By kingplaymaker -
November 11th 2009 @ 2:36am
Get a Roar profile
Loading ...Related coverage
How John O’Neill could rescue Australian rugby
Australian rugby, despite a cheering victory last weekend, is in dire condition with falling popularity at both international and Super levels and a national team seemingly unable to defeat teams above them in the world rankings.
The ARU, instead of taking decisive action to turn this situation around, is strikingly inert, proposing a longer Super season and another team as magical solutions.
Gone are the early days of the decade, when John O’Neill recognised that as the underdog in the sporting marketplace rubgy union had to be active, dynamic, bold and aggressive in order to challenge competitors.
Now the idea seems to be to wait around doing nothing, with the excuse of the economic crisis.
Here’s a three point strategy to reverse the game’s fortunes, to improve the finances of the ARU, to improve the popularity of the game, and to make the national team better.
1) Negotiate for two instead of one Super 14 teams. To launch large projects, money is needed and an extra Super team is a great source of broadcasting revenue. Moreover, it has obvious advantages in terms of spreading rugby’s popularity and increasing playing numbers.
The refusal of South Africa to accept the Melbourne Super team instead of their own candidate is a golden opportunity to be exploited: why not suggest that South Africa can have their extra team (to play in their own conference), as long as Australia can have two more?
South Africa, knowing that a decision made by arbitration would result in their losing the Southern Kings, would readily agree to it.
What would it matter to them?
It would also not concern New Zealand, so long as they were also offered an extra team, to create as and when they wanted, which may not be now, of course.
This kind of bold negotiating is exactly what O’Neill should be best at.
The counter-argument to a second Super team in Australia is that the game isn’t strong enough to support it, but this is based on the assumption that all the players in the two teams would be Australian which of course they wouldn’t.
As foreign players would be allowed it would be easy to create two high quality sides, while the advantages of having two more teams are so great it would not matter of who they comprised.
The money resulting from the extra team, money being the thing Australian rugby so badly needs, would help in the next two stages of the plan.
2) A national competition. As this has been discussed endlessly, I will try to provide some different arguments for it.
The economic advantages have not been noticed, because of the initial costs in the first year. Granted, last time a large loss was made, but the competition was not conceived economically and this time O’Neill has said it would be ‘run on the smell of an oily rag.’.
Firstly, club rugby is much more stable in popularity than international rugby, as it relies much less on a particular team winning, and this is why the game is consistently popular in England even while the national team are being ritually pummeled.
Put simply, in an internal competition, it’s impossible for Australia to lose.
This financial stability and stability in the sport’s popularity is a firm economic base to offset the more volatile international level. Such financial stability allows the ARU to take risks and make investments.
Secondly, an international competition does much of the work of grassroots development, and this has profound economic implications.
Why pour huge sums into youth development as the ARU is currently doing, when the clubs in a national competition can do much of the work themselves?
As in Europe, each club can be a centre for young players in the respective areas and can run extensive youth programmes searching far and wide for young players, bringing them eventually through age group sides to the first team. The young players themselves can go to watch the local team and visualize a clear path through club rugby to Super rugby and national rugby.
This a is far more effective and less expensive way of developing grass-roots talent.
3) Strengthening the Wallabies. The Wallabies do not have enough world-class players at the moment to regularly defeat New Zealand and South Africa.
The reason they fade towards the end of games is not lack of toughness or motivation, but because the overall superiority of having 15 instead of 11 excellent players gradually asserts itself and the Wallabies are overwhelmed as a result.
It was noticeable how the addition of Will Genia, Wycliff Palu and Digby Ioane made a dramatic improvement in the team recently: this is what happens when three excellent players replace three average players.
However, Australia still remain four players short. So around this number of new players need to be brought in, principally in the second row and the outside backs.
There are three ways to source these players, depending on the amount of money available.
Option 1: Import Dan Vickerman and retain Hugh Mcmeniman by offering them more money to improve the second row, and import Mark Gasnier to improve the outside backs, not least by allowing Digby Ioane to return to the wing and so fit in an extra high quality player in the backline.
Option 2: Vickerman, Mcmeniman, Gasnier, plus two Rugby league outside backs such as Israel Folau and Jarryd Hayne to provide more strike power than say, Drew Mitchell and Lachie Turner. This would cost more.
Option 3: Vickerman, Mcmeniman, plus Israel Folau, Jarryd Hayne, Greg Inglis and Karmichael Hunt.
The three options go in ascending order of cost and this one is the most luxurious, especially as it involves buying out contracts.
Option 1 will provide the Wallabies with a team which can compete with New Zealand and South Africa, by plugging the gaps in high-class talent that are currently hampering them.
However, it’s perhaps worth reflecting that there is a difference between a player like Berrick Barnes, an excellent international performer, and a true game-breaker like Tana Umaga or Dan Carter.
The Australian backline currently contains average players (Lachie Turner and Drew Mitchell), excellent players (Berrick Barnes and Digby Ioane), but does it really contain any astonishing, game-breaking players?
15 excellent players may allow the team to beat South Africa and New Zealand sometimes and perhaps pull a fast one at the world cup, but will it allow them to be the best, dominant team in the world?
There exist in Australian rugby league today four young players possessed with this magical game-breaking quality: Inglis, Folau, Hayne and Hunt, who are all young enough to learn the game more successfully than old converts like Sailor and Rogers.
On top of an excellent pack as it would be with Vickerman and Mcmeniman, a wonderful group of inside backs (Giteau, Barnes, Cooper, O’Connor, Beale), a superb coach, four astounding players like this could make Australia the dominant side in the world. It would cost a lot, but it might be worth it.
