Shute Shield should be local rugby’s third tier
Roar Guru
By Working Class Rugger, 24 Feb 2010 Working Class Rugger is a Roar Guru
- Tagged:
- Rugby Union, shute shield, wallabies
110 Have your say
While reading Jim L’Estrange’s responses to questions tabled by my fellow Roarers, I noticed something unusual when it came to anything we are provided by those who administer our game.
First of all, it appeared to be quite candid, informative and most notably prompt when compared with previous Q&As. It almost appeared that Mr L’Estrange actually held some interest in the issues raised in the original article.
My opinion of the man has since been elevated.
Secondly, he brought up the NSWRU’s intention to elevate Shield Shute to our third tier of rugby.
While the first point was certainly refreshing, the second really got me thinking: a National Competition has long since been a contentious issue within Australian Rugby, never really attempted until 2007, with the ARU’s one and only shot proving to be financially unsustainable.
Some argue that the Shute Shield already claims the mantle of our third tier, and considering the number of professional players who return after Super Rugby, this could be considered the truth.
This would be all well and good if the Shute Shield in its current situation doesn’t provide the same level of competition below Super Rugby that the ANZC and Currie Cup do for our SANZAR counterparts.
Even though the Shute Shield contributes to our current lack of competition, I believe establishing another Green Field Competition would be a fatal mistake. Simply, it will cost far too much.
So onto my conclusion.
Use the Shute Shield as a means to an end. Instead of running out and trying to re-establish the ARC, the ARU and NSWRU should look to professionalize the Shute Shield.
While having dots on the map looks impressive, economics simply won’t allow it. By taking the Shute Shield from its current format, keeping at least initially the 12 competing districts to professionalism could finally provide Australian Rugby with the appropriate level of competition needed to not only remain competitive now, but into the future.
With the new TV deal to be finalised reasonably soon, a portion of those rights should be used to provide both the best of the rest in Club land, the opportunity to play and train more professionally, and up and coming juniors a pathway to develop further in rugby.
However, this move would need to be accompanied by a few requirements.
Firstly, each club would need to not only form relationships with junior clubs in the areas, but venture out to claim country zone juniors as their own. Creating relationships with juniors will be key.
Secondly, this move will likely force some of the existing Sydney Clubs to re-think their ability to remain sole entities in the Shield. While Clubs of the Sydney Uni and Randwick ilk could very possibly do so, others will need to join to field competitive organisations though and this may be unpopular.
But I would list the Western Sydney teams as protected species, to remain as sole entities with the assistance of the ARU.
Elevating the Shute Shield will inevitably draw the best players from the Brisbane and Perth competitions, most likely depleting their quality.
But that’s partly the point.
Concentrating the best players outside of the Wallaby squad into the one competition will lead to a higher quality of player available for Super Rugby. This could also lead to the organic formation of some sort of East Coast Championship, with the possibility of forcing the Brisbane Clubs to work together to counter the Shield by entering their own teams.
It would also offer the Rebels Academy side a regular competition to participate.
When thinking in terms of cost, there’s no travel nor accommodation costs.
The teams already have grounds and the Shield already has media exposure, regardless how limited it may be.
Plus, given the increase in competition, it could be a more attractive option for digital TV. This approach isn’t new.
Just look at the NRL. Once upon a time it was the NSWRL plundering the QRL of talent.
The opportunity does exist.
Enjoy sports? Enjoy a bargain? All Sports Online has your favourite sporting brands at up to 70% off. Online only, premium quality sporting goods and merchandise at discounted prices. Get a deal now.
Do you have what it takes to become a sports writer? Write for the roar
Rugby Union articles
- Will Super Rugby crowds continue their slide? (201)
- Will South African rugby force a Super 21 by 2018? (173)
- The real story of how John O’Neill turned Manchester City down (70)
- Dan Parks and the unsolved questions of expat rugby (65)
- Australian teams at Super disadvantage (58)
- Pocock set to be named new Force skipper (56)
- Can the ‘Tahs win the battle after losing the Waugh? (51)
- Wales show Southern Hemisphere how to play running rugby (29)
- What opening matches of Six Nations taught us (19)
- Will Super Rugby crowds continue their slide? (201)
- Clinical Chiefs cost rusty Rebels in Corio (9)
- Six Nations shows rugby is a parochial game at heart (5)
- Goose’s Super Rugby up-and-comer XV for 2012 (29)
- What does the future hold for the Six Nations (50)
- Explore:
- Rugby Union, shute shield, wallabies
rugbyfuture said | February 24th 2010 @ 2:11am | Report comment
except it would be to the detriment of all other states, and would isolate the competition to the sydney metropolitan area, one problem which both the AFL and NRL are trying to remove from their competitions because of supporter concentration and fiscal unsustainability
a new third tier could easily defeat the financial problems the ARU had on the first try through private investment and broader sponsorship deals and the realisation that its part of long term sustainability rather than short term.
