Chiefs Arizona Taumalolo punches the air. AAP Image/SNPA, Ross Setford
Related coverage
The depth of Australian rugby deserves analysis. It has been obvious to me for many years that Australian rugby lacks a provincial competition, which is another step in the ladder between Club and Super Rugby.
So often we see Australian franchises introducing players direct from club rugby who haven’t played anywhere near the tempo or the skill level required to succeed at this level.
There has been general consensus the Australian concept is good because it develops young players quickly. And on this, I agree.
It also has its casualties, and sometimes those casualties end up being the coach.
In New Zealand, we have two arms of development: the traditional NZRU competition structure and National Team development squads. And we also have IRANZ, which is seen as a stepping stone for players wanting to play professionally.
In other words, if you don’t make the small number of players taken in by the provincial academies around New Zealand, there is a second option to up-skill.
This has proved successful when we look at the results after 10 years of operation.
In the world’s most organized and developed rugby structure, we still find that an independent arm (IRANZ) now provides one third of all New Zealand’s provincial players. There is no doubt a structure similar to IRANZ is needed in Australia and I am surprised it hasn’t been established.
We have had a number of propositions which have gone nowhere.
A couple of weeks ago, I asked the question of whether Australia could expect to compete on a global basis with their talent pool split across three codes. This certainly stimulated a response about code-comparisons.
And fair enough.
Really my intention was to ask the question of whether Australia had enough players to be able to do this and still expect to succeed in the international arena.
It is interesting to note that in Australia, there is approximately the same number of registered senior players as there are in New Zealand, but they are not privy to the same development opportunities for both players and coaches alike.
This lack of real depth in Australian rugby won’t make the Wallabies any less competitive at national level, where the difference between the top players of both New Zealand and Australia is very little.
The victor on the international stage is more often the team with the best coaching combination and, on that note, beware of South Africa.
They have always had the player strength at international level, and now, for the first time, the Republic has four very competitive Super teams.
But the coaching and selection challenge remains their greatest impediment.
Roar columnist and former All Black great, Murray Mexted, is the Managing Director of The International Rugby Academy (IRANZ), the leading global Rugby Academy. IRANZ offer an independent high performance pathway for coaches, players and teams worldwide. More details here.
Looking to join The Roar team? We're searching for an experienced Group Sales Manager to lead our team in Sydney. Yes, this does mean you get to work with the site all day long! If you're a digital media sales star, we want to hear from you. Apply now.
![]()
Passionate about your union? Then sign up to The Roar's brand new daily union email, delivering Roaring articles directly to you day-in, day-out. You'll love it!
Click here to join now!
- Explore:
- Murray Mexted, Rugby Union, Super Rugby


April 13th 2012 @ 6:28am
kingplaymaker said | April 13th 2012 @ 6:28am | Report comment
The national competition could be 10 team: Waratahs, Reds, Brumbies, Force, Rebels PLUS
Sydney 1, Sydney 2, Newcastle, Gold Coast, Adelaide.
Halve each of the current extended 40 man squads and you have a base of 20 for each team.
Or just do the same but make those second five Super rugby teams
Any way will be good though as with those 10 every base is covered. Each of the 8 biggest cities in Australia has a team, every large state, every 1.5 million of population in a heartland area has a team, all major new markets are covered. So easy!!
April 13th 2012 @ 6:45am
Moaman said | April 13th 2012 @ 6:45am | Report comment
Interestingly KPM Auckland has aprox.1,5 million inhabiitants; It’s one of the main reasons the Blues are receiving so much scathing comment–they have the biggest catchment in the country and most pundits feel they should be producing accordingly.That they are not,points to a systems-failure.Bear that it mind when you draw up your blueprint……muhahaha muhaaaaahaha
April 13th 2012 @ 7:01am
kingplaymaker said | April 13th 2012 @ 7:01am | Report comment
Moaman I think in fact that the problems with the Blues and Waratahs are very similar: decadence resulting from having such a luxury of players and the biggest catchment area in each respective country.
