The real problem with Australian rugby
Roar Guru By sheek, 20 Mar 2010 The Crowd is a Roar Guru
120 Have your say
The Parramatta Two Blues has been in the news recently. There is concern this proud Western Sydney club may not compete in this year’s Sydney Shute Shield (Premier rugby) due to a lack of players.
Even if it does compete, it may only involve one senior and one colts (U/20) team. We haven’t even heard how fellow Western Sydney club, Penrith Emus, is faring.
The lack of penetration into the greater Western Sydney by the NSWRU is coming back to bite them.
Sydney’s Greater West contains the largest youth catchment area in Australia, with rugby league, Australian football and association football all competing against each other for the hearts and minds of these future players.
Rugby union is conspicuous by its absence in this battle out west.
Sure, the NSWRU have made intermittent attempts to penetrate this massive market, but a combination of current lack of funds and previous lack of sufficient will is seeing rugby union well and truly lose the fight.
Indeed, it’s not even in the contest at present.
Meanwhile, across town near the CBD, the Sydney University club has been given immunity for life, it seems. Sydney University doesn’t represent a suburb or district, but here it is, its place in Sydney premier rugby guaranteed in apparent perpetuity.
This is because Sydney University is universally recognised in the lore and history of Australian rugby as our first ever rugby club.
Yet, even this might be in dispute.
Originally, Sydney University RFC claimed it was first founded in 1863, then 1864. Yet, the first documented evidence doesn’t seem to appear until 1865.
Even then, there is speculation it was beaten to the punch as our first rugby club by Sydney FC, which claims to have been founded in June of 1865.
Over the years, it appears the newspapers have often become confused between Sydney FC and Sydney University FC. What is undisputed is that Sydney University can claim to be the oldest continuously existing rugby club in Australia.
On the other hand, there have been various rugby/football clubs named Sydney, with none of them surviving long-term.
When the district club system was introduced in 1900, seven of the original 8 clubs were district based, with Sydney University being given exemption. The elite society dominated rugby establishment had no problem with this obvious anomaly.
For the record, the original eight clubs forming the district competition in 1900 were: Balmain, Glebe, Newtown, North Sydney, South Sydney, Eastern Suburbs, Western Suburbs and Sydney University.
If these teams have a familiar ring to them, with the exception of Sydney University, the other seven clubs were founding rugby league clubs in Sydney in 1908. The other two being Cumberland (later Parramatta) and Newcastle (for one season).
But getting back to Sydney University, don’t get me wrong, I am not advocating they disappear from sight. I simply believe their proper place is in the Suburban comp, freeing up their place in premier rugby for another district based team.
I know a proud and passionate Sydney University supporter like Bruce Ross will take me to task over this, but I simply can’t accept that Sydney University’s place in the Shute Shield is considered inviolate, while Parramatta and perhaps even Penrith, run the risk of disappearing beneath the waves.
The problem of Australian rugby, and NSWRU in particular, is a systemic one, or structural to be precise.
We uphold a team (Sydney University) that represents no district, suburb or region, while seemingly being willing to sacrifice a club that represents a district. Not just a district, but one of the huge youth catchment areas of both Sydney and Australia.
Let’s say both Parramatta and Penrith drop out of Shute Shield.
The westernmost club remaining in the 10 team Shute Shield would be West Harbour, or perhaps Eastwood further to its north. There would also be Sydney University, who represent no district at all, and Eastern Suburbs, whose youth catchment has contracted significantly over the past century.
If Parrmatta, and perhaps Penrith, are allowed to disappear, while Sydney University remains immune from relocation (to suburban rugby), then I can only draw the conclusion that Australian rugby is not at all serious about developing their game.
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.
March 20th 2010 @ 9:52am
Michael Christie said | March 20th 2010 @ 9:52am | Report comment
Sheek,
You make some valid points. It’s been years since there has been any real serious effort to look after rugby by the NSWRU in Sydney’s outer west, Parramatta & westwards to the mountains and sadly the horse may have long bolted. With the advent of a western sydney based AFL team and a western sydney based soccer team in the A league, it could be all over for Rugby , which is sad but not surprising. Rugby Union is seen more then ever in Sydney at least to be a game that is really only concentrated in sydneys north shore & eastern suburbs with the odd other team thrown in.
Due to the lack of any serious development policy or real effort to look after the game in Sydney’s west it is now withering on the vine in one of the fastest growing metropolitan area’s in the country. I really hope that Parra does not go by the board, but if the Two Blues do go, it will be a very sad day for the game in this city. And to be frank, do the powerbrokers in at the NSWRU really care despite the platitudes muttered earlier this week in the SMH.