Sharminator said | February 24th 2010 @ 2:36am | Report comment
Club rugby is the third tier to Australian rugby .. and always has been.
Before the Super 12 players used to get picked straight from club rugby into the Wallabies, and even today, country or interstate players who have rugby ambitions go to Sydney or Brisbane as their club competitions are light years ahead of anywhere else.
The Sydney and Brisbane 1st grade premierhips are where virtually all Australian professional rugby players come from.
Recent ARU figures show that 75% of Australian rugby players are in NSW and QLD. ACT and WA each have 8% of Aus rugby players … but the reality is that 90% of their Super players are from either from NSW or Qld. The other states have insignificant player numbers.
What the ARU needs to do is put money into the Sydney and Brisbane Premierships, align Super teams with clubs, in return for them having first refusal on signing any players their clubs develop.
e.g. Victoria, WA and ACT each get aligned with two club sides in the Sydney and Brisbane Premierships (as well as development in their own states). NSW is aligned with the others in NSW and Qld with the other clubs in Qld. The super clubs then invest money/work with/provide training resources etc to the clubs.
I actually liked the idea of the ARC … where the clubs were from etc, but I think the problem is it´s financial unsustainability. Super 14/15 and the Wallabies is our product competing with AFL and NRL.
A new, lower level ARC/Third tier .. whatever you call it .. just won´t attract sponsors, spectators or interest, as by definition it will be without the Wallabies, and, once the revamped Super 15 next year gets going into July .. without Super 15 players.
Australian´s arnt interested in an inferior product ..
A 3rd tier already exists .. with sponsors .. supporters … and success for over 100 years. Sydney and Brisbane club rugby is the heartland of Australian rugby and relegating it to unimportant could have very negative consequences for aussie rugby.
We currently sit 3rd in winter sports in Australia .. but soccer is making strides … we need to focus on making the new Melbourne team successful, marketing the new expanded local rounds of Super 15 .. to compete with NRL and AFL .. and of course the Wallabies.
Add extra funding into Sydney and Brisbane clubs as a 3rd tier .. and voila .. no problems.
AndyS said | February 24th 2010 @ 4:12pm | Report comment
Interesting….the last numbers I saw were that NSW and Queensland provide 74% of the players, but already receive 80% of the ARU funding to club rugby. Sydney gets $2.276 million and Brisbane gets $1.02 million, while WA and the ACT get $200k each despite having 17 per cent of the players between them. It will be interesting to see what happens to the $475k that Victoria currently gets once their professional team is up and running.
Ora said | February 24th 2010 @ 6:18am | Report comment
The Shute Shield is equivalent to the New Zealand Club competition, the top clubs from most of the Provinces would easily challenge the best on offer in the Shute shield and I would suspect this would be the same case for the Top South African clubs.
Australia is missing that vital link between Super and Shute rugby and until the ARU does something about it Australian rugby will continue to struggle.
Maybe the ARU could look at introducing a conference system and splitting the states into various regions like far North QLD, Central Coast, Brisbane West, Brisbane East, NSW Central, Sydney City, Western Sydney etc, Maybe WA, VIC SA and NT could play as a state until the numbers support a few more teams.
LT80 said | February 24th 2010 @ 7:59am | Report comment
The provincial sides are part of rugby union history in NZ and SA, but have no history here. We had clubs and state rep teams.
You’re right that the level below Super rugby needs to be strengthened and improved, but imposing a completely new setup just because it works in other countries is the wrong solution.
Also, the many of the clubs in Sydney originally grew from the idea of “district” sides. Some of those districts would have larger populations than many of the provincial areas in NZ.
Working Class Rugger said | February 24th 2010 @ 8:27am | Report comment
I have no interest in imposing the same setup as either NZ or SA. I’m looking to emulate the NRL and AFL and how they became what they are today.
LT80 said | February 24th 2010 @ 8:39am | Report comment
Sorry, I was replying to Ora. I think your idea is a good one, and I totally agree with you.