Because of this they appoint bad coaches, assume that their playing stocks will take care of anything, and do little to maximise the discovery of talent within their playing areas.
The solution to this of course is competition. If the Blues were forced to compete against Counties Manukau and North Harbour teams they would have to become a highly efficent, ruthless professional outfit in order to survive and compete and develop talent. In the same way if the Waratahs had to compete against two other Sydney teams they would have to appoint good coaches, develop available talent to the maximum, and so forth.
So the solution to these problems is one more and ideally two more teams in each city
!!!!!!!!!!
April 13th 2012 @ 7:07am
mania said | April 13th 2012 @ 7:07am | Report comment
so basically KPM your solution comes back to having more teams at the top end of the rugby prymid? blues problems isnt a case of not having enough talent. its that talent not performing. u state having competition within the franchise is the answer? blues already have competition holding onto its players from the other franchises. having another southAuckland team isnt the answer and would just spread the talent thinner, as the force and rebels have done in aus.
the answer to the blues getting off the bottom isnt to have more teams. the answer is fix whats wrong with it without throwing away money on another team and thinning the player depth.
NZ has had 5 teams since the inception of super rugby. this model was well thought out and works. blues woes are recent. the NZ super model is 15 years old. the mdel isnt the problem, its the blues.
April 13th 2012 @ 7:42am
kingplaymaker said | April 13th 2012 @ 7:42am | Report comment
mania firstly there is enough talent in Auckland for more than one team: the place is overflowing with talent. Secondly with more teams the players currently going to league would start to be recruited and the pool would enlarge.
The problem with the Blues’ performance goes back to the entire decadent culture of the organisation. Put it in competition and it would have to shape up as well as develop yet more talent. More teams competing over talent would also make sure every inch of talent was developed to the maximum which doubtless isn’t the case at the moment.
April 13th 2012 @ 7:47am
mania said | April 13th 2012 @ 7:47am | Report comment
KPM – before we get into this again i would just like to say that even though i think your wrong most of the time its good to have a well thought out argument with you. its from the chaos of our discussions that new ideas are born.
NZ doesnt have a league problem. Nz has the player depth but shouldnt put in another team. blues issues are recent and has nothing to do with the NZ super model. blues issues are isolated and not an accurate indication of how the rest of the franchises and rugby in NZ is doing. thats as short n sweet as i can make it
April 13th 2012 @ 7:50am
kingplaymaker said | April 13th 2012 @ 7:50am | Report comment
mania that’s how ideas develop, through being whipped, threshed, added to, expanded, rejected, elaborated, otherwise they would just stay at first base
It will be interesting to see what becomes of Taranaki’s radical proposal, if anything.
April 13th 2012 @ 7:52am
mania said | April 13th 2012 @ 7:52am | Report comment
kpm – i’m against the taranaki bid. i know they’ll do great but one fo the other franchises wuld suffer
April 13th 2012 @ 8:24am
kingplaymaker said | April 13th 2012 @ 8:24am | Report comment
I think there are more players in NZ who don’t make the current teams who are just as good, NZers abroad who could be brought back, all the NZ league players who could be brought over, and even some greater allowance for imports to further strengthen things. All these might make more strong teams. We shall see though, or not as the csae may be!
April 13th 2012 @ 8:36am
mania said | April 13th 2012 @ 8:36am | Report comment
KPM – the best players play for the AB’s. the kiwi’s abroad could come back but it would take them at least 2 seasons to get back to the level of fitness that SR plays at (eg, Matfield, Elsom, lukeMcAlistair). those players that arent currently on contract arent ‘just as good’ otherwise they would’ve gotten a contract already. ‘all the NZ league players who could be brought over’ doubt theres many valid rugby players in the warriors, those that can play rugby would be playing it already.
April 13th 2012 @ 10:24am
kingplaymaker said | April 13th 2012 @ 10:24am | Report comment
mania obviously it would take a while for the returning players to get back to speed. It’s not a short term fix.
I don’t think the league players would be playing rugby anyway. They simply get snapped up by league first because there is only one team competing in Auckland. If there were more, then a greater number of places could be offered to these young players.