March 20th 2010 @ 10:09am
rugbyfuture said | March 20th 2010 @ 10:09am | Report comment
there needs to be an effort in club rugby to inspire more loyalty, sure its proffessional days eyc but club rugby still harbours the original way of rugby. people like tatafu polota nau who stick to their club for loyalty’s sake and the good of rugby.
perhaps parra could link up with UWS? maybe this is just a stupid idea but there is a space at the parra campus and it might offer UWS a chance to advertise to traditional rugger boys from kings up the road etc. you think about it though, the only way to sustain it is to get right back to the roots of volounteer support
March 20th 2010 @ 10:11am
Empire said | March 20th 2010 @ 10:11am | Report comment
I see this reminiscent of the Tuggeranong Vikings club in the ACT comp.
Effectively, its a fully funded (they just bought a shopping center for 19 million..) club, that barely develops any of it’s own talent, poaches from schools and clubs outside it’s catchment, whilst neglecting it’s own area.
Suppose all the money they give the Brumbies is paying off for them.
Scary when you see greedy clubs like this are hampering the spread of Rugby evenly and effectively across regions. Worse still when local franchises facilitate this occuring.
March 20th 2010 @ 10:23am
MarkH said | March 20th 2010 @ 10:23am | Report comment
I love going to watch the shield, Its a great day out with kids and its cheap. Kids love it and gives the missus a break.
Ive got an idea. How about all contracted players to NSWRU / QLDRU /ACTRUbe be told what club they play for rather than them being poached.
For example, how many contracted Tahs player play for Randwick, Manly, Warringah? 5-6? Why not, as a part of their contract, tell them what team they are playing for? It seems to me that cashed up cubs just get players without any regard for the competition. Sothern Districts, Two Blues and Emus need help no doubt. If you want survival, something needs to be done.
I think each club having a couple of Tahs / Reds / Brumbies on the roster, would be fantastic for clubmanship and support for the Shield comp. In the current climate of footy code war, someone needs to plan.
March 20th 2010 @ 10:40am
RickG said | March 20th 2010 @ 10:40am | Report comment
Great Idea Mark but as mentioned above the players’ union won’t allow it.
March 20th 2010 @ 10:56am
MarkH said | March 20th 2010 @ 10:56am | Report comment
True, but that may need to be considered when players contracts come up for renewal. I think the only way for that to happen is a combined front by all unions. And to be fair, unions need to make sure its worth it. Kids like their heros, thats why league is winning hands down in the west.
March 20th 2010 @ 11:41am
tarpo said | March 20th 2010 @ 11:41am | Report comment
As a variation on this theme, how about each club has a maxium number of Super & acadamy places each?
Hey we are not saying any one player has to play for x club, but there are only so many places & if someone else is there, better find another club.
Its madness having Drew Mitchel blow into town & play for Randwick & Barnes for Uni!
March 20th 2010 @ 12:14pm
RickG said | March 20th 2010 @ 12:14pm | Report comment
I’m sure other will know more but a points system was introduced a couple of years ago, where each player is assigned a number of points. More rep games played and experience = more points. Clubs have to remain under the max no. of points when fielding a team. Years’ service at a club etitle you t oa points reduction to promote loyalty. Aparently it’s not really working as the strong clubs are fielding a first-choice side while remaining under the points cap.
March 20th 2010 @ 11:27am
Grimmace said | March 20th 2010 @ 11:27am | Report comment
Thats another problem- the power of the playes union. Rightly or worngly they seem to only be interested in the interests of tthe players, not the greater good of the game. But thats a topic for another day
March 20th 2010 @ 10:25am
Rickety Knees said | March 20th 2010 @ 10:25am | Report comment
It is interesting to see the way the Rebels are setting up. Apparently each Rebel player has to affiliate to a suburban club, attend the club and assist with promoting the game. Hat’s off to McQueen, the same guy who the NSWRU fired – our greatest Wallaby coach. Imagine if the Tahs had the same atttude about growing the game in NSW – that will never happen though as the Tahs are Uni centic.
March 20th 2010 @ 12:54pm
Mals said | March 20th 2010 @ 12:54pm | Report comment
Yep RK the same guy who guided the NSW team to an undefeated season in 1991 & didn’t have his contract renewed!
