3,079 reads
Melbourne Rebels players celebrate after defeating the Auckland Blues. AAP Image/Joe Castro
Related coverage
The depth of talent in Australian rugby tends to polarise opinion. It’s even been suggested by Roar columnists that the poor performances of Australian teams should be attributed to poor coaching rather than poor depth.
For a country hosting just 23 million people, Australia represents an incredible pool of sporting talent.
On a per capita basis, we produce a truly amazing number of world-class athletes across a vast array of disciplines.
And while Australia’s sporting accomplishments are just cause for great national pride, we should remain conscious of the side affects of our sporting landscape.
For starters, competition for athletes across the football codes has intensified to the point that eventually rugby may well be engaged in a zero sum game with rival codes.
Football, Rugby, League and AFL surely cannot thrive simultaneously.
We simply don’t have the numbers to stream world-class talent so broadly. Add to the mix the poaching efforts of cricket, athletics and swimming, and the bun fight over athletes is brought more sharply into focus.
There is a grassroots war currently being waged and rugby cannot afford to become complacent.
Humour me and try a simple exercise that places the depth of Australian Rugby in context.
The next time you’re watching a Super Rugby match, ask yourself if the weakest members of our teams would feature in the match day squads of Kiwi or South African sides. I think you’ll notice, as I have, that we have a lot of players in this country fortunate to list rugby on their CV.
And while it might seem that five competitive Australian Super teams is out of reach for the time being, there is every reason to be optimistic about the future.
The teething problems that thinning our talent has brought on will in time give way to thriving rugby nurseries in Perth and Melbourne.
Where once it was set in stone that a Victorian youngster would sleep with a Sherrin tucked under his arm, we might now begin to see some opting for a Gilbert instead.
Former Wallaby Clyde Rathbone has returned to Super Rugby with the ACT Brumbies, following an injury-forced retirement from all forms in 2009. He writes guest columns for The Roar, and will blog his journey back to professional rugby in 2013.
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:
- Clyde Rathbone, Rugby Union
June 1st 2012 @ 1:55am
Johnno said | June 1st 2012 @ 1:55am | Report comment
Clyde the sport of rugby union in Australia and globally now has so much going for it.
A great World cup rugby world cup
-sevens olympics now in 2016 in Brazil
- Massive those 2 events for promoting and advertising the sport of rugby union
super 15 rugby and Henikann cup massive
-the new rugby championship
Game getting bigger and massive popularity increase in big nations with money to to invest
USA/Canada/Russia/Brazil/Argentina/Germany/spain/portugal/Belguim/romania/georgia/italy/Japan/china/india as examples.
The IRB is spending a lot of money on global development in new rugby markets, plus is helping the pacific island nations a lot too, fiji,samoa,tonga.
-The iRB nations cup kicks off in Romania in June going to be good, teams like russia,uruguay,romania, and a few more teams playing in it.
Tours to usa i think by Georgia and Italy too i think.
SO haveing a global sport like rugby union and with rugby world cup, and sevens Olympics, and global popularity increasing it will only grow and create more investment into rugby in Australia which will naturally create more depth.
-I have watched a lot of shut shield matches this year, and been impressed by the standard. And if these men all they need is an opportunity and full time elite training and the potential is there. Look at that Cadeyrn Neville rapid rise from rowing to the shute shield to the rebels , now in wallaby squad as an example.
Rebels i think will be a serious force in melbourne in next few years and Perth strong fan base and a lot of ex pats from rugby nations england,NZ,south africa, irleand live in Perth.
So rugby in Australia is getting stronger not weaker over the next 10 years. And rugby world cup in Japan in 2019 in Asia pacific going to be great for rugby in Australia.
June 1st 2012 @ 6:25am
Hugo said | June 1st 2012 @ 6:25am | Report comment
CLYDE – The comparison between the number of quality pro players in Oz, NZ and SA is demonstrated by the (absurd) proximity of next week’s Scotland and Wales tests. Australia A which will face the Scots, even bolstered by several first-line players, would still lose by 15-20 points if it played NZ A or SA A. NZ has only the one major sport to service, a good thing given its tiny population. South African rugby seems to be able to ignore the huge popularity of soccer perhaps because few soccer players would make ideal front-five rugby players.
