Shute Shield should be local rugby’s third tier
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.
Recommend this story.
The Turkey 10
The Turkey 10 teams have now been selected, as Wild Turkey Bourbon's sport sponsorship kicks into the next exciting phase.
Choose which side you're going to support and get in the running to win $2,500!
Simply visit Wild Turkey Australia on Facebook for your chance to win.
Find out more.
The Crowd Says (110) | Page 2 of Comments
Have Your Say
Do you have what it takes to become a sports writer? Write for the roar
Rugby Union articles
- Reds back in contention, but Waratahs need a cleanout (287)
- What Hansen’s first squad means for the Wallabies (191)
- Will Cooper and Mitchell be back in time for Wallaby selection? (156)
- Who will be in the Wallabies’ backrow? (155)
- ALAN JONES: We have the players, it’s the coaches that are to blame (153)
- CAMPO: Will Deans change the style of the Wallabies play? (128)
- Tahs out. Brumbies win ugly. And Quade’s back! (124)
- Rocky Elsom axed from Wallabies (18)
- The burning question: Beale at 15 or 10? (109)
- Hola Argentina, and welcome to the Rugby Championship! (12)
- White welcomes Reds’ rugby battle tactics (67)
- Rebels want fast start against Hurricanes (4)
- Beale firms as Wallabies’ five-eighth (5)
- Force set for Mitchell Super Rugby return
- Hola Argentina, and welcome to the Rugby Championship! (12)
- Irish coaches looking to head Western Force (12)
- Dull Super Rugby coaches equal dull rugby (37)
- Coaching, not lack of depth, the issue for Australian rugby (27)
- Super Rugby round 14 preview (4)
- Road to the 2015 World Cup starts in June (19)
- Six lessons Robbie Deans must learn (Part 2) (81)
- Explore:
- Rugby Union, shute shield, wallabies


February 24th 2010 @ 11:46am
JF said | February 24th 2010 @ 11:46am | Report comment
The clubs are not interested in a professional competition, if they were they would have done it a long time ago. By changing the Shute Shield and Brisbane Premierships into a pro comp, some clubs will miss out but more importantly some administrators will lose some of their influence on Australian Rugby. This is the major opposition we have to forming a national club competition – leave clubland as it is, this is not the way to a national comp.
I think we should stop thinking of the step down to a third tier, and start thinking of a more sideways movement from our second tier. A provincial competition does not require a completely new competition – all it requires is the forming of 3 additional provincial teams. 3 teams plus the existing 5 is a domestic provincial comp, 2 more in Sydney, 1 more in SEQ, – done. The point is not to dissolve the existing provincial teams, keep them as they are. The competition would be run post Super comp in line with NPC and CC. After a couple of years Super Rugby is replaced by a qualifiaction tournament from the 3 SH provincial comps.
February 24th 2010 @ 12:15pm
Working Class Rugger said | February 24th 2010 @ 12:15pm | Report comment
JF
Your model is very similar to that Sheek has been touted for some time. In prinicple if it could be done I would definitely support that move. I am simply looking for away to increase our current depth. However, it is unlikely in the next 5 or so years unless SANZAR could re-neogiate in upcoming deal with News during the lifetime of its upcoming agreement.
I would like to see at least 3 conference’s of 8 teams in future Super Rugby competitions based along HEC qualifying systems. Though I must say if we were to bring in 3 more teams then maybe we should bring in a 4th. Western Sydney, NSW Country, Gold Coast and Adelaide.
February 24th 2010 @ 2:10pm
Brett McKay said | February 24th 2010 @ 2:10pm | Report comment
WCR, JF’s model above (3 Syd, 2 Bris, Canb, Perth, Melb) is EXACTLY what the ARC was set up as. Sheek has basically taken this structure forward into an revamped HC-style set-up for Super Rugby, whereby the 8 Aust teams play off (Sheek fobs this off, but it’s been labelled it the Sheek Shield), and this becomes the mystical third tier we all want. The top 2 or 3 teams from the Sheek Shield then go to the Super Rugby stage, and play against their SA and NZ counterparts, which is obviously very similar to your “would like to see”….
