4,795 reads
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.
- Explore:
- Murray Mexted, Rugby Union, Super Rugby
April 13th 2012 @ 10:05am
reds fan said | April 13th 2012 @ 10:05am | Report comment
If the ARU won’t do anything, perhaps we can convince the IRANZ to open its first international office?
April 16th 2012 @ 6:19pm
Mex said | April 16th 2012 @ 6:19pm | Report comment
IRANZ operates under licence in South Africa & is known as The Investec Academy or IRASA. Now into their forth year of operation under the leadership of Dick Muir. They too are starting to produce interesting figures.
Mex
April 13th 2012 @ 10:16am
Atawhai Drive said | April 13th 2012 @ 10:16am | Report comment
I don’t have a real problem with Murray Mexted plugging the IRANZ in his column.
But I do wonder exactly what he means when he says that IRANZ provides one-third of all NZ provincial players.
Does this mean that they would not have gained provincial honours unless they had been to IRANZ? Difficult to prove.
And does “provincial players” refer only to those playing in the ITM Cup, i.e. being paid to play? Or are some Heartland Championship amateurs included?
April 13th 2012 @ 10:54am
The Bush said | April 13th 2012 @ 10:54am | Report comment
It is an interesting observation, and one that is missed frequently, that New Zealand’s player base is not really that different to Australia’s. So then, what is different? The most commonly listed thing is the ITM Cup, so perhaps we should assess why Australia doesn’t and apparently can’t have one.
1. The most common one listed is the “distance” between our major population centres. It seems strange that in the modern world of cheap and frequent airfares that this is still an excuse. You fly in, play, at most stay overnight (think trips to Perth) and then fly out the next day. Auckland to Dunedine is further than Melbourne to Sydney, yet New Zealand seems capable of doing it.
2. Rugby is simply not popular enough to sustain this. Again, this seems strange. I watch the ITM Cup on TV and the crowds for a lot of games don’t seem to get over the 5,000 – in fact I’d be shocked if more than half did this (or at least comfortably did this).
My old Premier Grade club in Brisbane used to get close to a 1,000 people to watch them play and they are just one of eight (8) clubs in Brisbane. I find it very hard to imagine that Brisbane, Sydney and Canberra wouldn’t comfortably get between 5,000 and 10,000 to games once the competition was established. I’d even suggest Melbourne and Perth would be able to manage it as well.
As to a TV package, I’d love to know what Foxtel pays for the Currie Cup and ITM Cup? Surely they’d be more interested in showing an Australian comp, live, at the right times, with our own players in it. I am aware that the ARU had to pay the ABC to show the last product – but it all seems like it was simply negotiated or handled very badly.
3. At a minimum, why can’t the five (5) professional sides, field rebranded teams in the post-Super Rugby season in a development comp. You could add a sixth (6th) team from Western Sydney, Adelaide, Gold Coast (wherever) and simply have a ten (10) week round-robin tournament with a final. This would provide opportunities for players returning from injury, allow form to be maintained whilst the Rugby Championship is on and give a development pathway for young players to step up and fill the gaps created by Wallabies being on duty (plus a whole extra team full of up-and-comers).
April 13th 2012 @ 11:01am
mania said | April 13th 2012 @ 11:01am | Report comment
The Bush – the things that is missing in your blog as well as murrays is the fact that kids love watching the AB’s. its at this level where an individual really falls in love with the game. our crowds are a bad indication of the level of rugby in NZ. i and most of my mates as kids much prefered playin rugby than watching it. i dont have the stats but i imagine most kids would be like this.
also we watched the AB’s and then would come up with ideas and practice them on our mates. in NZ if your good enough you’d have lots of trainings to go to and practise your new ideas.
its this love of the game at an early age that is missing from the aus conf.
April 13th 2012 @ 12:13pm
The Bush said | April 13th 2012 @ 12:13pm | Report comment
Possibly, it certainly shouldn’t be discounted.
I also firmly believe that Australia’s playing numbers don’t represent interest in the sport (and not in a good way). I would argue that the ratio of Union players v supporters is much higher than the ratio of league players to supporters. What I mean by this is that if you support Union there is a very high chance you played it a lot and continued to play it as an adult, whereas League probably has far fewer adult players as a percentage of their supporters.
This is basically what you’re saying about New Zealand, playing numbers don’t represent overall interest (a lot like American Football – immensely popular but with a very, very small player base in comparison).