April 13th 2012 @ 10:28am
mania said | April 13th 2012 @ 10:28am | Report comment
nah KPM, your thinking that auckland talent stays in auckland which is seldom the case
April 13th 2012 @ 10:42am
kingplaymaker said | April 13th 2012 @ 10:42am | Report comment
mania of course not all do, but certainly the NRL is able to snap up a lot of youngsters. With a club in the heart of South Auckland this would no longer be the case.
April 14th 2012 @ 7:05am
Bakkies said | April 14th 2012 @ 7:05am | Report comment
Blues have actually won titles. The Tahs remind me of where Leinster were 6 years ago. Nearly men with a talent loaded side, had some faults, revolving door of coaches, accused of being D4 centric (Dublin’s version of the eastern suburbs). They fixed it by hiring coaches with a backbone and not afraid to tell it as it is. Increased their fan base province wide, increased membership sales and sell out their stadiums every week
April 16th 2012 @ 5:56am
Damo said | April 16th 2012 @ 5:56am | Report comment
Thank you Bakkies! Especially for the bit ‘increased their fan base province-wide’
Brilliant! The Irish experiment worked. Now all we have to do is wrest control off the east-centric Tah Czars.
A quiet revolution still beckons.
April 13th 2012 @ 10:38am
stillmatic1 said | April 13th 2012 @ 10:38am | Report comment
kpm, can you please show me any competition in the world that has more than 10 teams that can compete for a championship? lets start in the u.s.a. nba, nope, nowhere near 10 teams can realistically compete for the title, nfl, nope, baseball, nope. football in europe, nope, just the usual suspects there. fact is, population clearly has very little to do with it, otherwise every New York team would win, or L.A team would win in baseball/basketball/nfl. is money the over riding factor? again, in the U.S, it obviously helps but still then the like of L.A and N.Y would clean all before them.
the above examples are based on countries/continents that have 15-20 times the amount of people to choose from and yet does in no way guarentee success. if there are 20 out of 30 or so teams in the major sports in the U.S.A that struggle to achieve success then what of 4 major codes in a country of 20 million?
allowing for the cyclical nature of sport just as in life, we in general see the usual suspects at or near the top of each of the 4 codes of football in this country and yet you think that having a few more teams will unearth all this supposed potential!! how many nrl/afl clubs are actually financially viable in australia? to grow the game of rugby in oz, you need to fix the product from the grassroots up, not from the top down.
will the likes of GWS/GCS/rebels be strong in the future because they buy top line players, or because they develop a grassroots development pathway? but again, this may take generations to unfold as i have mentioned already that a majority of sporting clubs in australia/nz and even the world continue to struggle with being viable businesses.
when the rebels, charlotte bobcats, detroit lions or cronulla start winning championships then the expansion that you ask for can be validated. there are plenty of teams in all sports around the globe that are 1 team towns, and yet still dont win, so are they run as a “decadent” organisation? or is there simply not enough supreme athletes/players around?
April 13th 2012 @ 10:48am
kingplaymaker said | April 13th 2012 @ 10:48am | Report comment
stillmatic1 the number of teams doesn’t matter at all, it’s the SPREAD of talent that determines how competitive the teams are. In England until the recent raising of the salary cap they had 12 roughly competitive teams, which is why they keep it despite the problems it leads to when they compete with the no salary cap Heineken Cup.
So in the first place you keep the talent even through a salary cap or even a partial draft, and in the long-term the teams produce their own talent but you STILL keep it evenly spread through a salary cap.