February 24th 2010 @ 2:24pm
sheek said | February 24th 2010 @ 2:24pm | Report comment
Thanks Brett,
Although deep, deep down the APC remains my favourite working model, I’m always happy to discuss an ARC under the philosophy of “if you can’t beat ‘em, then join ‘em”!
February 24th 2010 @ 2:34pm
Working Class Rugger said | February 24th 2010 @ 2:34pm | Report comment
Brett
Yes, that’s true. And I actually agree with pretty much all of Skeek’s previous suggestions. The HEC format, 8-9 teams etc. But to be honest the reality of this relies heavily on SANZAR and its future decisions regarding Super Rugby. Though it could happen considering the SA’s have opened the door the Argentina RU to enter a team in the Vodacom Cup. From a few Argentine based poster’s the ARFU want to use this development to one day form their own Professional Conference to link up with Super Rugby so we will see.
I just want this issue fixed. To get something in place to falling address one of Australian Rugby’s great shortfalls. That and its junior development issues.
February 24th 2010 @ 1:14pm
Bay35Pablo said | February 24th 2010 @ 1:14pm | Report comment
I have been saying for a while a way to do it is to use the Shute Shield as an equivalent of the NSWRL circa 1982.
The alternative is we leave clubland as it is, and similare to NZ, and after the Super 15 ends we have an equivalent of the ANZC using the APC.
Field all the Super teams (without Wallabies), plus 3 more. NSW Country out of Newcastle, Qld Country out of Gold Coast, and a Barbarians side playing out of Western Sydney. There are enough players in the academy sides to cover the Wallaby players.
February 24th 2010 @ 1:33pm
sheek said | February 24th 2010 @ 1:33pm | Report comment
Bay/WCR/JF,
One of the other problems with the ARC not often highlighted was the creation of 8 new franchises on top of the 4 existing super franchises.
In effect then, we had 12 professional teams with its own CEO, head coach, players, operating budget & expenses, etc. The point being, we should perhaps have added only another 4 teams to join the 4 super teams. No wonder (under the circumstances) the cost nearly killed off the ARU’s entire total finances!
Frankly, as I’ve suggested elsewhere, we have two paths open to us. First is the current path where we will have 5 provincial franchises over the next 5 years.
Second won’t happen unless the super rugby (S15) is changed to a Heineken Cup style format. But if it did, it would involve 8-10 provincial or national club teams, of which the top 3 or 4 (depending on format) qualify for SR (Heineken Cup style).
Unless Australian rugby has this flexibility, the first course of action will be with for a considerable time to come. Which also means clubland stays as it is, for better or worse…..
February 24th 2010 @ 1:36pm
rugbyfuture said | February 24th 2010 @ 1:36pm | Report comment
im writing an article on this subject and what the super 15 should be percieved as by australian ruggers.
February 24th 2010 @ 1:44pm
JF said | February 24th 2010 @ 1:44pm | Report comment
There have been 3 professional provincial rugby teams created from 1996 to 2010, so at this rate we will have another 3 by 2024! How does that sound?
February 24th 2010 @ 2:01pm
JF said | February 24th 2010 @ 2:01pm | Report comment
Working and Bay,
On the matter of the 3 additional teams, I like the idea that I think I have heard Sheek propose of breaking Sydney into 3 teams, East (tahs) and Nth Shore and West Sydney. Sydney is a massive place and the heart of rugby in Aus, it could handle 3 teams. Newcastle is a true RL town, I don’t think rugby would be well supported there, likewise I would be sceptical of SA’s ability (population and rugby culture) to carry a provincial side. GC is the obvious choice for a second qld team, although as a REAL country rugger, I cringe at the idea of QLD “Country” playing out of the Gold Coast.