But in Oz, league and Rules slaughter the potential for us to become a totally dominating rugby power. And that’s not going to change quickly. All we can do is have rugby missionaries go to the kids at age whatever and ask them if they’d like a chance to travel the world. See Ireland and the British Isles, and Europe, and now the Argentine, as well as NZ and the Republic. Switch for a far more interesting future as a pro should be the message. Play local league or Rules with your mates, but get some union experience, too, and see how far you can take it. If you’re good enough, you might get to be an Olympian. Etc etc. Union has to be sold to the kids on their doorsteps in Melbourne, Adelaide and Perth. And Sydney and Brisbane. Any money in the kitty for this?
June 1st 2012 @ 1:05pm
KiwiDave said | June 1st 2012 @ 1:05pm | Report comment
15 to 20 points. I doubt an Australia A would get within 40 of a NZ A side
June 1st 2012 @ 2:35pm
jeznez said | June 1st 2012 @ 2:35pm | Report comment
I know historically there has been a bit of a gap but I think we are closing – just looking at packs if we say the first choice for both teams looks something like:
1. Robinson – Woodcock
2. Moore – Mealamu
3. Palmer – Franks
4. Simmons – Whitelock
5. Douglas – Retallick
6. Higginbotham – Vito
7. Pococok – McCaw
8. Palu – Read
16. Polota-Nau – Hore
17. Kepu – Franks
18. Timani – Williams
19. Dennis – Thomson
Then the A’s start to come together something like:
1. Holmes – Crockett
2. Charles – Elliott
3. Slipper – Tameifuna
4. Pyle – Romano
5. Neville – Bekhuis
6. Fardy – Messam
7. Hooper – Cane
8. Mowen – Sheilds
16. Hanson – Rutledge
17. Alexander – Faumuina
18. Jones – Hoeata
19. Vaea – Whitelock
I’ve run through the names in the training squads and then fleshed out with players I like (in reality it might be Coles over Rutledge for instance).
Just trying to give an indication of relative strength rather than get the names exactly right – I don’t think there is a 40 point gap – at least in the forwards.
June 1st 2012 @ 3:59pm
KiwiDave said | June 1st 2012 @ 3:59pm | Report comment
Lets go through the backs then
9. Tawera Kerr Barlow (Ellis in 1st side)
10. Aaron Cruden (Carter in 1st side)
11. Zac Guildford (Savea in 1st side)
12. Sonny Bill Williams (Nonu in 1st side)
13. Ellison (C.Smith in 1st side)
14. Lelia Masaga (Gear in 1st side)
15. Andre Taylor (Dagg in 1st side)
And this backline takes into account current injuries to players like Kahui and Jane
I would have Todd at #7 in the A side backline too btw
Not sure what an Aussie A backline would look like but I think it might struggle against this one
June 1st 2012 @ 5:00pm
jeznez said | June 1st 2012 @ 5:00pm | Report comment
I’d go for Todd as well but Hansen picked Cane in his 35 man squad and that is what I referenced first – that is why Whitelock gets the bench backrow spot as well ahead of someone like Latimer.
Backs are not my forte but assuming except for the injured JOC that Robbie goes for a backline he used last year – something like:
Genia, Cooper, Ioane, McCabe, Faingaa, Ashley-Cooper and Beale. That leaves an A backline to look something like:
9. White
10. Barnes
11. Tomane
12. Harris
13. Horne
14. Shipperly
15. Foley
Clear advantage to your blokes but again not sure it is 40 points.
In reality if we were to match the process used on the forwards the halfbacks, 10′s and one other would wind up in the top 22 – for the AB’s that third player is definitely SBW and for the Wallabies that would probably be Horne. Meaning for Aus A that Phipps, Lucas and Cummins would come into the frame.
June 1st 2012 @ 5:15pm
Rob from Brumby Country said | June 1st 2012 @ 5:15pm | Report comment
You don’t like Perenara, Kiwi Dave?