April 13th 2012 @ 11:39am
stillmatic1 said | April 13th 2012 @ 11:39am | Report comment
at this stage i fail to see how this utopian spread of talent will manifest itself, as it hasnt in any sport on the planet. creating more teams just spreads the AVAILABLE talent around, doesnt necessarily create more talent to choose from. if it did create more talent to choose from then the likes of the charlotte bobcats would be better than they are. but when almost half the teams of any given competition in the world (with or without a salary cap or draft) fail to genuinely compete on a long term scale, then does this not show that the myth of creating new entities fails to bring results in terms of performance and talent acquisition?
i think the reason sport is so popular as a spectator endeavour is simply because most of the populace dont actually have to play it!! there will always be thousands of michael jordans out there, thousands of potential jonah lomus out there, but they will never have their talents realised just like the rest of us. for every person that we recognise as having immense potential there probably is myriad others out there that we will miss. this will be the case no matter how many teams we create.
further to this, who says that there will be enough base supporters in these new centres to actually sustain long term viability anyway? you simply cant force feed the population of adelaide a game they dont care or identify with, and trying to do that by setting up a top flight team with no grassroots following is simply poor business practise.
April 13th 2012 @ 11:48am
kingplaymaker said | April 13th 2012 @ 11:48am | Report comment
stillmatic in England it has…
it creates talent by spreading the game to new areas and stopping the player rugby loses to league going there, as 1 team can’t offer as many contracts as 9….
These are all large areas of 1 million plus mostly with strong rugby traditions so supporters won’t be a problem.
All quite straightforward actually.
April 14th 2012 @ 11:53am
stillmatic1 said | April 14th 2012 @ 11:53am | Report comment
and which championship are you mentioning? aviva, with an average crowd of about 11 thousand? and the usual suspect winning consistently!?
not to mention that all but 2 teams are running operating losses in the aviva premiership!! hats off to leicester and northhampton, but what about the rest? simply generating revenue by having 1 or 2 big crowds obviously isnt helping the long term viability of these clubs, and at some point, the debts will be called in. who bails them out, KPM?
fact is, the talent/support is simply not there on a sustainable, long term level and infact hasnt shown itself in england at all. how can you claim that the game is spread to a new area and then say they are large areas with strong rugby traditions? cant be new if it has a strong rugby tradition, now can it. and which are these million plus population centres that you speak of?
a clubs viability is not simply based on gate takings, it helps of course, but when 2 out of 12 clubs are running at a loss, this is simply poor business.
so in reality KPM, your assertion that new talent has been created is simply not right. not in results on the field or off it.
April 15th 2012 @ 1:12am
Ben S said | April 15th 2012 @ 1:12am | Report comment
‘and the usual suspect winning consistently!?’
Saracens and Exeter?
April 13th 2012 @ 5:02pm
Ryan said | April 13th 2012 @ 5:02pm | Report comment
Sydney 1 and 2 in the KPM model should become Western Sydney and Central Coast. Both are no brainers.
April 14th 2012 @ 7:09am
Bakkies said | April 14th 2012 @ 7:09am | Report comment
Don’t you mean money drainers.
April 13th 2012 @ 6:29am
mania said | April 13th 2012 @ 6:29am | Report comment
needs to go back further than IRANZ murray. waste of time having an IRANZ and an Academy when attendence would only be a couple of players. needs to go back to age and nursery grades. thats where u start and then hopefully something like IRANZ can be setup
April 13th 2012 @ 7:00am
p.Tah said | April 13th 2012 @ 7:00am | Report comment
‘In other words, if you don’t make the small number of players taken in by the provincial academies around New Zealand, there is a second option to up-skill.’ we don’t even have an academy at each province anymore. It’s centralised.
April 13th 2012 @ 8:40am
sheek said | April 13th 2012 @ 8:40am | Report comment
Murray,
You have articulated the problems of Australian rugby particularly well.
Firstly, the player participation numbers aren’t significantly different. Yet the standard of skills for the average Kiwi rugby player is in excess of his Aussie counterpart. This then is the interesting part.
While the gap might be narrower at the top, it is still significant. The ABs beat us on average these days 8 or 9 times out of every 10. And for every SR success one of our provinces enjoys, the Kiwis seem to enjoy about 5.
But the gap widens below this. It must come back to the poor training of our coaches, both volunteer/amateur & professional. This plus poor domestic structures. And selection has always been a historical problem. The old NSW-Qld rivalry has, at least on the sub-conscious level, been responsible for some odd selections over a century.
It’s also crazy for example, that secondary schools rugby can’t be streamlined because organisations like GPS & CAS see themselves operating independently of Australian rugby requirements.
