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.

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!

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.

The point is that it can be done, and Vickerman would only agree if he was interested anyway.

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.

Chev Walker and Karl Pryce hardly played enough for us to know.

Then what about Jason Robinson?

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.

I’m not giving any credit to the sport of rubgy league in saying this, but I admit they have some good players.

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.

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.

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.

It’s hardly watered down given it has the necessary number of trained players to field 16 teams.

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.

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

Barely, and no we don’t.