As for the Aussie A backline (taking into account injuries), well you’d think it’d be something like:
9. Nic White (Genia in 1st)
10. Berrick Barnes (Cooper in 1st)
11. Joseph Tomane (Ioane in 1st)
12. Mike Harris (McCabe in 1st)
13. Adam Ashley-Cooper (Faingaa in 1st)
14. Dom Shipperley (Morahan in 1st)
15. Jesse Mogg (Foley in 1st)
I have extreme reservations about Mogg and Quade, but in reality, this is probably how things are seen at Wallabies HQ (maybe Rob Horne’d be in the mix, who knows).
… It’s a pretty sorry excuse for a team, isn’t it?
But you have to remember that Australia has injuries too, and our losses hurt a hell of a lot more than yours. Christian Lealiifano, James O’Connor, Kurtley Beale, Drew Mitchell (yes, he’s recovered, but you’d have to agree that his injury has prevented him from having enough time to make the squad).
If there were no injuries to either of our countries’ first and second XVs, I think our backlines at least would be fairly evenly matched. It’s the forwards where we would (predictably) get destroyed.
June 1st 2012 @ 5:33pm
jeznez said | June 1st 2012 @ 5:33pm | Report comment
I think our A pack would be more than capable against the NZ A one. I think it is the same issue of the last year or so of a lack of centres being the big gap.
You have to note that we effectively played our A props with Robinson missing all last year and the great hope in Palmer also being injured.
June 1st 2012 @ 5:30pm
Rob from Brumby Country said | June 1st 2012 @ 5:30pm | Report comment
On a side note, I think it says something about depth that the Wallabies best three scrumhalves are all about 5’8 and 80kg while their All Blacks counterparts are all six foot and 90kg.
It’s your national comp. If we could organise a serious one over here, I imagine it’d weed out the smaller guys over time as well.
June 1st 2012 @ 6:25am
chris said | June 1st 2012 @ 6:25am | Report comment
As a League fan i would love Union to sort out some of the rules and have less kicking as you get enough of that in Soccer/Aussie Rules and Gaelic and if that happened be happy for a reuniting of the Rugby codes and that will give Australia some more breathing space in a very congested market.
June 1st 2012 @ 6:32am
jus de couchon said | June 1st 2012 @ 6:32am | Report comment
I would guess NZs tradditional dominance of Union woldnt last if Australian Union had access to the best athletes.
June 1st 2012 @ 7:19am
Emric said | June 1st 2012 @ 7:19am | Report comment
Funny you say that .. NZ more then punches above its weight in League and we’re not even using our full rugby potential yet. New Zealands Rugby advantage comes from our embracing of the Maori/Pacific culture and the way the Maori/Pacific Islanders have viewed the rugby world.
June 1st 2012 @ 9:01am
Brendon said | June 1st 2012 @ 9:01am | Report comment
Yeh but take in league and AFL, plus the cricket influence. Australia potentially clould have 10 times the rugby players if it was the dominant sport here. Not saying they would be number 1, but it would definetly make a difference
June 1st 2012 @ 10:00am
stillmatic1 said | June 1st 2012 @ 10:00am | Report comment
how does india go in cricket, brendon? numbers dont mean a thing without many other important factors being realised.
June 2nd 2012 @ 4:45pm
nomis said | June 2nd 2012 @ 4:45pm | Report comment
The best Indian cricketers don’t play in their national side. You first have to be in the right class.
June 1st 2012 @ 1:43pm
Emric said | June 1st 2012 @ 1:43pm | Report comment
South Africa have more players then NZ and we’ve matched or better them, England have the most rugby players of any nation and we beat them a lot more.
Its not a numbers game it comes to 15 against 15 and the winner will be the team that wants it most on the day
June 1st 2012 @ 5:11pm
Jason said | June 1st 2012 @ 5:11pm | Report comment
How is the “Maori/Pacific” view of the rugby world superior to other views? And what are these other view of the rugby world pray tell
June 1st 2012 @ 10:15pm
liam said | June 1st 2012 @ 10:15pm | Report comment
its the view that professional rugby is an avenue to success that for some groups from less privileged backgrounds cannot be easily matched by moving into other careers. therefore it puts added emphasis on pursuing a professional rugby career for large communities who dont have a lot of money. not so easy for some families to send their kids to med school, far easier to have the kids go to rugby academies. especially when genetically in terms of strength, speed and power some kids from those familys are born geniuses on a rugby field.
was that the answer you were waiting to criticise? have at it sport.