And yes, 3 max! 3 additional teams would be the absolute limit of our country’s rugby talent.
February 24th 2010 @ 2:14pm
Brett McKay said | February 24th 2010 @ 2:14pm | Report comment
JF, as I’ve said to WCR just above here, this model your suggesting mirrors the ARC set-up, which proves that the concept was pretty sound afterall. If only the accountants were brought in earlier…
February 24th 2010 @ 2:21pm
JF said | February 24th 2010 @ 2:21pm | Report comment
One major difference, the ARC disregarded the strong, established brands of the super teams and started a completely new comp with new teams with idiotic names and weak geograhical references. I am a die-hard reds fan, but I was not interested in the Tornadoes or Aces!
This is why we should stop thinking about a “third tier” and think more along the lines of developing/expanding the second tier.
February 24th 2010 @ 2:27pm
rugbyfuture said | February 24th 2010 @ 2:27pm | Report comment
but those brands ie reds and tahs should be reserved back for rep state sides
although the rbanding was still crap, it certainly shouldnt be the super 14 sides whose names have been around for longer than a hundred years. The force, brumbies and rebels can do it but not NSW and QLD
February 24th 2010 @ 2:39pm
JF said | February 24th 2010 @ 2:39pm | Report comment
The reds and tahs are not rep sides as they once were or still are in RL, they are pro teams with contracted players.
It just seems crazy to have good, identifiable branding and passionate supporters, then halfway through the season we put these brands away make everyone build a second relationship with a second team for the rest of the season. Look at the support some of the big European teams enjoy, do you think they would have the same support if the HC teams were completely different from the T14/GP teams?
February 24th 2010 @ 3:13pm
rugbyfuture said | February 24th 2010 @ 3:13pm | Report comment
but the idea would be to dissolve the tahs and reds once the ARC was successful enough to stand on its own feet, then possibly bring them back again as rep sides (rugby SOO)
February 24th 2010 @ 2:50pm
Mike G said | February 24th 2010 @ 2:50pm | Report comment
JF, I agree with you in principle about developing the 2nd tier…But as Super rugby has expanded it brings up the obvious question…If there is to be more than 1 side in NSW or QLD, what will become of the Tahs & Reds???
My first thought would be to do what the A-League has done by simply changing the name of a state team, to that of the city (QLD Roar to the Brisbane Roar for example)- But the Waratahs are the side of NSW (damn, it’s the states floral emblem!!), not the side of Sydney, so what to do??
It may end up in 30 yrs that we have teams operating out of the north/south & west of the harbour….sound familiar???
For me, I think this is where the game is heading, more teams, slightly smaller grounds (ala Nth Syd Oval/Brookie etc)
To make these changes will of course take a lot of time, but as long as the best available “stars” are playing, the crowds will come.
Assuming this is the way the administrators go, there is also now the option of a Australian championship tournament between state sides…just at thought!!
February 24th 2010 @ 3:14pm
JF said | February 24th 2010 @ 3:14pm | Report comment
Just because the Tahs and Reds are NSW and QLD, it does not mean we can’t have more teams in these states. We can’t get caught up in having everything nice and neat and symetrical, with each state having its own team – Australian Rugby has just not evolved that way. I would like to see the Tahs and Reds brands remain in any proposed domestic comp, these teams would symbolise the old guard, the establishment teams that the new teams and supporters love to hate. A new team could be NSW Metro for example, based on the Nth Shore, and NSW Warriors based in the west -imagine the derbies.
February 24th 2010 @ 2:41pm
Working Class Rugger said | February 24th 2010 @ 2:41pm | Report comment
Brett
The difference is JF suggests that these teams come as part of future expansions in Super Rugby. Not a seperate Championship. I’m repeating myself slightly. But by using Super Rugby as the existing Competition would ensure both the finances and sustainability of these teams.