Clearly, there is a lack of competition for places as players progress, certainly unlike that evident in NZ. This is also realised at the national level, whereby players sometimes might be content with just winning a gold jersey rather than working hard to keep it.
At the national level, another problem is evident. When a “golden” Wallabies side disbands, it can take more than a decade sometimes for another “golden” team to appear. Compare this with NZ & SA, whereby bad years rarely last more than 2 or 3 at the most.
April 13th 2012 @ 8:50am
Davo said | April 13th 2012 @ 8:50am | Report comment
Murray I dont think you realise that Rugby is not our national sport like it is in NZ. It is quite a minor sport in this country and is probably between our 4th and 7th most favorite sport. All our top athletes play in the AFL and NRL if you have not noticed.
Still I think we do rather well considering the status of Rugby in this country. Correct me if I am wrong but arent we ranked 2nd in the world with 2 world cups.
April 13th 2012 @ 9:01am
Justin said | April 13th 2012 @ 9:01am | Report comment
Murray you have given us the NZ system but do you know how the AUS system works? If so can you please give us a run down?
April 13th 2012 @ 9:03am
Gary Russell-Sharam said | April 13th 2012 @ 9:03am | Report comment
I agree with Tarzan (Mexted) that Aussie rugby needs a second tier below Super Rugby. The ARC was prematurely cancelled in my mind before it was given a chance to succeed. JON came to power and immediately canned it. JON idea of growing rugby is from the top down not from the bottom up. I have long lamented on this site that if you don’t make it as a schoolboy to 1st XV and then on to the (now defunct state academies) for whatever reason (mostly because of the different stages of maturity that player reach their potential) you are faced with the obscurity of club rugby. I know that some make it, however there is a hell of a lot that don’t ever get the opportunity to show their wares. The ARC was the perfect stage to show off the rising talent within Aussie Rugby. I always maintained that with a bit of tinkering around the edges we could have had a viable second tier competition operating up the eastern seaboard at least. I thought that the original setting up of the teams wasn’t too far off the mark. Yes it cost the ARU a fair bit to start with but if it had continued I’m sure more corporate dollars would have been forthcoming. The budgets that were floated in the first place suggested that that was the aim. Even in the first year with, IMO, slightly higher wages and costs that should have been paid the costs were not exorbitant. I do know right across the board there were a lot of budding young players extremely disillusioned with Rugby after the abandonment of the ARC. IMO, looking at an overview of the Wallabies and the Super Rugby franchise performances in recent times there is ample examples of the lack of a second tier competition. A second tier would add the depth that a lot of posters go on about and it would also bring young players up to speed to make an easier transition to the top level. I have an opinion that the lack of a second tier comp is one of the major factors why our Super franchises are not doing so well and I also think it relates to our (IMO) not so good performance at the recent WC. I know the Reds last year won the super title but you could say there were mitigating circumstances that allowed a bit of a dream run for them (I take nothing away from their performance) the Crusaders had a very hard year coping with external problems. The Reds hardly had any injuries. And some of the opposition teams were not at the best that I have seen them in the past. All this being said the rest of the Aussie franchises seem to struggle and it seems this has carried on this year. It would seem to me there is some food for thought as to current form that my argument and Tarzan’s comments may have some substance.
April 13th 2012 @ 9:16am
Justin said | April 13th 2012 @ 9:16am | Report comment
Lets not re-write history Gary – “The Reds hardly had any injuries”. Thats completely false, they used 37 players due to injury.
One factor why many players maybe struggling this year is the non existent off season due to the ARU being greedy and having the EOY tour to the UK. They had just played a WC and then toured purely for the coffers of the ARU. Some of the players are knackered.
April 13th 2012 @ 9:55am
Brett McKay said | April 13th 2012 @ 9:55am | Report comment
Gary, your thoughts on the ARC are in line with my own. I’ve long argued that while ’07 cost $5M, and ’08 was budgeted for $3M, we might’ve found that by 2011 or 2012 that it was largely self-sufficient. And my argument was/is that surely $10-12M over five or six seasons is actually a worthwhile investment, rather than “leaking money” as was/is often perceived and reported.
