolution and Vic may well be the catalyst to this end.
Do you reckon Aust footy would survive such a dramatic shift in code allegiance?
Cheers
Hermin said | October 22nd 2009 @ 7:21pm | Report comment
fear you have to be kidding Republican,
Since the last expansion Australian rugby has started a succession of failures.
We Kiwis are trying to save you more embarrassment. At least with three teams you were competitive in not only Super rugby winning two titles but also Bled and Tri-Nations rugby, since 2006 Australian rugby has free falled into a financial and development mess. How ironic considering you have more money and an extra team.
Pippinu said | October 22nd 2009 @ 7:34pm | Report comment
I don’t believe that the decline of the Wallabies’ fortunes is in any way linked with the inclusion of an additional super team.
Hermin said | October 22nd 2009 @ 7:40pm | Report comment
How do you explain since expansion the failing franchises then Pip do explain I am intrigued. have a look at the results mate and you will clearly see the failings of Aus rugby both at super level and International level since the expansion of Super rugby.
They are connected as the tri-nations is the end product of the Super 14
Pippinu said | October 22nd 2009 @ 7:47pm | Report comment
Hermin
I said that I don’t believe that the decline of the Wallabies’ fortunes is in any way linked with the inclusion of an additional super team.
Hermin said | October 22nd 2009 @ 8:16pm | Report comment
Yes I know you said that Pip, what I am telling you is the failings of the Wallabies are inexplicably linked to the failings of the Super teams. When there was three teams in Australia all three did pretty well.
In the first ten years of super rugby only 6 Australian teams featured in the bottom four. Yet since expansion they have equalled that record of 6 times in 4 years.
Since expansion 06 6-2 07 4-2 08 6-3 09 6-1 played 22 won 8 lost 16 = 36% winning record
4yrs before expansion 05 (4-0) 04 (4-2) 03 (4-1) 03 (4-2) played 12 won 5 lost 7 = 42%
Clearly neither ar a great record but expansion has had an added impact on the wallabies and that is undeniable
Pippinu said | October 22nd 2009 @ 8:23pm | Report comment
Hermin
Yes – but I am saying that the Wallabies poor form has nothing to do with a 4th super team.
Republican mentions that over the last five years, for whatever reason, the ACT has not produced as many Brumbies as it did in the early years.
It’s remarkable to think that a little city like Canberra, from 1996 to 2005, was able to provide so many Wallabies.
There was clear link back then between the success of the Brumbies and the success of the Wallabies.
But the fact that the ACT has stopped producing players (for the moment) has absolutely nothing to do wiht the introduction of the Force.
Pippinu said | October 22nd 2009 @ 7:13pm | Report comment
Republican
Yes – you’re right there was a big local content back then – that pretty much caught both NSW and the Reds off guard (and continued to do so for the next 13 years).
Mind you, the other 40% were basically rejects from the other states – this was McQueen’s incredible achievement.
To that extent – yes – the drop off in local players is marked – but I still think that that will pick up again – I think it’s just one of those cyclical things.
As for your last question – are you referring to Melbourne?
I have absolutely no fears on that front!!
Melbourne is a big city – plenty of people who aren’t fanatical about aussie rules – most importantly – plenty of people who will happily follow aussie rules and another sport (be it the Victory, Storm or Rebels).
It would never even cross my mind to consider there would be an issue like that – certainly not in my life time.
Republican said | October 22nd 2009 @ 7:30pm | Report comment
Hermin
I agree with you logically speaking but you see Union in this country finds itself between a rock and a hard place. Oz will expand at all cost despite NZ’s rather noble intentions to save us from our own folly.
Of course I don’t actually believe the bit about you mob being out to save us and neither do you but hey the opportunity to piously tell us you told us so may well be worth the collective Kiwi pain.
Hermin said | October 22nd 2009 @ 7:36pm | Report comment
We have been saving Australian rugby for decades Republican and only a total ignoramus would deny that. if it wasn’t for New Zealand in the 60’s,70’s and 80’s Australia would be battling it out in the pacific nations cup today.
Bay35Pablo said | October 22nd 2009 @ 8:18pm | Report comment
Hermin, those in the know are aware that the ARU has been propped up at times by the NZRU. Why? Because the NZRU was smart enough to see that it needed a strong or at least viable Australia to continue. That is, you look out for the sport as a whole and/or (in selfish terms) you help your neighbour because it actually helps you.