So the idea should be to increase the amount of money available to Australian rugby, to increase the number of Super teams and club teams available to spectators and grass-roots development and hence guarantee the game’s future, and to strengthen the national team.
If John O’Neill is bold and has the ARU’s support, he could accomplish all of that.
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...
(83)
Rob said | November 11th 2009 @ 3:30am | Report comment
You would have to throw a massive amount of money at League players to get them to cross over to Union as it is such a boring game to play.
kingplaymaker said | November 11th 2009 @ 6:54am | Report comment
Rob I’m not sure how interesting the game is to play is their main motivation for playing one sport or other.
AC said | November 11th 2009 @ 11:23am | Report comment
That’s funny Rob, because a lot of guys I know and play with who play both prefer the dynamics of Union over League. Your comment is complete horse sh** because your opinion, or at least the opinion continually expressed by the League mouth pieces via The Daily Terror, is that the Union game is crap. Throw enough mud and it eventually sticks.
Union is an enjoyable game to play. It’s also very physically demanding for all players if they choose to play it that way (wingers need to ruck and maul too).
Ultimately it’s a horses-for-courses decision that each player makes in their own right.
cam said | November 11th 2009 @ 12:14pm | Report comment
Hey Rob been following the kangawhos and other farcial league teams in the four nations cup? The stadiums wure were packed with very intersted fans… Your game must be really entertaining to get such big crowds. 5 tackles and a kick wasn’t it? That’s very entertaining alright!
rugbyfuture said | November 11th 2009 @ 12:21pm | Report comment
opposed to tackle, tackle, tackle, tackle, tackle, kick, tackle, tackle, tackle, tackle, tackle kick, and did you see the spring tour games? much bigger crowds than the league games
King of the Gorganites said | November 11th 2009 @ 12:42pm | Report comment
they had 6K in paris. enough said. stade francais gets 80K to there big games!
Knives Out said | November 11th 2009 @ 3:43am | Report comment
Interesting article from an Englishman from Oxford. Thanks for the read.
PJ said | November 11th 2009 @ 3:45am | Report comment
absolute drivel
Robbo said | November 11th 2009 @ 6:01am | Report comment
Hear Hear!
Shane Sullivan said | November 11th 2009 @ 5:28am | Report comment
More league players! NO THANKS
Sully
Firestarter Bob said | November 11th 2009 @ 6:48am | Report comment
“There exist in Australian rugby league today four young players possessed with this magical game-breaking quality: Inglis, Folau, Hayne and Hunt, who are all young enough to learn the game more successfully than old converts like Sailor and Rogers.”
I heard somewhere that Hunt might no longer be in the NRL. Not sure where he is going though. Might be some missionary work or something.
kingplaymaker said | November 11th 2009 @ 7:12am | Report comment
Firestarter during his current stint in Biarritz he might realise that union is a bigger thing in the world than the parochial AFL.
Probably all that would be needed to convince him then would be a larger offer than the ARU made earlier this year.
kingplaymaker said | November 11th 2009 @ 6:55am | Report comment
PJ, Robbo, Shane, your solutions presumably being to wait around praying for things to get better.
jim said | November 11th 2009 @ 6:57am | Report comment
I’ve read other articles that also suggest more super teams will bring in more money from revenue from broadcasting, but it doesn’t make that much sense. it’s not uncommon that a super 14 game is out rated by a NRL Toyota cup game. so how much more do you think Foxtel will pay for more super 14 games? will it be enough to cover the costs of importing two teams of foreign/league players?
kingplaymaker said | November 11th 2009 @ 7:15am | Report comment
jim it still seems to attract broadcasters though: the offer made by the broadcasters for the Super 14 expansion was meant to be significantly larger if the team were to be based in Melbourne.
There’s no reason the two new teams should be especially expensive in terms of players. The crowds, one would hope, would pay for a lot.
Besides, after the great financial turnaround O’Neill supposedly masterminded last year, surely he has plenty of cash?
Pippinu said | November 11th 2009 @ 7:28am | Report comment
It’s odd that a good-average player all of a sudden becomes the supposed cure to eveyrone’s ills.
I think Guy McKenna would happily allow the ARU to buy out Hunt’s contract – they have already received the very most value they are likely to receive from him, and indeed, such an on-sale would boost that particular value even further.
kingplaymaker said | November 11th 2009 @ 7:37am | Report comment
Pippinu the three obvious full-backs are Slater, Hunt and Brett Stewart. Slater is too old to invest in as a player (I don’t believe in league players converting over the age of 25 as a good investment). Stewart would be an alternative.
Pippinu said | November 11th 2009 @ 7:42am | Report comment
I agree with the general principle that if it is to happen, the earlier the better.
But I think many on this forum would quibble with even bothering with someone at the age of 24 – as opposed to developing rugby specialists from the word go.
Justin said | November 11th 2009 @ 5:10pm | Report comment
KPM – the problem with comparing league back for Union is that they will not have the time and space they get in League. Its a big reason IMO that league players look great playing league but average playing Union.
In League there are two less players, the backline is split in two with a centre and playmaker often taking one side of the field each and then there is the 10m rule which provides so much space/momentum for league backs to run at the defence. You get none of that in Union.
kingplaymaker said | November 12th 2009 @ 12:45am | Report comment
Justin I think the best league players have been superb in union. The failures have mostly been too old when they arrived, or were not forced to commit properly to the game and allowed to waltz off when things got a little tough, or were not put in their club/super teams long enough to adapt. A young player forced to committ should succeed.