February 24th 2010 @ 3:06pm
Brett McKay said | February 24th 2010 @ 3:06pm | Report comment
WCR, if you look at all the proposals here, we’re all pretty much talking the same thing, just with different wrappers. Ultimately, a 6-8 team Australian comp/conference, with the top couple feeding into a HC-style Super rugby.
Funnily enough, that’s pretty much the original format for what became the S12, the top couple of NPC and CC teams would join the 3 Aust sides…
February 24th 2010 @ 2:46pm
Brett McKay said | February 24th 2010 @ 2:46pm | Report comment
no argument about the names JF!! I guess the issue is that the S14 players, particularly in Sydney and Brisbane needed to be distributed, and so hence the ARC boundaries being drawn as they were. I don’t disagree with your model, nor did I disagree with the ARC (in fact I fully supported it), but my point is it would seem funny to have the Reds plus Brisbane 2 playing in a new comp (likewise the Tahs plus Sydney 2 and 3). Where would you direct your support, for eg??
And so, in my opinion, that’s why the established S14 brands/franchises were overlooked, in favour of more city-focussed names (“East Coast” aside – they didn’t exactly represent Wilson’s Promentary to Cooktown). It was all about removing any possible confusion. You knew Perth Spirit was a different side to the Western Force, despite a lot of common players, and ditto the Canberra Vikings and the Brumbies.
I had the thought for a while that we could just play an 11-week APC/ARC during the TNs, with matches being curtain-raisers for Tests etc. Just use the five S15 teams, minus their Wallabies, and play it as a full H&A, two semis and a Final. It would seem easy, and would even allow the academy players to actually PLAY with the top squad for a change.
But with S15 running into August from next season, this becomes a little difficult, and so I’m basically veiwing the Australian S15 conference as the “third tier” as of next year. You could quite easily make that a comp within a comp, and let them play for the Templeton Cup or something. Hell, the Sheek Shield if need be…
February 24th 2010 @ 1:18pm
Empire said | February 24th 2010 @ 1:18pm | Report comment
I don’t particularly agree with the notion that the Sydney Comp should be the 3rd tier competition.
I still shudder remembering being told that as an ACT school, we were no longer allowed to compete in the waratah shield, as we had done (and won!) since 1981 – I don’t really want to have NSW calling the shots on the next tier comp.
Coming from the ACT, the local competition here is improving, and has done so for the past 4-5 years, with multiple clubs challenging for the title. More and more Super 14 standard players are being developed, or linking up with local clubs; Huia Edmonds, James Stannard, Justin Harrison, Christian Lealifano, and Peter Kimlin to mention a few.
I would think that with the increased amounts of local derbies in the Super 15, the local derbies will become a pseudo 3rd tier, with the playoff competition being restricted to 6 (?) teams and becoming more like a 2nd tier.
Hopefully, the increased number of derbies will mean greater profits for the respective Super Rugby sides. In our case, the Brumbies would hopefully invest part of this back into the local comp, to ensure its ongoing growth.
I believe that Rugby Union has a great established club structure across the nation – this should not be neglected. Besides, unlike Rugby League, where the NRL dominates the season, in Rugby we are blessed with a truly substantial international calender.
Fitting too much into a year for the sake of it will not guarantee a better outcome, and before we create a new tier, lets maximize the S14/15 and the local club competitions.
February 24th 2010 @ 1:51pm
sheek said | February 24th 2010 @ 1:51pm | Report comment
Expanding on Empire’s comments, my all-time favourite model for Australian rugby looked like this.
At the apex of the pyramid were the Wallabies. All roads lead to the Wallabies.
Below the Wallabies was an 8 team 1st division provincial comp, called Australian Provincial Championship (APC). Provinces with capital cities in brackets – NSW (Sydney), Queensland (Brisbane), ACT (Canberra), Victoria (Melbourne), WA (Perth), SA (Adelaide), Eastern Australia (Newcastle) & North Queensland (Townsville).