This attitude seems lost on the SARU, where the attitude seems to be if I can profit off my neighbour it’s his bad luck.
Karma always comes back to you.
Hermin said | October 22nd 2009 @ 8:34pm | Report comment
Yes Bay it was in New Zealands best interests however Australia gained a hell of a lot more from it than NZ. If you ask me both the SARU and ARU are being selfish at the moment because clearly neither deserve a team.
I do not see an extra team helping anyone at all except being a burden on the competition for many years to come. If not the new team one of the current teams will suffer due to its inception just like the last expansion.
Justin said | October 22nd 2009 @ 9:02pm | Report comment
That extra team is providing the opportunity for more local derbies than ever before for all 3 countries (which is what most fans want, a quasi national comp at the next level).
Short term they may suffer but you have to take a longer term view than just 3-5 years, if you dont the sport will never grow and will become a niche sport, ie in the end die to the majority of the population…
Hermin said | October 22nd 2009 @ 9:17pm | Report comment
Do explain the reds spending the last 6 years in the bottom four then Justin? How long does a team take to grow. Lets get real here mate your looking through foggy glasses.
With expansion it may lift them out of the four but you can bet your bottom dollar another Aussie franchise will replace them there. Are you content with that?
Hermin said | October 22nd 2009 @ 9:23pm | Report comment
With expansion the sport has not grown in Australia it is waning if I am lead to believe other posters to this site. With expansion came the rise and fall of the ARC the demise of Australia A and the bottom three placing for the last four years for the reds and for two of those four years they have been joined by both the Tahs and the Force who took the Wooden Spoon in their first season which was somewhat expected. Australian rugby including the wallabies have gone backwards greatly, yet for some reason you think you can rectify this by being given another team. You struggle to maintain 4 teams as it is.
Get real mate Australia needs to sort out the teams it has already before shooting for glory with a fifth.
Justin said | October 22nd 2009 @ 9:49pm | Report comment
Hermin – Going off your last 6 years stats did you know that SA teams were last 4 times with Aus 2 or that SA occupied 12 of 24 spots in the bottom 4 those years with AUS having 8 bottom 4 finishes and NZ 4?
There is most certainly one country who cannot afford an extra team, on that point you are certainly right
Hermin said | October 22nd 2009 @ 10:08pm | Report comment
Justin you are either very inept at your reading skills or you have just decided to jump in halfway through. because if you have done your homework you will find I have already supplied all the data re top four and bottom four placings since the beggining of the super 14. I even went as far as listing how many times each team has featured in the bottom four.
So I would say to you go do your homework and read the thread and the other in regards to Arbitration and then come back and give a more knoweldgable post rather than a fogged up patriotic rant.
I see in your statistics you convieniently omit the fact that in the first ten years Australia had 3 teams compared to south Africas 4 and NZ 5 yet still supplied a rather sizeable chunk of the bottom four. Since expansion Australia has supplied exactly 50% of the Wooden Spooners as has South Africa. New Zealands only two wooden spoons came in 96 and 97 which in turn the titles were won by the Blues. The Highlanders have dropped to the bottom four for the last two years in 11th spot however I’d say that it is somewhat outweighed by in 08 two Kiwi teams made the finals and 09 three kiwi teams made the finals don’t you think
Also you will find SA have taken home 10 WS but of course you would know that if you had not jumped into an argument halfway through without reading all the facts wouldn’t you.
Once again for your benefit Justin I do not believe either country deserves another team. Why compound the problems even further by adding another team. SANZAR can’t even get 14 teams right what makes you think SANZAR will get 15 right.
Explain to me how New Zealand can consistantly deliver the results yet neither SA or Aus can?
Because once you can answer that then you will get to the basis of what all this is about
P.s I nor any other Kiwi on this thread said that a NZ team should be granted so we’ll get that clear straight away!
Justin said | October 22nd 2009 @ 10:35pm | Report comment
Just using your 6 year argument above Herm… but you are right I have to get more education. I never thought you could twist stats to suit an argument until now
Would you prefer the S14 to dissolve? Its clear from the crowds in NZ the public is tired of S14 in its current state and the passion in the current NPC would suggest that more derbies will give the game a boost not only in NZ but SA and AUS as well.
