Imagine mixing Aussie and Kiwi rugby talent
Roar Rookie By Djrobinson, 3 Aug 2010 Djrobinson is a Roar Rookie
- Tagged:
- Australia, Bledisloe Cup, New Zealand, Rugby Union
Related coverage
This is just a what if. The likelihood of New Zealand becoming a state of Australia is remote, but who knows what the future holds.
magine, July 28th, 2012. The nation state of New Zealand has today ceased to be a nation and is now simply a new state of Australia. The dream of the founding fathers of the Australian constitution has finally been realized in its full glory with all the recognised Sstates finally ceding their authority to capital on the Australian mainland.
The closely and often bitterly fought campaign between the republican movement of New Zealand, the royalists, and those of the population who wished to finally join the other States was close. At times, no one knew which side was going to win the battle in the end.
The mood in Australia is unusually muted, with a majority of Australians not minding the fact that New Zealand has become another State or not.
However, what about the institution of rugby union?
New Zealand is rugby mad, and in Australia, the sport is considered to be a distraction to their normal diet of AFL and rugby league.
I wonder what the major implication for the international sport of rugby would be now that the Bledisloe Cup has turned into somewhat of a State of Origin match?
And will the mighty All Black jersey just be wiped out by tomorrow morning?
Or will Australia now field two rugby teams – one for their newest state of New Zealand – while still keeping the Combined States team going?
Or will the New Zealand rugby union simply cede all authority to their bigger Australian counterpart?
The logistics of combining the sporting talent of both nations will be difficult, with many debates expected on both sides of the Tasman.
Whatever the future for rugby union in the nation, it has never looked brighter for Australian rugby union fans.
Have you seen the new Wallabies jersey? Want one of your own? We're giving away a brand new 2013 Wallabies jersey to one lucky Roarer, click here to go in the running to win.
- Explore:
- Australia, Bledisloe Cup, New Zealand, Rugby Union
August 3rd 2010 @ 4:08am
LT80 said | August 3rd 2010 @ 4:08am | Report comment
Haha.
OK so it looks like you’re aiming to go for the record for number of responses to an article.
Nice angle, it’s fresh. Not very subtle, but I for one like it.
I think the current title holder is “10 good reasons why rugby league and rugby union should merge”, with “It’s not soccer, it’s called football”, running a close second.
Good luck mate.
August 3rd 2010 @ 6:32am
mampara said | August 3rd 2010 @ 6:32am | Report comment
Well, quite simply it would mean the team would be the AB team as not one true blue ozzy would make the squad.
As for the article, if you are an ozzy Mr. author, this is the most embarrassing thing I think I’ve ever read…what is wrong with you…NO TICKER
August 3rd 2010 @ 7:01am
The Truth said | August 3rd 2010 @ 7:01am | Report comment
The Wallablacks could tour like the Lions, but I think the two would remain distinct just as the home nations have. Australia may be the bigger nation, but the ABs are a bigger brand. Neither identity would be cannibalized, lest many egos take major blows.
August 3rd 2010 @ 7:05am
Richierich said | August 3rd 2010 @ 7:05am | Report comment
An ANZAC team to tour the north is not a silly idea and why it hasn’t been given a decent shot is a good point.
As for NZ becoming a state of Australia there would be war before that ever happened lol
August 3rd 2010 @ 7:26am
Djrobinson said | August 3rd 2010 @ 7:26am | Report comment
Thanks for the replies.
First I’m a Kiwi, and I’m currently working in Brisbane. I’m a die hard Union man but I do enjoy rugby league, and I’ve even been to a couple of lions AFL games which is still a sport i do not fully understand yet but I can appreciate it for what it is.
I wrote the article because every few years there is a debate in NZ about becoming a state, the last poll suggested 40% of the country would be willing to discuss / debate the idea, and while its still highly unlikely this is going to happen, none of us know what the future holds.
The question I’m trying to ask is will the All Blacks just disappear or will they be given a special lease, which will allow Australia to field 2 teams, one from the mainland and one from the island state.
August 3rd 2010 @ 7:44am
Richierich said | August 3rd 2010 @ 7:44am | Report comment
I very much doubt the most Famous rugby brand and one of the world’s more famous sporting brands would disappear if anything it would be the Wallabies brand that could slip off the radar.
August 6th 2010 @ 9:43pm
Qldkiwi said | August 6th 2010 @ 9:43pm | Report comment
So Australia would lease the Haka? think about what your saying man!
August 3rd 2010 @ 8:37am
sixo_clock said | August 3rd 2010 @ 8:37am | Report comment
No.
In fact this is an insult to AB legends. Who is going to pay for the bridge? Do we have to take Stewart Island? What about nuclear ships? State of Origin level – is nothing compared to some of the great Bledisloe tests. Will we have to change ‘Southie’ into ‘South-Eastie’.
Maaaaate!! Thimk!!
August 3rd 2010 @ 8:44am
bozo said | August 3rd 2010 @ 8:44am | Report comment
Wales and Scotland provide the answer
August 3rd 2010 @ 11:19am
stash said | August 3rd 2010 @ 11:19am | Report comment
State of Australia!!