June 1st 2012 @ 10:32pm
Ian Whitchurch said | June 1st 2012 @ 10:32pm | Report comment
Let me fix that for you
“its the view that professional sport is an avenue to success that for some groups from less privileged backgrounds cannot be easily matched by moving into other careers. therefore it puts added emphasis on pursuing a professional sporting career for large communities who dont have a lot of money. not so easy for some families to send their kids to med school, far easier to have the kids go to sports academies. especially when genetically in terms of strength, speed and power some kids from those familys are born geniuses on a sports field.”
June 1st 2012 @ 10:54pm
liam said | June 1st 2012 @ 10:54pm | Report comment
fair enough, although the communities i’m talking about dont have a great history of producing marathon runners, for example, do they.
thats for a genetic reason but also because rugby is NZs biggest professional sport with the most opportunities. compare to any other sport, olympic or whatever, and opportunities are far smaller plus theres no-where near as much money.
June 2nd 2012 @ 2:00am
Carnivean said | June 2nd 2012 @ 2:00am | Report comment
It’s rubbish to call any group genetically gifted at a sport. Anyone taking that view on sport would have concluded that Jews were genetically designed to dominate basketball, as they did for several decades. Socio-economic drive (need to be get more money) and cultural factors (prestige) are a bigger determinate in a group dominating at a particular sport.
A prime reason that NZ dominates rugby is because their culture creates an atmosphere where people are driven to succeed at rugby, because that is one of the pinnacles of that culture. In Australia there are other avenues that provide equal, or more likely greater pinnacles.
June 2nd 2012 @ 2:17am
liam said | June 2nd 2012 @ 2:17am | Report comment
Carnivean,
What would you say to ethiopian and kenyan long distance runners. is that a similar situation? similar factors? NO genetic advantage there? despite the studies that have proven that African athletes hips are set differently and have longer thighs which is better for running?
if you believe in evolution you should also recognise that these things occur. odds are there are more competitive highjumpers in serbia or holland per capita than in china. why? because the people are taller. can’t believe i had to write that down.
June 2nd 2012 @ 2:26am
Carnivean said | June 2nd 2012 @ 2:26am | Report comment
liam, that thing with the hips would be only study that I’ve ever come across that indicates physiological differences between “racial” groups. There is no other science that says that black people are faster, stronger, taller, longer between the legs than white people.
Busting out evolution as a catch-phrase doesn’t help you in the slightest, because apart from a few very fringe groups, the level of interbreeding between “races”, the timescales involved, and the lack of evolutionary pressure to adapt physically means that the differences between the “races” at a physiological level are nothing more than would be dictated by random chance.
Explain to me in your theory, how did the Jews dominate basketball, when today they are stereotyped as weak nerds in the Woody Allen vein.
June 2nd 2012 @ 10:55pm
Benny said | June 2nd 2012 @ 10:55pm | Report comment
As an expat Kiwi, I can get quite misty-eyed about what Polynesian/Melanesian rugby has contributed to the game as a whole, especially in this part of the world. I don’t say whether it’s superior to other ways of playing the game, but I think it’s unique and worthy of recognition.
I see Pacific Island rugby as two things – an offering to the Almighty, and the expression of a warrior culture.
That warrior culture is expressed in the brutal hits of Matu’u, but also in the guile of Piri Weepu at his best.
In Polynesian folklore the demi-god Maui, the trickster, is revered for his cunning.
The Kiwi historian James Belich wrote about how Maori victories against the British were often the result of clever tactics rather than outright force – fortresses with false floors and warriors hiding beneath them, artillery trenches, etc.
Genetics might play a role – it’s no fun trying to tackle a guy with thighs like kauri trunks – but I would prefer to emphasise a culture of playing rugby with speed, power and bewildering flair. NZ rugby has benefited from combining that Polynesian flair with a dour, Scottish Protestant work ethic emanating mostly from the South Island. Sometimes you get the two strands combined in one player, and then you get Dan Carter.
For these reasons, I like to think that, no matter how many NRL and AFL players arrive to swell the ranks of the Wallabies, the All Blacks as an outfit will always be pretty competitive.
June 1st 2012 @ 12:31pm
The Bush said | June 1st 2012 @ 12:31pm | Report comment
New Zealand was better than Australia at Rugby long before League existed… I don’t subscribe to the opinion that Australia would be some world beating superpower if the NRL was a Rugby Union competition.