But stuff it lets screw the whole thing just so AUS dont get what they want because the game is struggling there….
Bravo
Hermin said | October 22nd 2009 @ 10:40pm | Report comment
Only one twisting facts here is you Justin and your selective posting. igonrance is somewhat a forteit of yours isn’t it.
Like I said read the threads properly and you might actually learn something. Don’t jump in halfway through when clearly you don’t have a clue.
If you did read some posts Justin you will see I am clearly not in favour of South Africa either and if I was forced to pick I would go with Australia due to SAs poor results throughout the super competition.
So run along and come back when you have something to add instead of being a provocative juvenile.
Justin said | October 22nd 2009 @ 10:48pm | Report comment
Run along…classic.
Anyway we agree to disagree or do we? Sa certainly dont deserve a new team and perhaps AUS dont either but the fact remains that a new team from all reports is a certainty so perhaps its best to not bother arguing about things we cant change.
By the way I dont appreciate the arrogant and condescending tone of your posts. I have merely pointed out some stats (which are accurate but open to interpretation) for you and provided an argument as to why derbies are an excellent option for the future (IMO) for all 3 countries.
Hermin said | October 22nd 2009 @ 7:31pm | Report comment
Off topic Completely,
Congratulations to Southland on their 9-3 Ranfurly Shield win over Canterbury tonight.
1st time the shield has been in the deep south since 1959.
Lucky for the southerners that the cantabs were missing 8 All Blacks.
Even still congrats guys on a gutsy win
Justin said | October 22nd 2009 @ 9:34pm | Report comment
From above Hermin – as I say short term, look 15-20 years into the future. The Reds have been awful, no escaping that but there have been SA teams in particular who have been as bad or worse I would think. No doubt the new SA franchise will be dow there or another too.
Show me why SA needs 6! One more than NZ….
Hermin said | October 22nd 2009 @ 10:14pm | Report comment
Clearly have not read any of the posts so I will not waste my time educating you.
Go and read the threads Justin and you will be able to answer your own questions.
Republican said | October 22nd 2009 @ 7:57pm | Report comment
Yes Hermin where would we mere convict Ozzies be if not for the ‘NZ’ in ANZAC. You mob have always excelled in the sanctimony department but hey, if it makes you feel collectively better about yourselves, be our guests we have always been paternalistic in tolerating your juvenile inferiority dummy spitting and continue to be so.
Pippinu
I like to play devils advocate mate but personally believe Union is headed for disaster in this country in expanding to Melbourne however I acknowledge that it has little choice in the matter given that this is not NZ or Saffa so in that respect I have to agree with our very well intentioned Kiwi cob Hermin..
The cycle you continue to refer to with re ACT Union has been going on way too long for my liking. There are cycles and there are spirals and this is definitely the latter.
Vic have done very well out of the ACTRU’s benevolence over the years to be sure and I can’t for the life of me understand why they have invested so much time and resources in helping Vic Union pitch themselves as a true contender for Super status, knowing full well that the day would arrive when Vic would trump us for good.
That day is nigh.
Bay35Pablo said | October 22nd 2009 @ 8:19pm | Report comment
Republican, it sounds like the ACT might have to turn it’s eye to Western Sydney if Vic has been taken off it ….
Pippinu said | October 22nd 2009 @ 8:26pm | Report comment
C’mon folks – we’re a long way from declaring that Victoria is ahead of the ACT in producing quality rugby players!!
Yes – it might happen yet – but I think it’s a bit premature!!
Let’s wait to see if the Rebels can get a guernsey first!!
Hermin said | October 22nd 2009 @ 8:27pm | Report comment
Republican I wouldn’t start the dummy spitting rant mate, Last time I checked Ricky Stewart was Australian.
Seems to me the only ones spitting the dummy here are people like yourself. You would have to be a right twat if you don’t agree NZ did not help Australian rugby through some very dark years. In this thread and another today your own countrymen who you not me are reffereing to as convicts have also alluded to that fact. Hell one even said that Fiji saved the ARU financially. It wasn’t from the mouth of a kiwi.
So here’s your toys back but next time you throw them make sure you throw them in the right corner.