I’m not giving any credit to the sport of rubgy league in saying this, but I admit they have some good players.
skull said | November 12th 2009 @ 7:20am | Report comment
Stewart would be no good as he cant really kick.
kingplaymaker said | November 12th 2009 @ 8:41am | Report comment
Nor it seems can Ashley-Cooper!
kingplaymaker said | November 11th 2009 @ 7:48am | Report comment
Pippinu there’s a good point there it’s true, but I suppose it’s not always obvious who the best players are at 17 or 18, though by 19, 20 the likes of Inglis of Folau are up and running.
Certainly though, there should be no more buying players in their late or even mid-twenties, when they presumably consider Rubgy a nice after-thought to their more important league careers, an opportunity to cash in and make themselves a little more famous by playing internationally, and they can just walk out again like Timana Tahu if the going gets a little tough.
It’s worth noting that out of the three converts early in the decade, Rogers and Sailor were around 27 and were considerably less successful than Tuqiri who was 23 (despite his late career decline).
It’s more likely that younger players are more committed too.
Pippinu said | November 11th 2009 @ 8:29am | Report comment
King
I know the AFL has become remarkably efficient at picking talent at 17 (or even younger) – this has occurred over the last 22 years (back in the 80s, they were bloody hopeless in comparison).
There must be ways of doing the same in rugby – I know kids are still developing physically at the age of 17 – but that’s the same for all sports – there are key attributes that need to be present when a kid is 17 – and those kids must be locked in at that age.
How? That’s for the experts to answer!!
kingplaymaker said | November 11th 2009 @ 9:51am | Report comment
Pippinu couldn’t agree more. So long as they have playing positions to offer them that is, hardly easy without the national competition.
Bay35Pablo said | November 11th 2009 @ 8:06am | Report comment
An extra SAF team doesn’t work. It throws out the entire format of S15. just to sate the pushy Bokke.
Lee said | November 11th 2009 @ 8:19am | Report comment
Pushy Bokke?
Sticking up for your own interest is pushy?
Bay35Pablo said | November 12th 2009 @ 9:17am | Report comment
Lee, no, but taking to the extremes that happens is ridiculous. It is like this refusal to agree to 6 team finals, pure bloody mindedness.
And I am sick to death of these complaints about South Africa being hard done by and always picked on, never getting their way. Give me a break.
kingplaymaker said | November 11th 2009 @ 8:10am | Report comment
Bay remember I said the extra SA team would be in THEIR conference, not the Australian one. So it wouldn’t warp the format on the competition. Who cares if they have it so long as Australia could benefit from it?
sheek said | November 11th 2009 @ 8:16am | Report comment
KPM,
Re your post…..
1. In an ideal world, yes. But we have to deal with the circumstances as they are. Australia doesn’t have enough quality players for 6 super franchises, & it will struggle to adequately fill 5. Sure, I would love to see it, but we must crawl before we can walk.
2. Wouldn’t I love a national comp! It’s not always possible to discuss every little issue, but of course economics is a given. It drives everything basically. Besides, anything worthwhile requires risk.
Capital city club rugby (premier rugby) is too large to be lifted en masse into a national comp. Therefore these clubs need to be condensed into 8-10 national club teams strategically located around the country.
Premier rugby must be amateur; national club semi-professional & only super rugby & Wallabies fully professional. At least initially. Junior development has shamefully been allowed to drop-off & must be immediately arrested & turned around.
3. There’s no point recalling Vickerman, etc. It would only be a stop-gap solution. We need to move forward. Also, buying league players is a stop-gap solution. All it does is draw attention to Australian rugby’s parlous development program.
It’s a s clear as dog’s balls, if you’ll pardon the expression, Australian rugby needs to re-arrange its structures. And start immediately at the grassroots attracting more player participants.
Firstly, define & implement the structures (career pathways). Secondly, promote & sell the structures. Thirdly, get out there & rebuild the game. No sport can thrive without players. And every sport needs its marquee players as well.
formeropenside said | November 11th 2009 @ 8:23am | Report comment
Agree with point 1, we cant fill 4 “franchises” adequately: we might have 60 Super rugby standard players, but the benchies often are not up to it, and then throw a few injuries into a squad.
kingplaymaker said | November 11th 2009 @ 8:50am | Report comment
formeropenside see the response I have just given to Sheek.
kingplaymaker said | November 11th 2009 @ 8:35am | Report comment
Sheek thanks for the considered reply. To respond to your points.
1) Remember I said the players wouldn’t all be Australian. Naturally Australia doesn’t have enough players to fill 6 teams. But why should a Super team be entirely Australian? It’s not a national team. Most European teams have large numbers of imported players, who aid the quality and size of the competitions. The point of a Super team is, not in any order, a) to provide a team for spectators to watch b) to provide places for Australian players when there are enough good ones to fill them. It would be necessary to have these foreign players at the outset to make the extra two teams competitive, but the hope is that they would help the game and playing numbers grow over the next few years so that they could eventually be replaced by Australians.
2) I agree on that. I think that it shouldn’t be difficult at all to succeed at this tier level.
3) Vickerman’s not exactly a stop-gap as he is a genuine Wallaby, who in a sense should really be playing for Australia. League players are indeed stop-gaps, but may be necessary until union grows that little bit more so that it can produce enough top players required.
sheek said | November 11th 2009 @ 9:23am | Report comment
KPM,
Yes, it’s fine to have overseas players. But I would cap that at say, about 10, no more, non-Aussies. The teams should still be essentially ‘Australian’. I would hope to avoid the EPL situation where many teams don’t have a single Englishman in their starting XI.