June 1st 2012 @ 1:10pm
KiwiDave said | June 1st 2012 @ 1:10pm | Report comment
Spot on. However Aussie always need an excuse to justify their poor development. They keep spouting the having to compete with other sports line. You dont see NZ moaning because they have 15% of the population base Australia has.
June 1st 2012 @ 1:18pm
Casual Poster said | June 1st 2012 @ 1:18pm | Report comment
No, NZ justs goes into a state of depression every time you lose the Rugby world cup.
How long did it take you guys to win two?
The way you guys carry on you should have won all of them.
June 1st 2012 @ 8:12pm
Snobby Deans said | June 1st 2012 @ 8:12pm | Report comment
CP – that depression is the by-product of having a passion for the sport. For most Aussie’s, the level of emotional attachment is not that high (though judging by the way some AFL fans support their teams, that level of fanatacism is there), which makes it easier for you to shrug off losses (which you need to do with alarming regularity)
You are wrong, the All Blacks should not have won all of them. They just expect to win all of them – it’s that expectation that drives the success outside of world cups, and occasionally in them.
It took us 24 years to win 2 world cups. It’s been less than a year since our last one, which is about 12 years less than your last victory – and that will be 16 years if you don’t crack it in 2015. Starting to get up there, pal – good to see NZ is not the only major team who expects to win it and doesn’t achieve it every time.
June 2nd 2012 @ 4:51pm
nomis said | June 2nd 2012 @ 4:51pm | Report comment
Nope. I don’t think Aussies should think they would win by a long way if league players were available (let alone AFL players), but they would certainly be a lot stronger than they are now… a lot stronger, especially if it was AUS’s national sport.
It’s not about numbers of players or population, it’s about whether your best athletes play that sport. In NZ they do. In Aus they don’t.
I reckon NZ’s are naturally gifted at rugby, my bet it that it would be about even overall.
June 1st 2012 @ 7:46am
Brad said | June 1st 2012 @ 7:46am | Report comment
Unfortunately chris that’s just the way the rugby’s are going. The average amount of kicks on play for an NRL game is 36. The average for a super rugby game is around 40
–
Comment left via The Roar’s iPhone app. Download The Roar’s iPhone App in the App Store here.
June 1st 2012 @ 1:53pm
jameswm said | June 1st 2012 @ 1:53pm | Report comment
What percentage of tries in league are scored off kicks?
June 1st 2012 @ 7:55am
tc said | June 1st 2012 @ 7:55am | Report comment
As an outsider looking in (kiwi) all I can say is rugby in Australia is definatly on its second wind ,don’t worry about the lack of depth at the moment it will right itself ,if it’s one thing we kiwis know it’s that our trans Tasman brothers hate to come second . I’ve read it quite a bit on the roar lately that rugby is negative this or negative that ,but from the outside all we are seeing is expansion into new cities were we can go and visit and maybe catch a bit of rugger on the side ,you have to keep your negativity in perspective . Australian rugby will never fail world rugby will not allow it, it is simply to important ,but it is up to the ARU to pull its weight and try everything it can to spread the rugby gospel but remembering that it does not have endless supplies of cash. Clyde rugby in Australia is in a second growth phase at the moment and these things take time ,and you’ve got to remember they are in brand new markets (Perth ,Melbourne) ,the one thing I took notice of during the World Cup was the tv figures out of the southern states of Australia ,to say the least I was pleasantly surprised . We all harp on about the laws of rugby at one point or another which are being improved upon all the time to help improve the spectacle ,but no one can deny the exponential growth of rugby around the world which is quite mind blowing especially when you have administrators from other major world codes talking about us and our expansion . Just to answer Chris further up I truly do believe there will eventually be a reuniting of the codes (union and league) in a crimson revolution at some point in the future ,but God help the rest of the rugby world. Just as a side issue I read that the Force are going to play an invitational side in Adelaide shortly ,if your a rugby fan and you want the next Super side get your caboose down to Hindmarsh stadium and show the ARU you mean business ,also start taking preseason games there .