I’d love to see Vic do well but I don’t want them to succeed at the expense of another Australian franchise as happened with the addition of the Western Force, ok the Reds had hit rock bottom already but they were decimated with the fourth teams introduction. I want to see a strong competitive competition like the NRL where more than four teams have a realistic chance of winning the title and favouritism counts for nothing.
Republican said | October 22nd 2009 @ 8:33pm | Report comment
Bay35Pablo
I don’t think Vic has been taken off the ACT rather the ACT may no longer be relevant given its GR’s demise. The ACT was quite self sufficient in supplying a good 40% of its playing stock but that has gradually regressed over the years.
Vics GR are growing steadily in this respect, with 6 reps in this years Oz schools side to tour Eire and the UK while the ACT has an un precedented zero!
Much of this can be attributed to the Brumby’s and ACTRU’s direct involvement in their GR development of Vic. If Vic misses out on this latest expansion then it follows that the Brumby’s will be re located to Melbourne who have always boasted a corporate backing greater than the ACT but now they also boast a GR’s superior to this historically strong nursery.
It’s good night nurse for Union in this region who will eventually have to be subsumed by the Tahs no doubt.
Republican said | October 22nd 2009 @ 8:47pm | Report comment
Pippinu
Vic are producing the goods of the future if the Aust Schools mix is any indication. Vic 6, ACT zip! This is only going to get worse for Canberra and better for Melbourne believe me.
Hermin, again I totally concur with your logic re expansion however I stick to my opinion re your intentions based on many years experience in meeting Kiwis both here and in NZ and you have made it bleedingly obvious you are no exception in this respect.
Good night and good luck.
Hermin said | October 22nd 2009 @ 9:14pm | Report comment
As you are no exception to the stereotype thankfully there are much more realistic people at the roar than your republican
westy said | October 22nd 2009 @ 9:33pm | Report comment
Bay35Pablo I thought you might be interested that Hills Sports high at Seven Hills beat St Edmunds 40 to 6 this year .
adam said | October 22nd 2009 @ 9:49pm | Report comment
The television presentation of Super 14 and Test matches by Fox Sports suffered from an abysmal understanding of the laws by Phil Kearns and boosterism for the Queensland Reds and the Wallabies by Greg Martin that insulted the sensibilities of supporters of teams in the SANZAR countries that did not support Martin’s preferred sides.
ja like how kearns bagged the ref cause he pinged the wallabies for obstruction and phil said the wallabies did nothing wrong and then he bought an expert on the show and phil say that really he was wrong
iam tired of biased one eyed commentators
Justin said | October 22nd 2009 @ 9:51pm | Report comment
NJT said | October 22nd 2009 @ 9:58pm | Report comment
With regards the poor performance of SA teams since the inception of Suepr rugby. I think what most of the bloggers here are forgetting is that SA teams can’t be selected purely on ability and always need to make a few selection based on another criteria. Let’s call it “redressing the injustices of apartheid” to put it politely. Hence, the fact that they’ve still won the same number of titles as the Australian teams should be pretty amazing.
Personally, I still prefer the old Super 12 format to be honest but that’s just my opinion and, obviously, it’s not going to count for anything.
Also, with regards to News Corp worrying about the money situation. I think they might have dropped the ball a bit here. At the moment more than 50% of the income the News Corp derives from Super Rugby is bought in by SA TV rights and advertisers. Now, if we’re going to have more local derbies then they may wind up having less of those viewers and advertisers available for the Australian and NZ derbies. Of course this is countered by hopefully more Australian and New Zealand viewing numbers and advertisers, but, if that doesn’t happen, then News Corp might find that they might have misjudged this thing. Hopefully not because the more money that comes in the better for all three nations involved. Personally though, I’m not sure we’re going to get any more viewers than we currently get from Australia or NZ. That said, I’m not sure we’ll get anymore from SA by having the 15th team based there. I think we’ve pretty much got viewer saturation as it is in all three countries.
My last little comment here is, why is the Super 14 in Australia sponsored by what is originally, and still mainly, a South African company called Investec? Might it not be that the company is aware that their name is splashed over the rugby pitch to be viewed by South Africans who make a large number of their clients? Also, it’s cheaper for them to sponsor the Australian rights than it is to afford the SA rights and yet still get almost the same exposure. Will they still be interested if there are more local derbies and less SA viewers interested in watching those? I know that SANZAR is trying to get a global sponsor which, if it happens, will sort out this point, but, if they don’t, the ARU might have to settle for a lesser paying title sponsor. Just a small possibility I thought might be interesting to put down here.