I don’t subscribe to ‘unshackled’ market forces. Greed & opportunism does weird things to people. You still need controls in place, while still striving to massage the “bottom line”. I would not hold the world football model up as being an ‘ideal’ to strive for. Certainly not all or much of it.
Vickerman is a great player agreed, but my point was not to look back, but move forward. Bringing Vicks back only means delaying moving forward.
kingplaymaker said | November 11th 2009 @ 9:37am | Report comment
Sheek I agree there shouldn’t be too many foreign players, like at Toulon or other French teams for example. A crucial boost more than anything else.
Also of course it’s good to look forward, but as there aren’t any great young locks there’s nothing wrong with Vickerman. Remember he’s only 30, which isn’t that old for a second row considering Brad Thorn and Simon Shaw are much older and still plouging on. So at sprightly 30 he’s not really the past.
sheek said | November 11th 2009 @ 9:46am | Report comment
I should say I agree with Brett’s comment. If Vicks wants to return, that’s fine. Which is different to trying to recruit him back.
kingplaymaker said | November 11th 2009 @ 9:49am | Report comment
Sheek this raises the problem of why he left, it was said because he felt undervalued, also financially. So his desire might be awakened if better appreciation of his value and better financial appreciation were proposed.
Brett McKay said | November 11th 2009 @ 2:22pm | Report comment
KPM, it could also be a case of Vicks wanting to leave. He couldn’t study full-time at Oxford AND play rugby in Australia. Perhaps in the end it was a life choice.
Either way, we can only play with the cards we’re curently holding. The ace you no longer have is like the ace that hasn’t surfaced yet – you can only use it while you have it…
Brett McKay said | November 11th 2009 @ 8:21am | Report comment
KPM, I hadn’t even got to your first option before I worked out I’d be reading the names Vickerman, McMeniman, and Gasnier again. So I’ll repeat my answers from last time too.
Vickerman, sure. If he wants to come back. McMeniman, again, if and ONLY IF he wants to come back, but not for stupid amounts of money. There’s no need to “entice him”, he’s made his choices already.
Gasnier, no, sorry. Again, until he can nail down a spot for Stade Francais, we can’t even debate the merits of him as an outside centre yet. And until he’s playing in Australia, there’s no point anyway. And 13 is not a spot where we’re short of options: Ashley-Cooper, Ioane, Horne, T.Smith, Cross, Mortlock when fit again. Will Chambers might be handy eventually too.
National Comp, yes please, that’d be great. But not the clubs..
Strengthen the Wallabies, well yeah, of course….
kingplaymaker said | November 12th 2009 @ 12:39am | Report comment
Brett New Zealand have just brought back Chris Jack, thereby refusing to accept the cards they are holding and acquiring another. Australia can do the same in another very similar case and in the same position.
Knives Out said | November 12th 2009 @ 2:03am | Report comment
Chris Jack sought to return to NZ. The NZRFU did not promote a campaign to bring him back to NZ.
kingplaymaker said | November 12th 2009 @ 8:40am | Report comment
They worked hard to get him back.
The point is that it can be done, and Vickerman would only agree if he was interested anyway.
kingplaymaker said | November 11th 2009 @ 8:56am | Report comment
Brett here the point is in a slightly different context, I hope.
It’s now or never for Gasnier. In order to get accustomed to international level he’ll need a good two seasons before the World Cup which means they either put him in the team for this tri-nations, after an Elsom-like exemption, or abandon the idea of using him.
I think he has enough talent to make it worthwhile, and I’ve seen enough at Stade to convince me too.
Obviously Inglis would be much better: a better player anyway, younger, but harder to sign and more expensive.
It’s true outside centre is not the most difficult position to fill. Perhaps though, Gasnier has the real great player quality that none of those players you mention have? (Mortlock aside).
In any case, as he wants to play for the Wallabies and Ewen Mckenzie is at Queensland, won’t he be here soon anyway?
Brett McKay said | November 11th 2009 @ 9:10am | Report comment
Well KPM, you’re the only person I’ve heard say Gasnier “wants to play for the Wallabies”, so you’d know more than I do. Besides that, the ARU can’t just drag him home (and don’t need to anyway), he has to want to come home. And would a fairly large pay cut be worth coming home for??
I’m of the belief that the ARU and the states know they have enough talent at 13 without having to buy another convert in his late 20’s. I don’t think we’ll see a very active chase from this direction..
Darwin hammer said | November 11th 2009 @ 9:16am | Report comment
So tweak SANZAR once again to benefit Oz rugby … and your suggested “conferences” 6,6,5 are not balanced (the kiwis are already on record numerous times that they are not in the market for a another team) …. it’s evident that interest in Super rugby is on the wane in NZ and SA – yet here’s an idea to increase it further – merely to provide a quick fix to benefit Australian rugby – it’s hairbrained and thankfully won’t happen … in fact expansion to 15 shouldn’t happen …
… i’ve said it before McMeniman is a crock – he won’t last 2 seasons of S14/15 … and at that he’s no second rower – and an above average loosie … Vickerman – the boat’s sailed – the ARU should be looking at possibly replicating that formula and poaching a promising SA lock or 2 – which I believe NSW has done
Hunt – is a kiwi – not a ozzie and if he did come over it would be for one thing and one thing only $$ … look no further than the failed English attempts at trying to convert kiwi RL players to see where that will end up …
kingplaymaker said | November 11th 2009 @ 9:25am | Report comment
Darwin why does it matter if there are 6-6-5 teams: because it doesn’t sound pretty having an unbalanced set of numbers? Isn’t 5-5-4, the current set-up, unbalanced too? Is that the end of the world?