I think rugby needs to look at what has worked in other sports in this country, not what has worked for rugby in other countries.
Personally I would eventuallly like to see a comp with perhaps 6 Sydney clubs, 3 South-East Qld clubs, Perth, Melbourne, and Canberra.
Ora said | February 24th 2010 @ 3:29pm | Report comment
you are missing the point completely LT80, how long will it take the ARU and Australian fans to realise your shute shield are exactly what we have in NZ and SA at the club level, it’s about time Australia created some history and started grouping clubs together to form county teams after the shute shield has played out and form stronger teams and then a stronger competition ala Currie Cup and ANZC,
You need to get out of this mindset that you can survive on a club competition because it’s quite clear you can’t, a bigger catchment area and localisation of teams will create a supporter base and create rivalries within States, Provinces ets.
Here’s an Example Look at the Taranaki Club competion they have 10 clubs NPOB, Clifton, Tukapa, Spotswood Old Boys, Inglewood, Coastal, Stratford, Southern and Border after these teams complete the Club competition the equvilant of the Shute shield they then select the best from the ten and form Taranaki the ANZC team who then in turn makes players eligible for the Hurricanes along with Manawatu, Hawkes Bay and Wellington who form the core of the Hurricanes.
As you can see there is a clear path and much competition Club, Provincial, Super then International.
Australian rugby needs to stop looking for shortcuts and implement something more meaningful as is you will always be one step behind no matter what club set up you start NZ and SA will always have that one more level in between.
Do you want to be a part of history or do you want to create history?
LT80 said | February 24th 2010 @ 5:41pm | Report comment
Ora, there are probably 70 or 80 rugby clubs in Sydney, and only 12 of those play in the premier competition which is the Shute Shield.
There rest play in the sub-district competition. Some clubs have 5 or 6 grades plus colts teams.
The Taranaki club competition is not the equivalent of the Shute Shield. If anything it’s probably closer to the level of the sub-district comp.
Ora said | February 25th 2010 @ 7:07am | Report comment
You are so far removed from reality it is laughable, In New Zealand we have a deeply rooted rugby culture that is streaks ahead of Australia. Our provincial clubs would tear your sub district teams to pieces. Like I said the top teams from the provinces would easily challenge your Shute Shield Teams
DingoBob said | February 24th 2010 @ 6:58am | Report comment
Does everyone want a NSWcentric rugby competition. The Canberra Vikings tried playing in both the Brisbane and NSW Premierships but got booted when they won.
Any comp put together in this vane would have to have influence from all of the states and can not be isolated to one single area or the interest will eventually die and so will the comp and it will be the ARC all over again.
Midfielder said | February 24th 2010 @ 7:40am | Report comment
Clap clap WR … hope you are right…
Bruce Ross said | February 24th 2010 @ 7:41am | Report comment
Ora said: “The Shute Shield is equivalent to the New Zealand Club competition, the top clubs from most of the Provinces would easily challenge the best on offer in the Shute shield.” Rubbish!
DingoBob said: “The Canberra Vikings tried playing in both the Brisbane and NSW Premierships but got booted when they won.” In what year did the Vikings win the Sydney Premiership?
Hammer said | February 24th 2010 @ 1:52pm | Report comment
Why is that statement rubbish ? … they’re club sides nothing more nothing less .. and from the quality on display on the ABC on Saturday afternoons they certainly wouldn’t hold their own in the NPC … Auckland club level is about right from what I’ve seen
Bruce Ross said | February 24th 2010 @ 2:39pm | Report comment
The statement that I described as rubbish was that “the top clubs from most of the Provinces would easily challenge the best on offer in the Shute shield.” That is “most of the Provinces” would have at least one team that is at least as strong as the best teams in the Sydney Premiership.
That is so manifestly absurd that it hardly warrants arguing against. But let’s give it a try.
The top club in Sydney from last year, Sydney Uni, will this weekend field nine starting players in Super 14 teams. Eight of the nine have been developed through Uni’s own Colts program.
Now can either Ora or Hammer identify the clubs in the various NZ provinces which are of similar standard? Not just in Auckland but in “most of” the other provinces.
The Sydney Premiership competition which is at best semi-professional is nevertheless of high standard. It does not deserve to be rubbished.
LT80 said | February 24th 2010 @ 2:58pm | Report comment
Bruce, when the ARC was played, Sydney Uni supplied quite a lot of players to the teams.
I seem to recall that Uni came out with a statement saying that they wanted to take part in the competition as a stand-alone club in the future…..is that correct?