Jameswm said | October 23rd 2009 @ 9:28am | Report comment
Can we stop with this rubbish about Australia not having the player depth for a 5th team?
There was the same argument when the Force started, and look at them now, a couple of years later.
The fact is that with another team, the bench players from other teams are lured in for the chance to start, and squad players become bench players. This means that more players get exposed to this level of rugby. The players are there – in club-land, Junior Academies etc – and with a couple of years’ S15 experience, they will be solid Super rugby players.
Look at the guys, not even including those overseas, who don’t always get a great go with their team for whatever reason. They already form a very sold team
1 Sekope Kepu/Nic Henderson
2 Damien Fitzpatrick
3 Dan Palmer/Matt Dunning
4 Chris Thomson
5 Dave Dennis
6 McCalman/Timani
7 Beau Robinson/Lei Tomiki
8 Scott Fava (make it all 5 teams Scottie!)
9 Josh Holmes/Phibbs
10 Daniel Halangahu – assuming Barnes and Beale play 10-12 or Lealiifano
11 Nick Edwards
12 Tatupu/Pelesasa/Gordon no.12 – can never remember his name
13 Digby Ioane (because he’s a local boy)
14 Ratu Nasiganyavi
15 Maybe Lachie Turner so he can play 15.
Grandpabhaile said | October 23rd 2009 @ 9:41am | Report comment
“Can we stop with this rubbish about Australia not having the player depth for a 5th team?
There was the same argument when the Force started, and look at them now, a couple of years later.”
You’re right – that about sums it up neatly.
Hammer said | October 23rd 2009 @ 9:47am | Report comment
Yeah – and what’s happened to the Reds since the inception of the Force – I’ve no doubt Melbourne will secure seasoned S14 players and perform reasonably well … but the Reds, Force, Tahs and Brumbies will all suffer – some more a lot than others …
it’s a god job that conference winners are guaranteed a final’s spot so at least there’ll be 1 week of finals footy for Aussie supporters
sheek said | October 23rd 2009 @ 10:28am | Report comment
Hammer,
The whole point of having more provinces/super teams is provide more opportunities for more quality players.
There is a combined pull/push effect here. You have to provide the opportunities, but also be sure you have the talent coming through.
Rugby union is now a professional game. Unless we provide more opportunities for professional players, we won’t be able to compete in the market place.
How often Aussie super teams win the S14 or whatever is largely irrelevant. Ironically, if Australin rugby is doing its job properly, & the talent is evenly spread among the 5 provinces, we mightn’t win the super tournament that often!
Providing plenty of quality players for the Wallabies, & plenty of competition for each position is the fundamental role of a domestic national comp ( & teams).
BigAl said | October 23rd 2009 @ 1:46pm | Report comment
Well !!??! – if that is ‘. . . the fundamental role of a domestic competition’ ,
– the only interest you can really expect from the general public is from close friends and
relatives of the player who actually has the ball in hand at that particular moment !
Hammer said | October 23rd 2009 @ 4:26pm | Report comment
What quality players ? – it’s evident Aust haven’t got enough players of quality to fill 4 teams – it’s not SANZAR’s job to provide pathways for Australian players – it’s the ARU’s job … you’re last paragraph is 100% correct – developing players is the fundamental role of a domestic national comp – not the top tier
having 5 teams languishing around playing mediocore rugby won’t generate new supporters or encourage existing ones to continue watching
AndyS said | October 23rd 2009 @ 12:01pm | Report comment
Give the trend of S12 results from 2003, a fair argument could be made that the advent of the Force had no effect on the Reds at all. It might also beg the question how the Force could manage to get better performances out of the underperforming players recruited (even if the results were merely better rather than good).
Republican said | October 23rd 2009 @ 10:06am | Report comment
Westy
I am not suprised about that result. St Eddies have for years been under increasing scrutiny re their Union centricity. Parents and the community in general have been on a witch hunt to cut this tall poppy down.