Market forces and spreading the game are more important than anything else now.
Mcmeniman has had injuries it’s true, but I disagree that he’s only above average. I think he’s a superb player.
Vickerman could be bruoght back as easily as Mcalister and Elsom. Poaching a promising SA lock wouldn’t solve the problem quickly enough.
Hunt plays league for Australia doesn’t he? The Vainikolo case is too complicated to go into now, but suffice to say there’s no reason Hunt should fail. He’s only 23.
Darwin hammer said | November 11th 2009 @ 9:47am | Report comment
Yes the current set is 5,5,4 … but the new idea is for conferences 5,5,5 … so 6,6,5 is imbalanced if your idea is for a conference set up … if not then that’s a massive jump in round robin games which would cut across every existing competition – so you’ll be expecting SA and NZ to relinquish Currie Cup and NPC completely – good luck with that one …
“Market forces and spreading the game are more important than anything else now.” … to who – Australia certainly – but this proposal isn’t spreading the game any further than it is now and the supposed windfall is really a pipe dream – how much will a broadcaster really pay to see poor Australain sides play each other (your foreign imports will really only be second tier or old returnees) …
Mcmeniman – had as close to a full season with the Reds as he’s ever likely to get last season and didn’t set the world on fire … he’s not top drawer and in the end his body wouldn’t handle it …
Hunt made himself available for Australia for 1 reason and 1 reason only – he wanted to play State of Origin for Queensland – he can’t do that if he was a kiwi rep footballer …
Mcalister and Elsom – have hardly set the game alight since returning – it’s becoming evident that those players returning from up north really need full season or 2 before regaining any worthwhile form … and Vickermans hardly been playing top flight rugby in the Nth since he’s been away …
kingplaymaker said | November 11th 2009 @ 10:07am | Report comment
Darwin but the next phase of Super games will significantly reduce the number of games played in other countries and increase the number of games played within each country, so the Currie Cup would not have be abandoned because of another team in another conference, as it wouldn’t affect how many games were played in South Africa very much.
A bigger TV deal would give all three countries more money, and New Zealand badly need it as well.
You don’t have such a high opinion of Mcmeniman’s talents, which is fair enough. My argument that he would significantly bolster the Wallabies pack is based of course on the idea that he is very talented.
Does it matter why Hunt made himself available to whom? If he’s good enough and wants to and has lived there long enough he can play for Australia.
Not sure I agree on the last point. Mcalister was played out of position and injured quickly, while Elsom was also injured. If they had returned without these setbacks they could have been fine.
kingplaymaker said | November 11th 2009 @ 9:20am | Report comment
There have been a few reports over the last few months e.g.
http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/sport/nrl/gasnier-im-keen-to-be-a-wallaby/story-e6frexpr-1111117533569
Brett whether he accepts the pay cut is up to him I guess, it seems odd to me that he’s interested in a short career involving a loss of income. If he had really wanted this he could have moved over a few years back.
In general I totally agree that late-twenties converts are only good in the absence of anything else. Hence my preference for option 3 of those I proposed. Inglis would be a good long-term investment, well worth the huge amount of money he would cost, a much better idea than Gasnier and certainly a gamebreaker.
Again, my point is that Gasnier is a true game-breaker, which the Wallabies backline lacks as do most candidates for 13, very good though they may be.
They’ll probably muscle through somehow anyway though.
Brett McKay said | November 11th 2009 @ 2:31pm | Report comment
KPM, I’ve finally got to reading the artcile you’ve linked to – that was written last year, before Gasnier had even played a game for Stade. Do the thoughts offered back then even still apply now??
PastHisBest said | November 11th 2009 @ 2:45pm | Report comment
And quite frankly, what are you going to say?
kingplaymaker said | November 12th 2009 @ 8:39am | Report comment
They do Brett, and if you’re interested I can find some articles this year which I remember reading where he expressed similar sentiments.
On the other hand, it’s kind of ridiculous that he thinks he can turn down an offer from the ARU at 25, then go to union anyway but NOT to the ARU at 27, and then want to have a handsomely-paid international career at 29 just when his powers are declining. It seems almost as if he has contempt for the Wallabies.
Republican said | November 11th 2009 @ 9:23am | Report comment
No revelations here.
rugbyfuture said | November 11th 2009 @ 10:00am | Report comment
kpm i agree with the national comp thing, but i say they should establish it using completely private teams linked to the local clubs, people are willing to fund it as demonstrated by the sunshine coast and western sydney bids for the new super team, you could make it a 5 million reserve such as in the super rugby comp. that would keep a 5 million dollar loss at bay. furthermore, aggressive marketing can come back in, and buying every rugby league player that has superstar promise. one more thing, the 5 mil loss suffered by the ARC was nothing when you see that the ARU made a profit still last financial year above it, they dumped it because they werent willing to follow through and build up.
….but still, death to league!
kingplaymaker said | November 11th 2009 @ 10:14am | Report comment
rugbyfuture what you say makes a lot of sense. I can’t see any real economic problem in a national competition. The ARU needs simply to be bold again.
As for death to league, in fact if the ARU bought the top 4 young stars and brought in two more teams worth of Super places and an entire competition full of club places for young union/league players and converts to fill, it certainly wouldn’t do league any favours.
sheek said | November 11th 2009 @ 11:20am | Report comment
Death-riding rugby league won’t accelerate its demise. Plenty of people wish it, but it hasn’t happened, & won’t happen in a hurry.