My argument is that the ARU cannot afford NOT to make this kind of investment. And yet, that’s the direction they went…
April 13th 2012 @ 9:59am
sheek said | April 13th 2012 @ 9:59am | Report comment
Brett – Ditto…..
The ARC was a brilliant concept. The problem, as we all know, or should know, is that the 2007 model was deeply flawed.
1. The comp must have the leading players available. No comp can flourish without its best players on display. In 2007, the world cup squad was deemed ineligible to compete. This hurt the ARC enormously.
2. It should be run semi-professionally. Leading Wallabies & SR players only get match payments, medical insurance & travel allowance, nothing more. Plus the other benefits of free gear, accommodation, travel & transfers.
3. Play the comp mid-week so as not to directly oppose AFL & NRL on weekends. Also start by using smaller grounds – 15,000 to 30,000 capacity. Expand to larger venues as the comp gains traction.
4. Make the teams relevant to their location. In 2007, you had northern Sydney players turning out for Central Coast & Eastern Sydney players playing out of North Sydney Oval. Two incredibly stupid decisions.
April 13th 2012 @ 10:14am
Justin said | April 13th 2012 @ 10:14am | Report comment
Sheek – not trying to be negative but the problem starts with your point 1. When is the comp going to be played? Test and Super players on on the job from Jan to Aug/September or so, then NH tours. They also must have at least 6 weeks off.
April 13th 2012 @ 10:42am
sheek said | April 13th 2012 @ 10:42am | Report comment
Justin,
Previously, the window appeared to be Sep-Oct.
Previously, rugby had basically shgut down during Sep-Oct while the AFL & NRL finals series were hotting up. Rugby needed to have something go up against both AFL & NRL.
The Sep-Oct window appears ideal since this is also when the Currie Cup (SA) & NPC (NZ) are also contested.
An 8 team ARC would need 10 weeks, made up of 8 home & away games, plus a week of semis & a week for the final. A window of early/mid August to mid/late October is preferred. Apart from the finalists, all other players would have a 1-3 weeks break before the northern tour.
Of course, every 4 years you would have the problem of a world cup usually contested in Sep-Oct, so I don’t know how you get around that.
The ARC would also work better if my other suggestion of a truncated Heineken Cup style Super Rugby was accommodated.
As you allude, the problem is one of leading players being asked to appear in too many comps, & playing far too many games.
April 13th 2012 @ 10:51am
kingplaymaker said | April 13th 2012 @ 10:51am | Report comment
Sheek I applaud your idea although I would push for 10 teams as then every base is covered and as the game grows (hopefully) it would grow in every major area. Plus more teams equals more opportunities in more locations.
I think who replaces O’Neill will determine whether it will happen. It could be anyone. The irony is of course that O’Neill is the one person who could probably pull it off and do it under-budget. But as you said once long ago in an article he probably won’t risk it.
April 13th 2012 @ 11:24am
Justin said | April 13th 2012 @ 11:24am | Report comment
Sheek – The Wallabies will not be available from early to mid August through until the end of October effectively. SO no Wallabies would be playing in the ARC at that time.
April 13th 2012 @ 1:04pm
sheek said | April 13th 2012 @ 1:04pm | Report comment
Justin,
If an ARC was ever revived, iIm assuming there might be a re-jigging of the season’s format to accommodate it. If the country’s leading 30-40 players can’t participate in an ARC, for whatever reasons, then there’s no point reseurrecting it, I’m afraid.
Otherwise, have the provincial academies, or effectively, the 2nd XVs play each other.
That’s assuming for example, SANZAR has no intention of truncating SR.
April 14th 2012 @ 3:35am
AndyS said | April 14th 2012 @ 3:35am | Report comment
Actually, I’m not sure I’d agree with that. If it was played with all the Wallabies present, it would be interesting for the fans but ultimately a little pointless – what is the motivation for half the players? During the ARC I mostly caught the Spirit matches and there was a noticeable stepchange at one specific point, which was when Cam Shepherd got called up to the WC squad. It suddenly seemed to dawn on the rest of them that, far from simply playing some sort of Club Rugby 2.0, they were actually one small step from being called up to the big show.