April 13th 2012 @ 11:46am
Brett McKay said | April 13th 2012 @ 11:46am | Report comment
Bushy, the obvious answer to your “what is different?” player base question is that Australia’s ITM Cup is the NRL. That’s not to denegrate it as a lesser comp at all, just to say that the 16 teams across the country that in an ideal world would be feeding the Super Rugby sides just happen to be playing a different code. And that’s before we even attempt to fit the AFL into the equation…
April 13th 2012 @ 12:19pm
The Bush said | April 13th 2012 @ 12:19pm | Report comment
I think I know what you’re saying Brett – there are only finite resources and levels of interest and they are simply taken up by the NRL and AFL – for example, it was always amazing how often the NRL was discussed at Rugby training. Why? Because at the end of the day, the sports are similar enough that a good majority of Rugby fans (the non-fanatical) are more than happy to watch and support the NRL and wouldn’t feel the need to get down and attend a domestic Rugby match/competition.
As to the discussion about whether the NRL would “feed” into a Super Rugby tournament, I don’t see it that way. If the Rugby’s had either never diverged or merged tomorrow (and assuming it was the national sport of New Zealand and the unassailably dominant sport in Queensland, NSW and the ACT) I think there wouldn’t be Super Rugby. The reason for this is that the “NRL” would simply be a monster and would not require anything to be above it (it is nearly that kind of “monster” now).
What would this “Super NRL” look like? Well it would certainly contain more than one (1) side from New Zealand and would probably take the form of either multiple divisions or multiple conferences. Remember, the NRL is already the largest “rugby” competition in the world in terms of both attendances and TV audience. If it absorbded New Zealand and the Rugby watching public in Australia it is hard to imagine how it would not be far-and-away the biggest and best “Rugby” competition in the world – so why would you need anything more?
April 13th 2012 @ 12:37pm
Brett McKay said | April 13th 2012 @ 12:37pm | Report comment
And that’s quite probably true, Bushy, had the rugby forefathers just covered injury expenses back in 1908, Australia’s sporting landscape could be entirely different, and yes, the need for Super Rugby probably wouldn’t be as strong. In that case it would be interesting to see then if the southern hemisphere had any kind of cross-national competition at all. Would the top Currie Cup, NPC, and National Super Rugby teams meet, or would the three countries just happily exist in their own bubbles??
Does Sean Fagan have a crystal ball?!?
April 13th 2012 @ 1:56pm
The Bush said | April 13th 2012 @ 1:56pm | Report comment
Brett,
I”d suggest that it would have been easier to simply allow injury insurance/payments in 1895 in England to avoid the split. Though I’m pretty sure people with more knowledge than me would point out that there was an ideological split between the Northern workers playing the game and the Southern gentlemen – if it wasn’t one thing, it would have been the other.
I don’t think there would be any sort of cross-national tournament like the Heineken Cup or Super Rugby – rather New Zealand would field a few top flight teams in our competition, whether due to have two (2) division or multiple conferences, you can pick
April 13th 2012 @ 11:05am
kingplaymaker said | April 13th 2012 @ 11:05am | Report comment
The Bush a good post.
I think a fearful misjudgement was made about the Australian market, assuming it wouldn’t pull crowds. Look at new franchises Perth and Melbourne pulling in the crowds! Adelaide would do the same, as would countless heartland areas.
The 10 teams I listed at the top of the page, every base covered. 9 matches then a final, or even semi-finals and a final.
So simple!
April 13th 2012 @ 11:46am
redsnut said | April 13th 2012 @ 11:46am | Report comment
But not the Gold Coast KPM.
RL and AFL teams over the years there have come and gone due to lack of support and financial unsustainability.
April 13th 2012 @ 11:49am
Gary Russell-Sharam said | April 13th 2012 @ 11:49am | Report comment
Good post by The Bush I agree with his summation of the situation.
April 13th 2012 @ 11:54am
kingplaymaker said | April 13th 2012 @ 11:54am | Report comment
redsnut I think that’s their own blundering: the Gold Coast is a rugby heartland with a population for the whole area around 1 million. It’s always going to be harder for the AFL to succeed in an area where it’s an alien sport but this isn’t a problem for rugby. League’s issues seem more to do with organisational ineptitude than anything else-the new sports centre was obviously a disaster.
April 13th 2012 @ 12:25pm
The Bush said | April 13th 2012 @ 12:25pm | Report comment
KPM,
I strongly dispute that the Gold Coast has a population of around 1 million. Gold Coast City has less than 600,000 and Tweed LGA has less than 100,000. The Scenic Rim – the LGA to the west (and a large and dispersed one at that), has less than 50,000. Furthermore, having lived there, any suggestion that Logan City is encompassed by the Gold Coast is strongly rejected.