March 20th 2010 @ 1:48pm
sheek said | March 20th 2010 @ 1:48pm | Report comment
RK,
Actually the Force did the same when they recruited players from the east. They were distributed among the premier rugby clubs of Perth.
Melbourne is following this lead, & it is a great idea. On the few occasions when all these players are appearing in the local comp, it can only help to improve local standards over time.
March 20th 2010 @ 10:29am
MarkH said | March 20th 2010 @ 10:29am | Report comment
P.S. How could I forget sydney uni…talk about fair suck of the sauce bottle. Theyve got a roster as good as the Tahs.
March 20th 2010 @ 12:17pm
Big Al said | March 20th 2010 @ 12:17pm | Report comment
I’m in NZ but my brother has lived in Sydney for about 10 years. A few years ago he gave me a Parramatta rugby club jersey and I remember at the time (following the success of the 2003 World Cup) he would say that Parramatta rugby union would get more to watch their games than Parramatta league. Times have changed obviously. Western Sydney has driven the NRL renaissance and the ARU appears to have complelely ignored the area to their peril. The ARU have to rebuild rugby from the grassroots up and if they continue to favour the Old Boys Networks instead of the working class areas, they will never get anywhere.
March 20th 2010 @ 1:08pm
Midfielder said | March 20th 2010 @ 1:08pm | Report comment
Keep up the good fight Sheek…
March 20th 2010 @ 1:11pm
Andrew Logan said | March 20th 2010 @ 1:11pm | Report comment
Sheek – for a guy who has such a deep and diverse rugby knowledge and who is normally so logical in his thinking, I’m disappointed to see that your irrational hatred for University rugby continues to flourish.
As I have made clear many times on this forum I am a University supporter and have in the past been a player and coach.
Contrary to the popular perception of University players, I am one of many who did not go to University and simply played there because it was close by and I had friends there. It is incorrect to seize upon the untruth that University doesn’t represent a district. In fact it partly represents a district, and partly represents a body of students, many of whom are from the country and who would have no affiliation with a Sydney club anyway. Will Caldwell, Tom Carter and Tim Davidson are just a few of many who play have no background with any other Sydney club because they grew up in the bush. Why any other club would feel that they have a greater entitlement to these players escapes me.
Of course, this brings us to the real issue, which is the University recruitment program – a constant target of misguided anger from other clubs.
I use the word “misguided” not to be snotty, but because much of what is said about the University Colts program is blatantly untrue. Unfortunately the naysayers usually prefer not to believe the facts because they don’t make as good a story. The facts simply are that scholarships at University are not awarded by the rugby club, and the rugby club has no influence over to whom they are awarded. Before you pooh-pooh this, remember that University Sport is a significant organisation which covers several elite sports, of which rugby is just one.
There are many many elite athletes competing for a limited pool of University funding, lots of them in Olympic sports. Rugby is not that big a deal in that context, and rugby players apply for their place on equal footing with every other sportsperson seeking scholarships. In this sense, the influence that Sydney University Rugby has over the scholarship program is virtually nil, it is actually not very different from a Randwick player applying for a scholarship at University of NSW. He would do so off his own bat, and the club would have little influence.
This is the biggest mistake that people outside University make – the assumption that Sydney University at large, and Sydney University Rugby, are one and the same. They are entirely separate organisations in every respect other than name, and in fact there are hundreds of academics within the greater Sydney University, who would happily agree that rugby is entirely irrelevant to the greater life of the University. Sheek, if you walked around Sydney University, you would find that 90% of people you met knew nothing about University rugby, and cared even less.
The idea of unqualified support for Sydney University rugby from the greater Sydney University, is a myth.
Another myth is the idea of full-ride scholarships being handed out like bus passes to all and sundry by the rugby club. This is just not true, as much as the critics would like to believe it is so. We are not in America here, and University rugby simply does not have the funding for this type of thing. Wealth is relative. SUFC may be one of the wealthiest cluubs in NSW, but that doesn’t mean that it has unlimited wealth.
In fact, the money spent on assisting players financially is in the tens of thousands TOTAL. No more. The fact is that there is no University player receiving any more than $2000 in academic assistance grants per year and out of 150 odd players in Colts and Grade, there might be 20 or so who get anything at all. If you have been to university, you’ll know that this might just about cover your text books and a few incidentals. Players don’t come to Uni for the money.