A static 6 team 2nd division, called Australian Rugby Shield (ARS), comprised – NSW Country, ACT Country, EA Country, Qld Country, Tasmania & Northern Territory. It’s possible the number of teams could be expanded with combined metro teams from Sydney, Brisbane, Canberra, Melbourne, Perth & Adelaide.
Now here’s a key point. In each provincial capital city would be a vibrant premier rugby district comp underpinning each province. The Shute Shield in Sydney; Hospital’s Cup in Brisbane; Dent Cup in Canberra, & so on for Melbourne, Perth, Adelaide, Newcastle & Townsville.
Below this you would have your suburban & regional comps, followed by high schools, primary schools & junior district clubs comps.
Of course, the top 4 provinces would qualify for a Heineken Cup style S16 (top 4 from each of Oz, NZ, SA & Argentina. Meanwhile, the 4 provinces who miss out on the S16 would join the 6 2nd division teams in a knockout comp held con-currently with the S16. Thus everyone remains employed!
Then of course, there would be the southern hemisphere 4N involving Wallabies, All Blacks, Springboks & Pumas.
For me, this remains the best model. But for reasons lost on me (well, I simply don’t think there is another ultimately superior model), many fans seem to prefer a national club (ARC) style comp.
The debate continues…..
February 24th 2010 @ 2:36pm
LT80 said | February 24th 2010 @ 2:36pm | Report comment
sheek, your structure could work, we won’t know unless it happens.
But for me, it seems like the teams are distributed on the basis of geography, rather than where people live, and most importantly where the rugby players and supporters live.
I come from Townsville. The population is about 200,000 and it’s big league town. But you would have one team there, and only one team in Sydney with over 4m people, and the most rugby supporters and players in the country.
It doesn’t make sense to me.
February 24th 2010 @ 4:06pm
sheek said | February 24th 2010 @ 4:06pm | Report comment
LT80,
Granted the provincial system works on the ‘senate’ philosophy, while the national club system works on the ‘house of reps’ philosophy….. !
But the provincial/state system has served Australian cricket, NZ rugby & SA rugby very well for over 100 years…..
February 24th 2010 @ 2:16pm
rugbyfuture said | February 24th 2010 @ 2:16pm | Report comment
Initial 10 teams:
Sydney (east and CBD)[ Eastern Suburbs(Sydney), Randwick, Sydney Uni]
Western Sydney (including west harbour country)[ Eastwood, Parramatta, Penrith, West Harbour]
Central coast (north shore included)[ Central coast, Warringah, Gordon, Manly, Northern Suburbs]
Canberra (ACT)[ Eastern(ACT), Gungahlin, Canberra, Tuggeranong, Uni-Norths(ACT), Wests(ACT)]
Melbourne[Boroondara, Footscray, Melbourne, Melbourne University, Power House]
Perth[Palmyra, UWA, Perth Bayswater, Kalamunda, West’s Subiaco]
Adelaide[Combination of Victoria, ACT and western Australia players]
Sunshine Coast[Sunshine Coast, Norths, QLD Country]
Gold Coast[Sunnybank, Gold Coast, Souths(QLD)]
Brisbane[Brothers, GPS, Wests(QLD), Coorparoo]
With an outlook to also include teams through set expansion to the fremantle, south-eastern bayside of Melbourne, Illawarra, Newcastle and Townsville.
February 24th 2010 @ 2:31pm
JF said | February 24th 2010 @ 2:31pm | Report comment
Sheek and RF,
8 teams max! SA only have 8 and NZ will only have 7 next year, Aus can support a maximum of 8.
SA is too small and lacks an adequate rugby culture. Newcastle and Townsville epitomise the RL heartlands, IMO not enough support for rugby. Why would you have a team each in these places and only 1 team each in Sydney and SEQ?