At most, and that is stretching the limits of what we can honestly call the Gold Coast, there are between 700,000 and 750,000. They have a NRL team and an AFL team – they’re at their saturation point right now.
April 13th 2012 @ 12:31pm
Johnno said | April 13th 2012 @ 12:31pm | Report comment
The bush but the gold coast is growing and will probably be 1 million by 2030 or 2040 it is huge it’s growth plus, Brisbane is expanding too. ANd Ipswich, and the sunshine coast,, plus tweed heads so the million mark that KPM is pointing too is going too happen, and 750,000 is still a massive heartland being rejected by the sport of rugby union.
April 13th 2012 @ 1:53pm
The Bush said | April 13th 2012 @ 1:53pm | Report comment
Actually Johnno, I think you’ll find that growth on the Gold Coast is slowing down and was probably overestimated a few years ago.
There are certainly a lot of people moving to Brisbane and it’s satelite cities, but don’t equate that with the Gold Coast (which is what we were talking about).
As to the Gold Coast being a “heartland” area rejected by the sport of Rugby Union – see my response to KPM underneath about the actual status of the sport.
April 13th 2012 @ 12:34pm
kingplaymaker said | April 13th 2012 @ 12:34pm | Report comment
I meant the area within reasonable distance.
Rugby has decades of history in Queensland whilst the AFL is completely new. The appearance of an AFL team doesn’t mean the rugby culture or potential fanbase is suddenly wiped out at all. The moment a rugby team appeared there masses of rugby fans would appear, whether there is an AFL team or not. The presence of an NRL team is far more important.
April 13th 2012 @ 1:49pm
The Bush said | April 13th 2012 @ 1:49pm | Report comment
KPM,
I assumed you were talking reasonable distance and I just explained to you how that is simply not the case. Even within a “reasonable” distance, it wouldn’t be more than 750,000.
Finally, as to the “history” or “culture” of Rugby on the Gold Coast now, I can tell you that Aussie Rules would have more clubs and more players, or at least even, as Rugby Union on the Coast.
The Northern Conference of the NEAFL has clubs from Broadbeach, Labrador and Southport in it, whilst the “Second Division” has a further four (4) clubs – Burleigh, Surfers Paradise, Palm Beach and Tweed Heads. That is seven (7) major senior clubs playing in the two (2) “state-wide” levels. The Coast also several other clubs playing in lower divisions.
By comparision the Gold Coast only has one (1) team in the Premier Grade of Rugby Union in Queensland (though it has a local comp of eight (8) clubs).
In otherwords, there are more AFL clubs on the Gold Coast than Rugby Union clubs, so I think you’ll find that there is a lot more grassroots support for the code than you suggest and especially in comparision to Rugby Union.
April 13th 2012 @ 2:04pm
Justin said | April 13th 2012 @ 2:04pm | Report comment
Stop using facts to support your argument Bushy
April 13th 2012 @ 2:19pm
The Bush said | April 13th 2012 @ 2:19pm | Report comment
Using facts can be a dangerous thing on this forum at times…
April 13th 2012 @ 7:53pm
Darwin Stubbie said | April 13th 2012 @ 7:53pm | Report comment
The bloke lives in the UK and uses wiki population stats etc to try and rationalise an argument … It really isn’t worth it
April 14th 2012 @ 2:51am
kingplaymaker said | April 14th 2012 @ 2:51am | Report comment
Wow you seem to to know where I live: I wonder how you arrived at that.
April 15th 2012 @ 4:51am
Ben S said | April 15th 2012 @ 4:51am | Report comment
‘Wow you seem to to know where I live: I wonder how you arrived at that.’
You’ve said that you were ‘English’ before…
April 14th 2012 @ 2:55am
kingplaymaker said | April 14th 2012 @ 2:55am | Report comment
Those are the number of clubs, not the players or the representation in the schools, let alone the fan or supporter base, or what sports fans watch in GC in terms of rugby, NRL or AFL. The fact that the AFL has quite a few clubs doesn’t mean it is more dominant or ingrained in the culture than rugby.