So why do they come? The answer is quite boring really, and from a critics point of view, frustrating, because it doesn’t allow for excuses as to why they can’t do it themselves at their own club. Players come to University, because it has a good team of coaches who like the environment and who get plenty of support from a committee which is committed to success. That’s about it. It is a united club, where the past players, the fourth graders, the first graders and the supporters all pretty much hang together and do what they can to create success.
It’s easy to plot ways to tear down University rugby, and no doubt it is satisfying thing to do if you feel that Uni has some sort of unfair advantage. But it is a fact, and I say this humbly and simply, that the only advantage Uni really has is that it offers players a chance to excel because of the coaching team and the environment that it provides.
Like any person who supports their club, it hurts to see it hated for things which are untrue. But that aside, I don’t understand how the abolishment of University rugby would somehow make the West a viable force. If I have missed something, I would be very happy for someone to sit me down and explain it to me – as a writer I always try to remain open to all sides of a situation.
My final thought is this – that if we really want to grow rugby in NSW, then disband the NSW Academy, and pour those resources into supporting club rugby on a pro-rata basis. Retain the Academy staff, and have them work with the lowest placed clubs on a consultancy basis to strengthen them through specialist coaching and judicious allocation of funding. Clubs would receive assistance based on their place on the ladder the previous year and their ccurrent results. This way, a successful club like University would be acknowledged as being able to support itself and stand alone, whereas the Academy would spend most of its time developing players and facilities in the west.
Rather than tearing University down, a scheme like this would seek to build the other clubs up. This seems to be a positive way forward, and if those clubs are built to a standard whereby their coaching and support systems are attractive, they will attract, retain and develop players, which will strengthen the comp as a whole.
Surely, Sheek, that’s good for rugby? Lastly, by all means “hate” University if you must, particularly if they happen to win a rare match at Coogee Oval. But don’t truly hate them based on scuttlebutt and untruths because you prefer not to know the truth. You’re a better and smarter man than that.
Regards…
March 20th 2010 @ 1:48pm
hammer said | March 20th 2010 @ 1:48pm | Report comment
Excellent post
March 20th 2010 @ 1:56pm
sheek said | March 20th 2010 @ 1:56pm | Report comment
Andrew,
Your first paragraph is totally wrong. I don’t “hate” SU at all. it’s the associated mindset that I don’t accept. Perhaps, at times in the past to drive home a point, I might have over-boiled it, but I certainly don’t “hate” SU per se.
Sure, Parramatta & Penrith haven’t fallen over yet, but what kind of organisation would be willing to let those clubs disappear, where there is such a massive youth catchment population, while allowing SU to remain in premier rugby, where it evokes no tribalism whatsoever?
If you could kindly read an article above in response to posts by Cookie/Rick G, where I expand some thoughts further.
I don’t ‘hate’ SU per se. But they represent what is structurally wrong with Sydney, & by extension, Australian rugby.
March 20th 2010 @ 2:26pm
Andrew Logan said | March 20th 2010 @ 2:26pm | Report comment
Sheek,
If I am wrong, I apologise unreservedly. Perhaps you just give that impression sometimes.
Could you expand on what you mean by “associated mindset”? I’m not sure what you mean by that.
Could you explain why University is to blame for the lack of penetration in the west? I understand that many people feel that Uni has more than it’s share of players, but I don’t understand why the west would suddenly “bloom to life” again if those few Uni players from the west had remained there. We often make the mistake of thinking that there is a set number of players playing rugby, and that if Club A doesn’t get them, then Club B will, which is just not true. Some will continue to play rugby, some will stop playing, some will drift to league, some will go overseas, some will get injured….the number of players is always in flux. To suggest that a strong club “steals” players from a weaker club is incorrect. If the weaker club doesn’t have the facilities or coaches…what’s to suggest that these players will stay with rugby at all? Nothing really. Why would a good player stay at Penrith/Parramatta if the club doesn’t have the resources to develop them? It is a huge problem, but University is not to blame.
Could you explain why tribalism is limited to geographics? The tribalism extended to American universities and the likes of Oxford/Cambridge/Stellenbosch etc would appear to give lie to that idea. Several years ago, when University was about to die and be banished from the Shute Shield, supporters came from all over Australia and lent spiritual, intellectual and financial support to ensure that it survived. What is this if not tribalism? What about the country players with no tie to a Sydney geography, or players like me who played there because they lived in Camperdown. I’m not making this up – I lived in Charles St about 100m from Harold Park. University was my closest club. When I now go and support them, why isn’t it tribalism?
I agree that there are structural problems with the development of Australian rugby, but I don’t yet understand how University is the template for those structural problems. Could you explain a little further on that?