SEC are no longer a national power house as a result albeit they are still big fish in a little pond Union wise. The ACT Schools results are testament to this shift with NO representation in this years Aust Schools side to tour Eire and the u.K which is unprecedented for this famous Union nursery.
The new College regime has been slowly moving the focus away from ‘thugby’ which has been a very healthy cultural evolution which should result in the school developing into a very strong Australian Footy school within the next five to ten years I believe.
Republican said | October 23rd 2009 @ 10:16am | Report comment
I dont believe the thinner and thinner spreading of available Union talent in this country to be rubbish at all.
Australia does NOT have the Union player depth.
It is a smoke screen that suggest it does.
We are Robbing Peter to pay Paul to keep the illusion alive.
So the Force are now competitive, o.k but they still rely soley on Qld and NSW in a nursery sense.
Qld and NSW but not the ACT sadly, because they are no longer a formidable nursery, will continue to be decimated by WA, the ACT and now Vic.
This is not rocket science.
Temba said | October 23rd 2009 @ 10:30am | Report comment
I know this is keo, but still a very intresting article from a SK perspective.
I tend to agree with this.
http://www.keo.co.za/2009/10/22/why-the-kings-must-rule/
NJT said | October 23rd 2009 @ 4:05pm | Report comment
I think that, if you asked someone very familiar with the SK, they’d list a team that’d also have several really good players and decent “benchwarmers” from the other sides. I know there’s a couple of older former springboks playing down in those teams at the moment. I think De Wet Barry is one of them but I might be wrong on that but that’s not the point. I’ve also read as article of the number of SA players playing in Europe (there’s tons, seriously, can probably field four or five teams with Currie Cup experience) who could come back and play for this team and the writer of the article named a bloody strong team but and suggested that that’s the type of team that could be gotten to play for the SKs.
But the problem is that most of those players (the better ones anyway) went because they were offered more money than the big SA unions could afford … so why would they go play for the SK team for less? They might get some of the lesser players back and they might get some benchwarmers … but that way you’ll only ever be, at best, a middle of the log team which, to me, defeats the object of playing. If you want to be in the Super Rugby arena, in my totally irrelevant opinion, you should be able to prove you have some decent plan (not just a wishful ambition) that shows you can be competitive with the top side in say three to five years. I also, don’t believe the Melbourne side can do that without poaching either. They either need to poach the Islands, the N-Zealanders or the SA teams or junior (which is what it seems the ARU have targetted rather than developing their own nursery and encouraging Australian school to switch to Union but that’s a whole other topic).
My honest opinion is that, should either of these teams get the 15th slot, then, without poaching from other teams, they’re both going to be the whipping boys for quite a while. Admittedly, the SK do have great feeder teams/schools/varsities that can prop them up in the future but the truth is it’s not a very cash-flush area so their chances of holding onto the best of those players is very slim. Melbourne, on the other hand, don’t have as much chances of quality youngsters coming through there systems which’ll mean that they’ll be forced to poach other teams/nations. I’m sure if they’re allowed to field a half NZ players team then they’ll get more spectators from the Nea Zealand ex-pats but is that really building a support base? Are there a whole bunch of Melbourne schools just waiting to switch over to playing rugby union now just because they’ve got a Super 15 team? I assume the answer to that is no.
Also, if it’s going to take a couple of years for them to be competitive, will the crowds still support them during this building phase when they might be getting whipped week in and out. Or will the Melbourne area get tired of that and rather decide to stop watching it live or on the TV? In which case News Corp might not be very happy Super Rugby parents. From what I gather the ARU is really trying very hard to make sure this new franchise doesn’t weaken the others which means, unlike the Force, they really do need to start from scratch which means this is a very real possibility.
I think also, in terms of TV viewership, most Saffers and Aussies won’t watch the ZA derbies, most Saffers and NZealanders won’t watch the Aussie derbies and most Aussies and NZealanders won’t watch the SA derbies. Which’ll mean the competition will be in a type of “sleep” mode until the finals. It also means the overall viewership might come down because less people will be watching the games. At the moment Saffers watch all the SA games and support all the SA teams playing the other side. Similiarly, are Aussies and NZ supporters going to stay up late at night/early morning to watch SA teams slug it out? Probably most of them won’t. I think what will happen therefore is most people will only watch the game that affect their team and, overall, less viewers will wind up watching the whole product that what we have now.