This foolish talk of uniting the countries – I always thought they wanted to make Australia the West Island of New Zealand…
August 3rd 2010 @ 11:35am
Lion Red said | August 3rd 2010 @ 11:35am | Report comment
I second that motion Stash…lol
August 3rd 2010 @ 2:05pm
MarkR said | August 3rd 2010 @ 2:05pm | Report comment
Actually I heard NZ was going to become a suburb of Hobart…..
August 6th 2010 @ 9:47pm
Qldkiwi said | August 6th 2010 @ 9:47pm | Report comment
well thats because Nz made a name for every other capital city in Australia,why should Hobart miss out
August 3rd 2010 @ 9:55pm
G Rush said | August 3rd 2010 @ 9:55pm | Report comment
You can take NSW only.
August 3rd 2010 @ 11:42am
Glenn Condell said | August 3rd 2010 @ 11:42am | Report comment
from http://au.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20060806161820AAucnj0
‘Following the formation of the Federal Council of Australasia in 1885 (a weak non-executive, non-legislative federation of Western Australia, Fiji, Queensland, Tasmania and Victoria) the movement for full Federation developed in the late nineteenth century, proposing that the six colonies join together as one federation of several States and territories (it was envisaged that New Zealand might join). In the 1890s, two constitutional conventions were called, which ultimately adopted a constitution based on a combination of British, American and other models (monarchy and parliamentary government from Britain, federalism from the United States, the use of the referendum from Switzerland).
New Zealand was involved in a Constitutional Convention in March 1891 in Sydney, New South Wales, along with the Australian colonies. This was to consider a potential constitution for the proposed federation between all the Australasian colonies. New Zealand lost interest in joining Australia in a federation following this convention, though the Australian Constitution still includes provision for New Zealand to be included. ‘
Let the alltime Wallablack teams begin! Away you go Sheek…
August 4th 2010 @ 3:56am
Joh4Canberra said | August 4th 2010 @ 3:56am | Report comment
Yes, there was some talk in the 1880s and 1890s of NZ (and even Fiji) joining the new federation. The idea was a lot more popular with the bureaucrats in the Colonial Office in London than it ever was with people on the ground.
For those who are interested in historical and legal oddities, New Zealand is actually mentioned in covering clause 6 to the Australian Constitution. The “covering clauses” are not part of the Constitution proper but rather are sections of the Act of the Imperial Parliament in London (“The Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act”) that gave legal effect to the Australian Constitution that was agreed upon at the constitutional conventions in Australia and approved by the people of the various colonies (now states) in referenda. Covering clause 6 deal with the quite mundane matter of providing legal definitions for terms that appear regularly throughout the Constitution proper, one of which is “the states” (or “a state”):
“‘The States’ shall mean such of the colonies of New South Wales, New Zealand, Queensland, Tasmania, Victoria, Western Australia, and South Australia, including the northern territory of South Australia, as for the time being are parts of the Commonwealth, and such colonies or territories as may be admitted into or established by the Commonwealth as States; and each of such parts of the Commonwealth shall be called ‘a State’.”
This doesn’t actually say that NZ *is* a state of Australia. What it says is that *if* NZ decides to join the federation *then* the presumption is that it will be a state in its own right and not a part of another state (such as Lord Howe Island is a part of NSW or the Torres Strait Islands are a part of Queensland) or a federal territory (such as the ACT, Norfolk Island or Christmas Island). But as we all know the people of NZ never did decide to join the federation and the reference to NZ in covering clause 6 is little more than a historical oddity.
August 3rd 2010 @ 12:14pm
Djrobinson said | August 3rd 2010 @ 12:14pm | Report comment
The way I’ve been looking at it is from the point of view that we already have a mixed sporting environment. NZ has teams in Australian, football and league competitions, while union and netball have completely mixed competitions.
I could never figure out why the ARFU has not pushed for a club side to be included in the NPC (ITM) cup.
I’d love to see a game between the lions and ANZAC’s. The best of the north vrs the best of the south pacific. Imagine how some of the top Australian backs would manage behind an All Black Scrum.
The only problems I can see is who the coaching staff / selectors and finally what colour the kit would work out to be, only a great designer could make green gold and black work somehow.
Glenn – New Zealand refused to join the union because of a handful of issues which are now non-existent. The only reason NZ has still not joined Australia as a state is purely because its people are stubborn and prideful and while this won’t change anything soon or perhaps never there are some kiwis who would happily give up nationhood to join the Australian union.
August 3rd 2010 @ 12:21pm
Richierich said | August 3rd 2010 @ 12:21pm | Report comment
But as it stands the Majority do not wish to join short and simple.
Talking about it and doing it are completely different.
Anyway this is a sports forum no need to get political.
I would fully support an ANZAC team or better yet a Australasian team to include Pacific Islanders
September 3rd 2010 @ 10:51am
jeremy said | September 3rd 2010 @ 10:51am | Report comment
DJR – actually there is a bit of a problem with the two countries becoming one, that of recognition of indigenous rights.
In New Zealand, Maori are represented proportionally in parliament and given certain obligations / rights under the Treaty of Waitangi.
These rights would not exist in Australia and as a state NZ would be required to fit into federal legislature, requiring a change in one or both of the country’s constitutions.