I’m trying hard to understand the anger that exists against University, but I haven’t yet been able to find someone who can explain exactly how University is to blame for the problems that the weaker clubs in the Shute Shield have.
Happy to continue the dialogue with a view to promoting understanding.
Regards…
March 20th 2010 @ 3:06pm
sheek said | March 20th 2010 @ 3:06pm | Report comment
Andrew,
I wish I could explain “associated mindset” also but I’m struggling to find the correct, descriptive words! I know it in my mind, but am struggling to express it in words. As soon as I find the right words or analogy, I’ll be back…..
Perhaps in the following paragraphs a glimpse of the ‘associated mindset’ concept will become clearer?
With respect to perception of SU being responsible for lack of penetration in west, let me try to explain it this way. Let’s say SU is sent back to suburban rugby. This doesn’t mean those leading SU players would be redistributed evenly among Parramatta & Penrith. Not at all!
More than likely, most of them would relocate to already strong clubs like Randwick, Easts, Gordon Manly, etc. So obviously, that is not the problem presented by SU. Again, I’m struggling to articulate myself properly here, except to say it appears to be a poor current concentration of resources by the NSWRU & ARU.
With respect to tribalism, we must first accept the culture in Australia is entirely different to the culture in North America. Yes it’s true there is a very powerful University sports culture in USA. But Australian sports culture is very much geographically driven. Although I’m not sure how you describe the AFL tribalism – family tradition driven perhaps?
Even Europe (football) is driven by a geographically based sports culture. The UK has a very proud University tradition, but none of the Universities exist in major comps (football or rugby union) in England & Ireland (rugby – Guinness Premiership National Premier, Guinness Premiership National 1st Division, Magner’s League & through qualification, Heineken Cup).
I accept that the premier rugby comps of NZ & SA have a mixture of unis & old boys teams. This obviously shows how deeply rugby has penetrated every strata of society. A similar situation exists with leading cricket district club comps in Australia.
both Sydney & NSW Unis are in the Sydney comp; Qld Uni in the Brisbane comp; Melbourne Uni in the Melbourne comp; Adelaide Uni in the Adelaide comp & WA uni in the Perth comp.
I guess in response to a question from you last year or so, SU’s place in the Sydney premier rugby wouldn’t be an issue if rugby had the popularity of say, its loathed cousin rugby league.
But here’s the rub, rugby in Australia has grown through such a narrow front, being held together mostly by the private schools. I’m private school educated myself, & very proud of the school I attended, so there’s not some kind of associated jealousy going on here.
In 1907-08, rugby had the opportunity to be the people’s game, but the hierarchy of the day decided to support the strict amateurism principles of their masters in England, to the detriment of the game.
Much is made of how Sydney was basically the only remaining bastion of rugby in Australia during the 1920s. But might I add the poser here, that was the result of basically an “own goal’ by the administration back in 1907-08?
That own goal continued through the 50s, 60s & 70s, with the game surviving off such a narrow base of predominately private school & university educated players & fans.
Some time back I had a BBQ with 3 famous (in local circles anyway) & stalwart members of Easts rugby club. I like all 3 & consider them friends. I asked what changes could be done to improve the Shute Shield.
Almost instinctively one of them suggested cull Parramatta & Penrith, because they simply didn’t have a rugby (union) culture. But when I queried this was also the massive youth catchment area of Sydney that could provide the growth to the game, the topic was rather quickly dropped & we moved onto something else.
But I remained frustrated that 3 such decent, intelligent & knowledgeable rugby folk couldn’t provide me with anything more constructive.
And perhaps I haven’t satisfactorally answered your questions either. But I agree than open dialogue hopefully leads to better understanding…..
March 20th 2010 @ 5:21pm
Andrew Logan said | March 20th 2010 @ 5:21pm | Report comment
Sheek…sorry but you haven’t really helped me on the “associated mindset”. I’m not sure how Uni is linked to the shortcomings of the NSWRU and the ARU.
As far as tribalism goes, you may not have noticed that you are part of a rabid tribe which has a common interest, is full of opinions, which bands together against outsiders, which is passionate about its “territory” and which has nothing to do with geography whatsoever.
The Roar contributors are surely as valid a tribe as any?