For mine, any ARC equivalent should run in parallel with Test rugby. That is when there is a sudden dearth of professional matches to watch, as half the Tests aren’t even in Australia and, when they are, it is still only the one match. Better that there is a place for recovering players to get some match play without being rushed back, a pool of players eager to show what they have and raring to go hard at any opportunity, and at least a few games to watch and/or attend each weekend.Also, as above, it is obviously far more manageable from a player management point of view
April 13th 2012 @ 1:16pm
bluerose said | April 13th 2012 @ 1:16pm | Report comment
follow the Currie Cup format
April 14th 2012 @ 7:14am
Bakkies said | April 14th 2012 @ 7:14am | Report comment
Actually I would have an A team comp running now if the ARC is not possible. It’s a joke that the Super Rugby A teams are playing a handful of one off fixtures rather than meaningful matches. Then they are forced in to club rugby which is an even lower level
April 14th 2012 @ 7:37am
Ian Whitchurch said | April 14th 2012 @ 7:37am | Report comment
Bakkies,
The NEAFL is the model – a northern and an eastern division of club sides and the reserves of the Super teams, with most games in division and some cross-division.
Play the Shute Shield and Hospital Cup finals between the two highest-ranking, non-reserves, sides in each conference.
Its a disgrace that the AFL can set up a second tier competition in Queensland and NSW and rugby union cant.
April 14th 2012 @ 8:04am
Bakkies said | April 14th 2012 @ 8:04am | Report comment
they discussed that 20 years ago and the clubs opposed. Won’t happen now. There was a comp recently where the winners of the ACT, NSW and Qld comps played each other. NSW and Qld winners sent scratch side and Tuggers won by default
”Also start by using smaller grounds – 15,000 to 30,000 capacity”
That’s what they did in the ARC and they cost a bomb to rent. Grounds like Concord should have been used
April 13th 2012 @ 12:11pm
nickoldschool said | April 13th 2012 @ 12:11pm | Report comment
Great on paper but i dont see how this could be a more viable option than the previous model. Mid-week games= attendances of a few thousands at best, hence not much income.
Its also impossible to force wallabies or senior SR players to play for virtually nothing when they can have a stint overseas for 10 times more (Japan, medical joker in Top 14 etc) or rest.
April 13th 2012 @ 10:09am
kingplaymaker said | April 13th 2012 @ 10:09am | Report comment
Brett I fully agree with that and I would personally add that if these national competition teams had owners, or if even some of them had owners, the ARU might not even need to spend any money.
Even if they did though as you say it would be a worthwhile investment. Probably the extra teams, quality, players etc…would lead to more money elsewhere anyway.
April 13th 2012 @ 10:26am
Markus said | April 13th 2012 @ 10:26am | Report comment
I disagree. Among the many failings of the ARC were:
- Poorly timed: created when Aus only had 3 established Super teams, the Force still struggling to find their feet
- Poorly co-ordinated: zero collaboration with the existing Sydney and Brisbane club comps. In fact the whole planning stage was almost a big middle finger to both
- Poorly scheduled: many of the games clashed with key matches in the more established local comps. In Canberra, the last round game was scheduled at the same time as the ACTRU finals, on the opposite side of town
- Poorly budgeted: The Vikings were the only team that did not run at a substantial loss (they made small profit), and the whole comp was already $2 million over budget within 4 months. I do not see any reason why the following season would have not had a similar blowout, given the exorbitant costs of sustaining entirely artificial teams like the Rebels and Rams.
While a 3rd tier was/is definitely required, the ARC was not it, and throwing more money at a well-intentioned but terribly implemented tournament would have seen the ARU bankrupt by now.
April 13th 2012 @ 11:38am
Brett McKay said | April 13th 2012 @ 11:38am | Report comment
Markus, no question things could’ve been done better, but I would have been highly surprised if John O’Neill, a career banker, had allowed the second season to blow out like the first did. I’m quite certain that subsequent seasons would’ve been run a lot more efficiently than the first..