In any case, it’s the wrong mode of attack. Rugby union should concentrate on being the best it can be, realising its own potential. Do that, & the rest takes care of itself.
I am however, of the increasing view that RL & RU will merge in some fashion in the future. I don’t know what the “trigger” will be, but most likely “commercial realities” will be at the forefront of that trigger.
What hybrid game will emerge remains to be seen. There, I’ve said it. Now if I were back in the middle ages, I would be hauled before a religious inquisition & charged with heresy.
But I don’t care what others think. Life can take unexpected turns & twists in ways we can’t imagine at present. Those fans of either code, who say they will never watch a hybrid game are delusional. Of course they will, especially if its the only rugby game in town. Because above all, it will still be sport.
Anyway, in the meantime I consider myself lucky as an Aussie to watch 4 top quality football codes – Australian football, world football, rugby league & rugby union.
King of the Gorganites said | November 11th 2009 @ 12:45pm | Report comment
there will never be a hybrid. just a hostile takeover from european backed rugby
PastHisBest said | November 11th 2009 @ 2:13pm | Report comment
Merge where sheek? Australia? Big deal. As far as the rest of the world is concerned they couldn’t give a gnat’s what australian rugby and league does.
kingplaymaker said | November 11th 2009 @ 11:36am | Report comment
Sheek it came close in England when a wealthy businessman bought Orrell (Wigan) and Bradford Bulls considered having a union team. However, as Orrell weren’t promoted to the top flight immediately, the businessman left, and the whole thing fell apart. The blundering RFU failed to smooth the path to this happening.
What could stop it is also the social and geographical differences, especially in England.
Knives Out said | November 12th 2009 @ 2:02am | Report comment
The blundering RFU failed to completely annihilate the tradition of promotion and relegation to support one team. They surely are buffoons.
Knives Out said | November 12th 2009 @ 2:03am | Report comment
The blundering RFU failed to completely annihilate the tradition of promotion and relegation to support one team? They surely are buffoons.
kingplaymaker said | November 12th 2009 @ 8:36am | Report comment
Yes, as they expanded it almost immediately after anyway. No that I was suggesting they abandon promotion and relegation..
Vented Relief said | November 11th 2009 @ 1:55pm | Report comment
Karmichael Hunt is an even bigger chaser of the demon dollar than Rogers and Tahu were. He has sold his soul to the AFL and frankly I don’t want him anywhere near an australian rugby union team. He’s a mercenary of the worst kind and this is proven by the fact he has signed a short term contract with a french rugby union team, thereby forcing the gold coast to rest him for pretty much the entire 2010 vfl season in order that he is fit for 2011. If he had wanted to give AFL a genuine go, he would be in off season training this very minute. Instead, he is sipping lattes in the south of france, shaking his head at the money thrown at him to play sports he’s never even proven himself in.
We’ve got to stay away from folks like this. If we want good league converts, get them when they are playing toyota cup at 18, 19 and 20 yrs of age, make sure they will be suited to rugby union and develop them from there. We need to trust our state based training academies and the club coaches who will give them the skills required.
kingplaymaker said | November 11th 2009 @ 2:11pm | Report comment
Vented there’s always financial motivation behind whatever players do. If he’s good enough, what matters more is the fate of the Wallabies. His abstract moral qualities can come below the moral necessity of the team winning.
What matters is league players now, in time for the next world cup. The four I mentioned are all in their early twenties, so they’re fairly young.
Besides it’ll be hard to attract them in their late teens without a national competition.
Darwin hammer said | November 11th 2009 @ 2:56pm | Report comment
All you’re doing is selling the Wallaby jersey to the highest bidder – there’s enough talk already that the current mob don’t show any pride in it … so why go down the track of degenerating it further … look no further than the failed kiwi leaguies that were rapidly promoted to the England team – waste of space and were a blot on the jersey … Hunt is not the answer …
Australia shouldn’t be selling the shop in order to try and be competitive in 2011 – if the core of the W/Cup squad aren’t already being groomed by the super coach – then there’s no quick fix
kingplaymaker said | November 12th 2009 @ 12:17am | Report comment
It’s not really selling the jersey, just because they come from rugby league. That doesn’t exactly make sense.
anopinion said | November 11th 2009 @ 2:36pm | Report comment
Kingplaymaker,
RL players are not good enough at RU to make the Wallabies. The past has proven this. The guys who did play for the Wallabies were picked to put bums on seats not because they were the better players.
Hugh Mc and Dan Vic are not the solutions. Hugh played for the Reds and had little impact. Dan has been part of Wallabies sides that have also struggled. I would bet Dan is one of the most penalised players in every game he is involved in.
A national Competition is not going to happen. It is not supported by the clubs, it is not viable and it is not necessary. How many high level games do you need? The Super 14 provides us with the best rugby in the world bar international games. Four or Five Australian Teams allows us to maintain a concentrated version of rugby. Not a watered down competition where the playing talent is divided amongst 16 teams. What we have is a cost effective and excellent rugby environment. Just because people watch RL does not mean we should copy them.
PastHisBest said | November 11th 2009 @ 2:46pm | Report comment
“What we have is a cost effective and excellent rugby environment”
Barely, and no we don’t.