Do you know what Sydney Uni’s position is? Would they want to take part in a national club comp?
rugbyfuture said | February 24th 2010 @ 3:01pm | Report comment
they did and probably still do, but it won’t be allowed
Ora said | February 24th 2010 @ 3:35pm | Report comment
Bruce what do you know of NZ club rugby?
From your bullish statement it tells me you know very little, from the taranaki region alone I would say NPOB and Coastal would be more than a challenge for your shute shield teams. Not to mention Ponsonby, Teachers Eastern from Auckland, you forget that rugby is an obsession in this country and we are streaks ahaead of Australia in that level. The Sydney premiership is nowhere near the level you believe it to be and that is clear from the inconsistent results Austral;ian teams put out year after year. I don’t have time to go through how many super 14 starters are spread throughouot the various clubs while they may not have nine you do forget out talent is more evenly spread making our competitions alot stroinger than what the Shute shield can over
sheek said | February 24th 2010 @ 7:44am | Report comment
WCR,
Well, there’s always two sides to a coin.
You look at the NRL, & it grew out of a predominately Sydney-centric comp. 8 of the 16 NRL teams are Sydney based, while another shares part of its time in Sydney (St.George-Illawarra).
You look at the AFL, & it grew out of a predominately Melbourne-centric comp. 10 of the 16 AFL teams are Melbourne based, while a further two (Swans & Lions) have relocated interstate.
So what you’re suggesting for rugby union is a continuation of this theme. Perhaps 10 of 12 Sydney clubs plus two from Brisbane, & one each from Canberra, Melbourne, Perth & Gold Coast?
But which two Sydney clubs miss out? Combine Parramatta & Penrith into West Sydney? Combine West Harbour & Southern Districts into Sydney? And while Sydney University might (might I say) work well as premier rugby district club, how will it attract wider national support?
Immediately you combine the 4 weakest Sydney clubs into two, but they also exist in the largest youth catchment areas in Australia, let alone Sydney. That’s hardly progressive foresight,is it? All for the sake of preserving the establishment clubs.
I believe the other states must be developed.
This is where the future growth of the game will come from most spectacularly. South Australia is the next frontier. The future well being of Australian rugby is based on its national development.
NSW & Queensland are close to saturation in terms of the rate of player development. It’s in WA & Victoria that we can hope to achieve the greatest rate of increase in playing numbers. We are already witnessing this in WA, & hopefully, with Victoria now part of the super rugby, we can hope for further playing increases here.
Australian rugby won’t progress sufficiently while those in power, or with influence, cling to a Sydney-centric concept.
Working Class Rugger said | February 24th 2010 @ 8:25am | Report comment
Sheek
At least someone got the point of emulating a tried and trusted technique to achieve a purpose. I agree having 12 Sydney teams wouldn’t be to the benefit on any such competition in the long run. But as I briefly mentioned in reality only a number of the current Club could go it alone. To remain competitive some will either need to form partnerships with other clubs such as Manly and Warringah or fall by the way side. This will open the door for outside entrants. I’ll admit its not perfect but in terms of exoense it could very well be sustainable.
I also agree regarding youth development. RugbyWA have done a great job in growing the game in their neck of the woods. And its likely the same growth we be replicated in Victoria. And I agree SA is the next frontier. But that’s up to the ARU.
AndyS said | February 24th 2010 @ 4:19pm | Report comment
Interesting point Sheek. So if AFL is based in Vic and NRL is based in Sydney, maybe they should use the Brisbane comp instead of the Shute Shield? Folk seem happy enough with the idea of gutting the other comps, but maybe it should be the other way around. Sauce for the goose and all, and they could expand back into Sydney in time…
Working Class Rugger said | February 24th 2010 @ 8:13am | Report comment
The Shute Shield is the Third Tier competition in Australia. There’s no denying that. But as it stands it doesn’t provide an appropriate level of Competition needed for Australian Rugby to remain competitive both in Super Rugby and Internationally. The ARU tried to start the ARC from scratch, and due largely to the expenses run up by travel and accomodation costs the Championship folded.
Ora
Maybe the equal to Clubs in NZ or SA but not the ANZC or Currie Cup. Those competitions and the quality they produce are the real difference. We need that level too.
Rugbyfuture
Finances will always be an issue. They won’t be easily defeated. Already the Shute Shield is our next best Comp and this would remain so. By initially centralizing a comp costs apart from paying player’s would be very lower and sustainable. That’s what I’m looking for sustainability.