As you might have guessed, I’m not in favour of this “conferences” thing and not in favour of any expansion.
Actually, since I’m going on here. Here’s another option, why don’t they increase the number of teams in each conference and let SA play the Currie Cup as their conference, let NZ play the NPC as their conference and then let the ARU make a comp for theirs. Then everyone’s happy. ARU get their “next tier” with extra teams since we can maybe give each conference 8 sides. SA and NZ get to keep their showpiece tournaments and play them with their best players (unlike now when the Boks and All Blacks don’t play mostly). And, on top of that, NZ and SA can keep all their smaller teams happy because they can, during the Super Rugby finals phase, play promotion games which allowed their next “tier” teams a chance to get into the Super Rugby league.
But that’s just a plan that makes sense to me and, from what I can see, deals with nearly all the differences and political problems that the thre countries have. It allows the NZ rugby guys to appease and keep their smallers teams (which is their big rugby political issue). It allows SA to put the Kings in (which is their big “political” political issue) and, like NZ, keeps the smaller teams happy since they will forever have the chance to get into Super Rugby should they one day have the ambition and finances (very unlikely but at least they can have “the dream”).
circus said | October 24th 2009 @ 1:33am | Report comment
SARU has put forward a gambit. There are so very many brilliiant black and coloured rugby plyers – much better than there white counterparts – but they are not selected by the SA’s Currie Cup or Super 14 teams beause of racism. To see the dreadful Stefan Terblanche being selected for the Sharks when Waylon Murray is not selected – the ponderous Afrikaans centres in all the SA Super 14 sides refusing to pass to the flying wingers such as Nokwe or Noble.
To say that they have to have a ‘black’ side to satisfy the ANC is such a lie. They could actually pick these talented players in the existing sides. The Cheetahs from Bloemfontein and the Lions from Johannsberg must be the two weakest sides that have ever existed in the Super 14. When the Lions lost a match the Afrikaans coach famously turned on the only two coloured players in his side – Earl Rose and the prop – and blamed then for the loss.
It’s fantastic to see the South African 7s side coached by Paul Treu win the IRB sevens series. The speed, skill and power of that team are a joy to watch. That they are predominately black and coloured is a tribute to the transformation of South African rugby.
They don’t need their own team in the Super 15 to demonstrate their worth.
primus in indus said | October 25th 2009 @ 11:39pm | Report comment
The reason rugby has such a low profile is its complete lack of exposure on normal tv. super 14 needs to do a few years on the free to air to build up a fan base. Should have been done in 2003 when rugby was very much in the public eye. Aus does not have a tribal fan base like the brits and french so some thought in to how to create one. So glad the elvs were binned and i cant stand the carping we give some of the european teams when they win ugly. It can be some of the best rugby to watch but we have a culture of despising the forwards and then wonder why we dont produce the best. Like the french and english we need to idolise the forwards and understand what they do and then we wont get bored by the win ugly approach. Just the beauty alone of the front rows clashing…. whats the point we only like it when its free running rugby but thank God the game is more than that. We need to change the way we enjoy our rugby
Paley said | October 26th 2009 @ 12:18am | Report comment
I wouldn’t say there is a tribal fan base in union in England. It’s only recently that club union has been getting decent crowds.
Knives Out said | October 26th 2009 @ 12:46am | Report comment
Crowd attendances have nothing to do with the theme of tribalism. In any case, I think you misunderstand what primus in indus is saying. I believe that he is referring to the historical tradition of the English clubs in contrast to the Super franchises.
primus in indus said | October 26th 2009 @ 8:13am | Report comment
thanks Knives out that is what i meant but i also mean tribalism. The brits support teams in a different way to us. It is much more social and they identify with the towns and counties at a far deeper level. This is why the top clubs have not messed with the names. Bath is Bath etc. Club union has thrived in Britain and France and i was over in Ireland in September and watched the youngsters playing at Ballanahinch. The whole atmosphere was wonderfull and family orientated. The population base is far smaller. Crowd attendance increased after England won 2003 so the marketing was better. The tri nations is not the 6 nations. More is sometimes less. Yes the southern hemispere teams produce a higher standerd but i have been to 6 nations and tri nations games yet give me the 6 nations to watch. The teams are all diferent yet we have a sameness down here….