February 24th 2010 @ 2:53pm
rugbyfuture said | February 24th 2010 @ 2:53pm | Report comment
10 teams to be more competitive and more widespread. as ive previously said, its more a fact of placing teams and letting them run to get the support, with long term stability rather than short term. Adelaide holds the sevens remember. and has not been penetrated by RL since the SL war.
it wouldn’t run the same as SA or NZ in that they are still not provincial teams, they are more city/district teams.
as i also said, with an outlook to working in a Newcastle and Townsville team, not however immediate. My mate live at townsville and they have regular Rugby competitions. Newcastle from what i understand also has a decently formidable comp.
SEQ and Syd would each have three teams actually. Syd has sydney, Western sydney and central coast. SEQ has brisbane, Sunshine coast and Gold Coast.
February 24th 2010 @ 2:32pm
reds fan said | February 24th 2010 @ 2:32pm | Report comment
oh not this thread again…. its like a good lamb kebab with garlic sauce at 5am… just keeps on repeating….
February 24th 2010 @ 3:00pm
Brett McKay said | February 24th 2010 @ 3:00pm | Report comment
and yet Reds, kebab shops – not unlike this problem – still exist
February 24th 2010 @ 3:40pm
Monty said | February 24th 2010 @ 3:40pm | Report comment
Im more of a chilli sauce man myself.
February 25th 2010 @ 6:30am
sheek said | February 25th 2010 @ 6:30am | Report comment
Reds fan,
But you came for a look-see, didn’t you………. !
(Deep down you WANT a national comp, you NEED a national comp)…..
February 25th 2010 @ 8:13am
reds fan said | February 25th 2010 @ 8:13am | Report comment
But most of all I’d LIKE agreement… and that ain’t ever going to happen.
February 25th 2010 @ 8:44am
Brett McKay said | February 25th 2010 @ 8:44am | Report comment
Reds, you’d probably LIKE a kebab to not repeat too!!
February 24th 2010 @ 3:16pm
LeftArmSpinner said | February 24th 2010 @ 3:16pm | Report comment
please. drop the reference to third tier. It does nothing but run any comp with that moniker down.
February 24th 2010 @ 5:23pm
Keir Anderson said | February 24th 2010 @ 5:23pm | Report comment
I really don’t know why this thread keeps reappearing.
Any initial third tier comp is going to be drawing it’s supporters from the same people that watch club rugby and why would these people (like myself) want to desert their own club to support some brand new competition with no history, awful names and no local connection (eg Randwick’s myrtle green comes from the colour of the old tram signs that used to say Coogee).
February 24th 2010 @ 6:16pm
JF said | February 24th 2010 @ 6:16pm | Report comment
Well if sydney club rugby actually did something about forming an expanded competition, we wouldn’t have to keep having these discussions. At the moment we have the rediculous situation – after super rugby has ended, of professional rugby internationals having to play in a suburban club comp because that is the next level down from test level. While the Sth Africans and Kiwis are playing CC and NPC, our blokes are plodding around sydney club rugby in front of family and friends. The only people this suits is the sydney clubs, who feel quite chuffed that they are the premier comp in Australia, oblivious to the fact that their hanging onto the status quo is the biggest roadblock to a credible domestic competition in this country.
February 24th 2010 @ 6:23pm
rugbyfuture said | February 24th 2010 @ 6:23pm | Report comment
given time new teams can gain a history too, whilst helping australian rugby develop.
February 25th 2010 @ 7:23am
Ora said | February 25th 2010 @ 7:23am | Report comment
Exaxctly RF, Come on Australia create some history.
Here’s a little graph on how teams are built in NZ well from International down
All Blacks = Blues, Chiefs, Hurricanes, Canterbury, Otago (S14 Sides) at times occassional bolter direct from ANZC
Super 14
Example team Hurricanes = Wellington, Manawatu, Hawkes Bay, Taranaki (ANZC teams)
ANZC – Shute Shield
Exapmle team Taranaki = Clifton, NPOB, Tukapa, Spotswood, Coastal, Inglewood, Stratford, Southern, Border
Club – Most of these clubs then in turn have senior team (Development), Senior thirds, Under 20 etc the list goes on