DingoBob
My idea is very NSW centric but in time that would change. Its a start. To be honest not all of the Sydney clubs will be able to go it alone. The Randwicks, Uni’s and maybe Easts could but some of the other’s would need to look at merging their top line player’s to afford such as competition. This would allow Canberra and any other teams wanting entry to qualify in there place. I’m open to this. With the exception that both Penrith and Parramatta are kept and supported by the ARU.
With a higher level competition it would draw the best player’s from Queensland, WA and Victoria.
Finally, I’m not talking 6 figure salaries. Just enough that those participating can dedicate more time to Rugby. I’m more interested in providing a higher level of competition for those below Super Rugby eqivalent of the ANZC or Currie Cup. Maybe it wouldn’t be that attractive to sponsors but we don’t know that. It’s already broadcast on ABC and last year saw a significant viewing increase.
Ora said | February 24th 2010 @ 3:37pm | Report comment
WCR that is what I have been saying all along, The shute shield is nowhere close to the CC and ANZC and more on par with our provincial club competitions, until Australia implements another tier Australian rugby will struggle greatly.
sheek said | February 24th 2010 @ 8:48am | Report comment
WCR,
Elevating the Shute Shield as the 3rd tier comp would of course open up old wounds. It’s obvious all 12 teams can’t get a seat at the high table. So who misses out? Who merges?
Surely the shit-fight this would create is not worth the hassle? There would be too much blood-letting. Besides which, the clubs who most likely should miss out or merge would most likely be the ones elevated. Hardly a blueprint for success!
I can accept Sydney Uni as a Sydney premier rugby club (grudgingly), but I can’t see its appeal in any national club comp. None whatsoever.
The matter of merging western & south-western clubs in large youth catchment areas has been addressed earlier, & simply doesn’t make any sense for a code wanting to progress.
The ARC was a noble concept, but very poorly managed in the end. We should be mindful of “throwing the baby out with the bathwater”. The concept of the ARC wasn’t the problem, it was the structure of implementation.
Then of course, there is the APC. The provincial concept has worked wonders for NZ & SA, so why do we Aussies think we’re so different? Next year in super rugby, we’ll have our APC – NSW, Queensland, ACT, Victoria & WA.
For rugby to progress in Australia we need to get as many of the country’s youth as we possibly can, playing our game. The game won’t progress if political power of the game is retained in Sydney’s eastern suburbs & lower north shore, & Brisbane’s river frontage suburbs.
The vast majority of the youth of the country live elsewhere!
Working Class Rugger said | February 24th 2010 @ 10:44am | Report comment
Sheek
For Rugby to progress we do need more children into our game. However, I’m not focusing on that at the moment. One of the major flaws of Rugby in Australia apart from its lapse attitude regarding development is opportunity. More specifically the lack of.
The ARC was noble in intention. As you have already mentioned it was poorly executed. I don’t want to see another attempt along the same lines only for it to fail. Both the NRL and AFL developed their competitions via the route I’m suggesting. Their will inevitably be several bun fights but it is what’s needed. As much as we would like Rugby to further branch out nationally we also have to acknowledge the areas which have sustained it over a long period of time.
The ARU investment should only contribute to the Clubs funds. The Clubs would need to satisfy financial criteria. With all the likely to want in compromises will be made. Over time teams from Canberra, Brisbane/Qeensland, Perth and even possibly Adelaide could enter. Use what we have now and build for the future.
sheek said | February 24th 2010 @ 1:24pm | Report comment
WCR,
‘Opportunity’. Very true. We only have 4 fully professional rugby teams, 5 next year. This compared to 16 AFL, 16 NRL & 12 HAL teams.
On the other hand, we will struggle to fill 5 professional teams effectively. But its still a necessary exercise to do. In the past I’ve suggested that the bottom-up & top-down approach needs to be done concurrently. The situation is too critical (lack of playing numbers) to focus on one approach & not the other.
The youth require a clear pathway of opportunity. A road of progression from juniors to Wallabies.
WCR, I just couldn’t let the 12 Sydney premiership clubs decide the future direction of Australian rugby. Let’s say they decided 8 Sydney clubs would make-up part of a national comp. Guess which 4 clubs would be cut?
Penrith, Parramatta, Southern Districts & West Harbour. Precisely where the vast majority of Sydney’s youth are located!!!
Self-preservation only takes you so far, but is ultimately doomed at the expense of all…..