April 14th 2012 @ 12:08pm
stillmatic1 said | April 14th 2012 @ 12:08pm | Report comment
are you serious? you contradict your own posts further up when you claim that some english towns have 1 million plus people and strong rugby traditions and thus will support a union team. however, a population centre like the GC that has very little support for union and much much more for AFL, and you claim that it is not ingrained or dominant!!
surely having a large number of clubs means there is an available support network compared to if not!! this doesnt necessarily that they are financially sound, but it represents the support for the sport of afl over union.
its amazing how with little to no evidence to support your opinions, that you find it weird that they are easily picked apart. and yet still you hold onto them as if a nice warm blanket.
April 14th 2012 @ 11:55pm
kingplaymaker said | April 14th 2012 @ 11:55pm | Report comment
stillmatic1 I only just saw your replies so won’t write anything long now as you probably won’t read it, suffice to say I don’t think I said there were a lot of 1 million plus towns in England with rugby clubs.
April 13th 2012 @ 1:33pm
Justin said | April 13th 2012 @ 1:33pm | Report comment
The GC is vastly over rated as a supporter base. Where is the long term success of any pro sporting club that has been based there?
April 13th 2012 @ 8:04pm
Jiggles said | April 13th 2012 @ 8:04pm | Report comment
The GC is a black-hole wasteland. The only people who go/live there are bogan Victorians who don’t really know any better
April 13th 2012 @ 12:23pm
boomeranga said | April 13th 2012 @ 12:23pm | Report comment
Why don’t we just use the 20 S15 derby days and play some 2nd 15 matches?
We could combine any available contracted players with representative players from the local competition. The next level of players would get 8 more games a year at a in-between level, enjoy the prestige in representing your city, and get to showcase themselves in front of the people who sign contracts for the pro’s. Do the same with coaches. Put a couple of your promising locals together to learn at a slightly higher level. Give them access to Deans et al, Dwyer, Jones and anyone else who is worth it, but not involved in the Super comp.
You could just call them Brisbane, Canberra, Melbourne, Perth and Sydney. Personally I would be quite happy to support a team just called Sydney (without fleet, flash, dolphin, etc) that wears the traditional jersey. If they need merchandise to sell, just offer me that traditional jersey. I buy loads of other crap. I’d actually be proud to buy that one as it contains some history and meaning.
You could administer the teams from the existing super administration’s. Setting up and promoting new teams is expensive, so don’t create whole new administrations, and take the games to the people who already go along anyway.
It’s not very grand, but what’s the point of talking grand schemes that never go anywhere? Just start with something we can afford, and in 5 or 10 years time, re-assess. Maybe in a few years would could also include the mighty Cockatoo’s.
April 13th 2012 @ 12:26pm
Johnno said | April 13th 2012 @ 12:26pm | Report comment
We need proper youth comp like the NRL Toyota cup or what i have been promoting too we need maybe a proper rugby academy, AIS style or Australian cricket Academy.
Set it up at Ballymore Brisbane, or maybe somewhere like NTH QLD a lot of land up there, or in country NSW armidale or tamworth or Bathurst they would love the investment or on the gold coast lots of land too.
Have it a strong one like 200 ply of aussies best young talant 18-21.
ANd really focus on the core parts of rugby
Forwads: Work on there set piece work to death
Backs: work on the core skills to death . defence, kicking, and catching the high ball.
Plus the basic stuff strength and conditioning, and nutrition.
Or have a national youth comp or if that is too expansive a national youth comp. Strengthen the shut shield under 20 comp in sydney.
But something has to be done, and the money is there. The govt can spend big on soccer we should apply to the govt for more rugby funding.
The rugby world cup is the 3rd biggest sports event in the world.
Soccer world cup 1, 2 olympics , 3 RWC.
And rugby is now an Olympic sport so maybe the govt could chip in for an elite academy.
April 13th 2012 @ 12:31pm
tc said | April 13th 2012 @ 12:31pm | Report comment
Murray at some point could you explain to us the workings of IRANZ and how you think it could help Australian rugby and other rugby nations for that fact.
April 13th 2012 @ 1:19pm
Who Needs Melon said | April 13th 2012 @ 1:19pm | Report comment
A lot of comments about a middle tier to help assist players transition but, unless I’m reading more into it than intended, I think this article makes a good point about also ensuring we have a production line of COACHES as well.
Looking at the coaches that have come onto the scene at the aussie Super rugby level over the past few years, has anyone else felt that maybe some of them have been suddenly out of their depth? Is a good record coaching club rugby really enough to translate into a good Super rugby coach?
April 13th 2012 @ 1:28pm
Brett McKay said | April 13th 2012 @ 1:28pm | Report comment
Melon, you can add Referees to that list too. Where’s Australia’s Glen Jackson, for example??