Jim said | November 11th 2009 @ 3:20pm | Report comment
“Four or Five Australian Teams allows us to maintain a concentrated version of rugby. Not a watered down competition where the playing talent is divided amongst 16 teams. What we have is a cost effective and excellent rugby environment. Just because people watch RL does not mean we should copy them.”
are you happy with the ‘excellent rugby’ played this year in the super 14? because I’ve read plenty of people on this site complaining about the player quality of the super 14 teams, particually the australian teams.
on the other hand the ‘watered down competition’ where the playing talent is divided between 16 teams has just had a massive year on all fronts. the ARU would be crazy to not want some of there marquee players, even if only for a PR stunt.
kingplaymaker said | November 12th 2009 @ 12:34am | Report comment
Jim and also some of their marquee players are actually good, regardless of whether the game they play is enjoyable to watch.
MyGeneration said | November 11th 2009 @ 3:32pm | Report comment
Lote Tuqiri played 67 tests, Matt Rogers played 45 tests, Wendell Sailor played 37 tests. They may not have left on good terms, but they were “good enough” to make the Wallabies. They all played in a World Cup final that went to extra time as well. That might not be great, but it’s “good enough”. There are reasons signing RL players hasn’t always worked, but “good enough” isn’t one of them.
Firestarter Bob said | November 11th 2009 @ 3:48pm | Report comment
“Not a watered down competition where the playing talent is divided amongst 16 teams.”
It’s hardly watered down given it has the necessary number of trained players to field 16 teams.
kingplaymaker said | November 12th 2009 @ 12:23am | Report comment
anopinion look at my generation’s reply below to whether the league players are good enough. Even now Elsom,. Palu and Barnes were in league before. It’s fine not to enjoy watching league, which is also my position, but I admit the players are good.
Vickerman and Mcmeniman are big talents, much bigger than Horwill and Sharpe.
A national competition is necessary to provide more rugby for spectators and more positions for players. Now young players are inevitably going to go to league as there aren’t enough professional places in union for them.
JimC said | November 11th 2009 @ 4:58pm | Report comment
Brett McKay
About Gasnier not being able to hold down a place in the Stade Francais team – not sure where you get your info. I’ve watched almost all the games this seasona and he’s been selected, even when the new coaching team came in in. He’s been a gamebreaker on countless occasions.
The problem is he’s being played on the wing – not that he can’t hold down a spot.
Brett McKay said | November 12th 2009 @ 12:49pm | Report comment
Jim, I actually meant that he seems to be swapping between wing and centre a lot, not that he can’t get a game…
jus de couchon said | November 12th 2009 @ 7:38am | Report comment
Here In England weve learnt the hard way , with some exceptions , that good R.L players rarely have the skills , technique , and speed of thought to adopt to the challenges of Rugby.
Paley said | November 12th 2009 @ 8:43am | Report comment
Very few union players who step up to rugby make the grade immediately. Most union players struggle when stepping up to rugby but their clubs put in the time and effort to help them adapt to the handling code. It seems that when rugby players make the step down to union the clubs are too keen to have them playing from the off.
Matt S said | November 12th 2009 @ 8:10am | Report comment
“speed of thought ” Jus de couchon this is where the inherent bias of union comes to the fore. A league player has to think in micro seconds where a union player thinks in tens of seconds even minutes. The confusing thing for a league player to adapt to ids why exopand minutes of energy to gain the ball to only kick it away again. And even union writers have stated the kicking is mostly aimless.
RL players have the skills and technique to figure out a play in quick time something union, in its current state, will fail to ever appreciate. This is a reason I would not like to see any other league player go to union and waste their talent. Welcome back Timana.
kingplaymaker said | November 12th 2009 @ 8:35am | Report comment
jus no we haven’t. What about Danny Williams, Chris Ashton, Stephen Myler, Shontayne Hape at the moment?
Chev Walker and Karl Pryce hardly played enough for us to know.
Then what about Jason Robinson?
smithy09 said | November 12th 2009 @ 8:59am | Report comment
The Brumbies in 96 were formed from discards of the other 2 “big”guns and have been the most successful Australian Province. Melbourne Rebels in 2007 lost the Grand Final of the ARC with a team that was made up solely of those who couldn’t crack the other teams. League players are not the answer, sure maybe 1 or 2 young ones, it’s these fringe people this new team muxt cater for. People with the common goal of a point to prove often come together and prove it in a mighty fashion.
kingplaymaker said | November 12th 2009 @ 9:04am | Report comment
Smithy in the abundance of new teams I propose, there’s room for both.
Matt said | November 12th 2009 @ 9:57am | Report comment
I’m sure if the ARU truely wanted to create a national club competition then they could do easily. All it would require is a reshaping of the club landscape. Take nominations for all clubs interested in joing the top level club comp (with around 10 teams being needed for the top teir). Set up a selection criteria based on assets and predicted marketability of each club. Criteria would also stipulate a certain bias towards clubs outside of Sydney and Brisbane, so as to prevent the 10 team comp being solely represented by this area. If the selection process is adequately transparent then the teams who miss out can see where they went wrong. Teams below the top 10 Premiership level go into the 2nd level Championship, with promotion/relegation operating between the two teirs. It wouldn’t be THAT hard to set up, it’s just that I don’t beleive there is a genuine desire from the ARU for anything resembling this setup.
It is a shame though, because like KPM has suggested, when you are only playing against teams in your own nation (like the AFL and NRL) Australian teams are always winning. Games are also always accesible for fans and broadcasters to televise. So surely it’s worth more to the TV excecs and provides more fanfare than a Super14 type comp.