March 20th 2010 @ 6:28pm
gerald said | March 20th 2010 @ 6:28pm | Report comment
There’s a notice in the Randwick gym asking for assistance for Colts. One of the things they said they could do was put players on scholarships at UNSW. If the Randwick rugby club can put players on scholarships at UNSW then I’m sure as hell that the Sydney Uni rugby club would be able to put players on a scholarship at Sydney Uni.
March 20th 2010 @ 6:51pm
Andrew Logan said | March 20th 2010 @ 6:51pm | Report comment
Gerald,
I’m trying to remain calm here! All I can say is that the arrangement that Randwick has with UNSW really has nothing whatever to do with Sydney Uni.
I can tell you simply that at Sydney University, the scholarships are awarded by the Sydney University Sports Union which is a University administered body charged with growing and supporting all sports. Check the SUSU website and it will show you 10 athletes in the Elite Athletes Program, and only 1 of these is a rugby player.
(Incidentally, the player is Dean Mumm who is NZ born and went to Kings with Daniel Halangahu and Will Caldwell, who grew up in Belmont and Young respectively. Perhaps their Kings connection might explain how they all ended up at Uni? It should be noted that Halangahu and Caldwell at least were not “poached” from another Sydney club).
Anyway, the point is that the Sports Union awards scholarships not the rugby club. The rugby club gives certain deserving players financial assistance in small amounts ie less than $2000 usually to assist with studies and/or travel if they need help.
The SUFC can certainly put forward players for scholarships if it feels they are deserving, but they have to compete with several other sports for a limited pool of scholarship assistance, and the scholarship is awarded by the Sports Union, totally independently of the rugby club. For those who think there is some sort of underhanded deal going on between the rugby club and the Sports Union….think about how that would go down with the other sports who are competing for the same assistance. There would be an outrage.
So Gerald, regarding your comment “I’m sure as hell that the Sydney Uni rugby club would be able to put players on a scholarship at Sydney Uni.”, it is just not true. The rugby club does not award scholarships because it simply does not have the power to award scholarships.
The only body with that power is the Sydney University Sports Union, an independent body which oversees the entire sporting scholarship process for the whole university – a program which encompasses several sports, many of them Olympic sports….and of which rugby is just one, with no more or less influence than the other sports seeking assistance.
March 20th 2010 @ 1:17pm
Andrew Logan said | March 20th 2010 @ 1:17pm | Report comment
PS To expand on my “disband the Academy” ccomment. I don’t mean to imply that the Academy is not functional. I simply mean to say that there is minimal funding available for development, and since the Academy has several players from strong clubs in it….then these players are sort of “double dipping” on the available resources. Thus it seems more effective to spread this support across a wider base rather than giving it to those players who already have excellent coaches and facilities at their own club.
March 20th 2010 @ 1:40pm
rugbyfuture said | March 20th 2010 @ 1:40pm | Report comment
or better yet create a second tier domestic national competition to replace the academies and thenwithin the superclubs catchment area restrict the number of super rugby players and middle tier players, with the rest being developmental
…of course sydney uni wouldnt allow that to happen either, they so hated not being in the ARC
March 20th 2010 @ 2:27pm
Andrew Logan said | March 20th 2010 @ 2:27pm | Report comment
RF….could you explain how “sydney uni wouldnt allow that to happen”? Exactly what forces did they have at their disposal which allowed them to engineer this outcome?
March 20th 2010 @ 2:55pm
rugbyfuture said | March 20th 2010 @ 2:55pm | Report comment
im not saying it was their fault that the ARC went busters, but the fact they were so opposed to the idea based on diminishing their relevance is another matter. no doubt they hold a great amount of political pull, i dont think that they should be taken out of the competition either as they represent just as many ruggers as any club, but if another domestic competition was spruiked, you couldnt tell me they wouldnt be opposed to the idea again
March 20th 2010 @ 5:09pm
Andrew Logan said | March 20th 2010 @ 5:09pm | Report comment
Ok, then say that “Uni were opposed to the idea”, which they certainly were, and for reasons which may or may not be good/right/best for rugby/whatever.
Don’t say “SU wouldn’t allow that to happen”, which implies to the uneducated that Uni have some sort of mystical power which they factually don’t.
Also, let’s not confuse opposition with contribution. University certainly opposed the ARC and made no secret of the fact. However, they also supplied 29 players (yes 29, almost two full teams) to the competition and supported them right through the season with coaching, physio and moral support. Ask any Uni player about their experience during the ARC and they will tell you that the club supported their playing endeavours unreservedly.
Uni preferred a different version of the comp, but they also probably did more than any other club to support it, certainly in terms of supplying players.