April 13th 2012 @ 2:08pm
AndyS said | April 13th 2012 @ 2:08pm | Report comment
Disagree on the first point – the Perth team also broke even or slightly better and had the best attendances. You’d've thought they might have taken a look at them and the Vikings and seen if there were some lessons could be learnt…
April 13th 2012 @ 10:54pm
IronAwe said | April 13th 2012 @ 10:54pm | Report comment
“you’d've” – Great word!
April 14th 2012 @ 7:21am
Bakkies said | April 14th 2012 @ 7:21am | Report comment
Two things I didn’t like about the Canberra team.
1. It was the Canberra Vikings. Most ACT rugby supporters who aren’t involved with Tuggeranong despise them. Larkham preferred to play for Wests when he was available rather than running out for the Vikings in the Brisbane comp. The team had to be inclusive and bringing back the Kookaburras would have been a brilliant idea. They got bumper crowds before they were renamed Canberra Vikings.
2. Even from the outside looking in the matches were poorly promoted.
April 14th 2012 @ 7:40am
Ian Whitchurch said | April 14th 2012 @ 7:40am | Report comment
Bakkies,
If you’ve got that issue, you need two teams.
You need the well-hated, stand-alone team, and you need the amalgamation of everyone else. You need the Tuggeranong Vikings, and you need Canberra.
This way, you get a game every weekend, and you get two local derbies a year.
An issue with rugby union is that it thinks of sides as rep sides. It doesnt have to be that way.
April 14th 2012 @ 8:09am
Bakkies said | April 14th 2012 @ 8:09am | Report comment
Canberra could only field one team and it has to be a team that represented everyone. The Kookaburras had a historically identity and could of been used
April 13th 2012 @ 9:07am
Brett McKay said | April 13th 2012 @ 9:07am | Report comment
“In the world’s most organized and developed rugby structure, we still find that an independent arm (IRANZ) now provides one third of all New Zealand’s provincial players. There is no doubt a structure similar to IRANZ is needed in Australia and I am surprised it hasn’t been established.
We have had a number of propositions which have gone nowhere.”
Murray, on behalf of Australian rugby, I respectfully ask that you PLEASE keep chasing this rabbit!! What is obviously an opportunity for IRANZ is also an opportunity for rugby here. The penny HAS to drop eventually…
April 13th 2012 @ 9:53am
Gary Russell-Sharam said | April 13th 2012 @ 9:53am | Report comment
Justin while I appreciate what you are saying please look at the detail of my post and not take tiny exerts from my content to make a total point. If you look at what I said in detail the injury matter was only a part of the circumstances that I exposed. The Reds did use 37 players but didn’t have any long term serious injuries that had vital players missing for long periods. The one player they did miss was Harris at the end of the season. I agree with you there seems to be a lethargy from the players that toured at the end of last year, however IMO that is not the entire reason for the lack of form of the Aussie conferences I think it is more deep seated than that as I have said in my post.
April 13th 2012 @ 11:29am
Justin said | April 13th 2012 @ 11:29am | Report comment
Gary – there are numerous factors involved in the performance of the Super sides of which another tier is but one.
Re the Reds, sorry for the quote but so often on here myths become facts all too easily.
April 13th 2012 @ 9:56am
Albo said | April 13th 2012 @ 9:56am | Report comment
I can’t help but feel as though the hyperbole surrounding the weak Australian conference is getting a little out of hand.
It’s not like the Aussie teams have been the whipping boys of the competition. Apart from the Reds Bulls blowout and the forces late capitulation against the ‘Canes, it’s not like it’s been 50-0 scores every week.
I’m enjoying having a few underdog Aussie teams to go for… How hard has tipping this year been? I have loved this years competition despite the Aussie teams not doing so well.
I’ve gotta clean this soapbox.. getting a bit gritty underfoot.
April 13th 2012 @ 10:14am
Spencer said | April 13th 2012 @ 10:14am | Report comment
Agree.