More teams is also a better way of strengthening the Wallabies. All the talk of buying players like Inglis, Hayne etc are less effective at making the Wallabies win games and are instead more beneficial in garnering media hype (ala Hunt to GCFC). If the ARU wanted to get a better return on investment then they need more paying opportunities for younger players. The NRL does so well with creating star players because they have a constant flow of young talent wanting to earn money to play Footy. And realistically you can earn more as a 18, 19, 20 yo in the Toyota Cup and NRL than you can on a Super 14 development contract. More teams does dilute the quality concentration of talent, but that in turn allows more youngsters to get contracts sooner. So the benefit for the ARU (in having more teams and more players) is that players like Jared Wairea-Hargreaves wouldn’t switch over to play league for Manly because there is more opportunity to start their professional career. Fans love young prodigies and love talking about “how great of a player they’ll be”, just like James O’Connor (who still isn’t THAT great) and just like potential League converts. The NRL has an abundance of very young kids who garner a lot of positive attention, as opposed to older guys at the end of their careers like Willie Mason (unfair example I know).
As for the games in general. I think that there is a growing concern over the size of rugby players, especially from the European media. There is also a lot of concern over the large amount of kicking in rugby and the mystery of the breakdown. More and more even the NH media are complaining about the lack of attacking play and that the “entertainment” value of the game is a cornerstone of the codes success.
I really wonder if professionalism (and all of the above mentioned factors associated with it’s transition) could lead to the removal of two players from the forward pack. Now, Union fans bare with me on this one. And League fans, don’t look too smug. With the removal of the flankers from the pack we’d (in my opinion) alleviate a lot of the issues plaguing rugby at present (and for the foreseeable future).
Firstly, without flankers in the scrum you remove a lot of the pressure on the front rows and lead to less collapses and front row injuries. Without flankers you need more mobile locks and props. This will reverse the trend of heavier and heavier players. Props will needs to get around the park and attend more rucks, but they will also still be needed to bookend the scrum. Locks will be needed to do more at rucks and to make more turnovers, but they will also be needed at lineout time. So, what you’ll likely see is one lock being the atheltic aerial type (ala Matfield, Ali Williams, Dan Vickerman) and the other becoming a more taller flanker like player (ala Adam Thomson, Dean Mumm, Juan Smith).
Less flankers would mean less players on the field and therefore more space to run – a major step in opening the professional game up again. There would also be less breakdowns too, with more space to run in and less forwards to scrap for and slow the breadowns. There should also then be more chance of back running the ball back rather than kicking, yet with less players a good kick would still be vital.
Also, with less players the game becomes more aerobic. So all players would become lighter and impact injuries should therefore be reduced, helped by the fact that less rucks should occur.
With 2 less players on the field you also would reduce the highest cost in the professional game, that is the players wages.
This allows you to pay the current guys more, making the money even more impressive, and you also remove the current issues of player depth in some nations.
All the while you have maintained all the core body types and general game play that make Rugby so (traditionally) great to watch. I don’t see any of this as a stretch of the imagination. More the issue comes with fans of the game feeling somehow that it’s too revolutionary of that it is somehow a moral victory for rugby league (which it isn’).
In my mind this solution fixes a lot of the major issue plaguing our sport.
The next step (and I KNOW this will make people even more suspicious that I’m somehow a closet Leaguie) would be to reduce the value of a try to 4 and the value of a penalty and conversion to 2. The reason for this is simple. 3 points for a penalty makes a kick at goal (these days from over 50m!) worth 60% of a try. 2 and 4 points makes it only 50%. People argue that if you reduce the value of a penalty then it leads to an increase in cheating. My answer would be that we should encourage teams to instead (if they receive a penalty) to kick to the corner and run a try through for 200% more points than the penalty goal. These days territory is so vital in Rugby that teams so very rarely get the territory AND possession to score with. That is what a penalty should be giving them, a great TRY scoring opportunity, no the instant (everyone watch while one man) kicks of a goal.
I think Rugby is the greatest game in the world and has more than it’s fair share of incredible moments. But I also beleive that technlogy and money has caught up with the old amateur game after 15 years and it’s time to look at how we can make a great game even better (both on and off the field).
And if in Australia, New Zealand and England that League teams decide to re-introduce competitve scrums and lineouts then we can go VERY close to having the two sibling codes of rugby back living together as brothers. At that stage look our world, even more so than now!
kingplaymaker said | November 12th 2009 @ 10:38am | Report comment
Matt I had thought of adding changes to the rules, albeit more humble ones than those you proposed (just the ELVs again but better refereed), as a fourth action for O’Neill to take. Certainly something needs to be done, as the current rules are only leading to boredom and confusion, and again it’s a moment for the whole southern hemisphere to be bold in order to protect its own territory.
Of course you’re right that a national competition would be easy to set up. The only thing holding it back is fear. But this is exactly what the ARU must not be subject too. While the AFL and NRL make brave expansionist moves, the ARU cowers like a mouse at any such thought, petrified that it might go wrong, and in the meantime loses players and supporters to its rivals. There will come a time soon though when it’s a case of making bold moves or facing collapse.
I agree that in the long-term a national competition is a better solution than bringing over league players. However it is just that, a long, or at best medium-term solution. League imports are instant in their affect and would boost the national team until the player development at work in the national competition came through, which would take time.
The problem now is that as the Wallabies form so much of the interest in rugby union, if they lose the popularity of the whole game plummets, which guarantees a yo-yoing strength in the game until they are the unbeatable number 1 ranked team in the world. The Super programme is also very international, and lacks glamour without a professional competition below it to set it in relief.