June 1st 2012 @ 8:00am
jus de couchon said | June 1st 2012 @ 8:00am | Report comment
Australia has a similar gene pool to NZ .If they ever decided to embrace R.U, share weight of numbers and talent would end the All Black blah. Like wise here in England the North which is now League territory traditionaly provided the best English rugby players. The All Blacks have benefited by good fortune from the watering down of its best opponents.
June 1st 2012 @ 1:01pm
Moaman said | June 1st 2012 @ 1:01pm | Report comment
” The All Blacks have benefited by good fortune from the watering down of its best opponents. ” What? For 108 years?
June 2nd 2012 @ 2:40am
matthew said | June 2nd 2012 @ 2:40am | Report comment
NZ’s best and traditional opponents have always been the Springboks.
June 2nd 2012 @ 11:32pm
Lorry said | June 2nd 2012 @ 11:32pm | Report comment
matthew,
“NZ’s best and traditional opponents have always been the Springboks”
what are you on about?!
The bledisloe cup has far more weight of history behind it than the equivalent between NZ and Boks…
And anyway, Boks were out of the scene for 20 years so….
I hate it when arrogant kiwis say that…
June 2nd 2012 @ 11:31pm
jmacredie said | June 2nd 2012 @ 11:31pm | Report comment
Thanks Jus de couchon, that is the biggest lol I have ever done.
June 1st 2012 @ 8:00am
Moaman said | June 1st 2012 @ 8:00am | Report comment
One thing that continues to puzzle me about all this is how Australians continually beef about rival codes poaching the “best athletes”etc.Australia has more senior male players than NZ=Fact. Around 11,000 more at last count.What you are missing is a) a 2nd tier comp and b) attitude,and not necessarily in that order.As long as aussies continue to make excuses and accept mediocrity,the game will continue to struggle for popularity.Soon as the Wallabies put a few trophies in the cabinet new numbers will flock to the game.
June 1st 2012 @ 9:57am
Markus said | June 1st 2012 @ 9:57am | Report comment
I just don’t think Senior players numbers gives a real indication of strength and depth.
South Africa for example have three times the senior players of Australia, yet have regularly had cellar dwellar teams like the Lions, and in earlier years the Cheetahs and even Bulls.
England have more than that again, but just the one World Cup to show for it, as well as a negative win:loss ratios against the three SANZAR teams.
Then you have a country like Georgia, who with less than 900 senior players, would have to be the very definition of ‘punching above your weight’.
The below picture demonstrates it better than I’ve ever seen it before. If anything, it seems to indicate that Australia considers rugby a more social sport than other countries, given the high percentage that continue on from junior rugby to senior rugby as opposed to leaving the game if they cannot progress to a higher level of competition (professional or semi-professional).
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-yeSN53py7PI/TmXJ4UMiD1I/AAAAAAAAAgs/54kHw_zo9AY/s1600/IRB+Player+Numbers.jpg
June 1st 2012 @ 12:54pm
Moaman said | June 1st 2012 @ 12:54pm | Report comment
Yeah I have seen that too…England looming over the rest like Mother Planet and her satellites.
June 1st 2012 @ 1:10pm
Markus said | June 1st 2012 @ 1:10pm | Report comment
It seems appropriate that it looks as if it is sucking the Irish and South African players in with its gravitational pull, too.
June 2nd 2012 @ 12:16am
JVGO said | June 2nd 2012 @ 12:16am | Report comment
That figure indicates that NZ has almost twice the number of total RU players that Australia does, so it actually suggests the Wallabies are the ones who have punched above their weight, despite all the above from NZers.
The other major powers tha Australia competes with have many more players than Australia.
France 4x
South Africa 7x
England almost 30x
Australia has compensated for this historically with coaching technique, much of it gleaned fron professional RL.
RU is very vulnerable in Australia, particularly from AFL which is spending enormous money in its rich traditional heartlands. Rugby will need to find some player growth in traditionally non rugby playing AFL states or I would imagine long term it will really struggle.
June 1st 2012 @ 2:51pm
jeznez said | June 1st 2012 @ 2:51pm | Report comment
Moa, we are a larger population and plenty of guys play as amatuers with no hope or intention of ever becoming professionals. Means that we have a large number of senior players but doesn’t mean we have the same number of top players who have the potential to go professional. We are only into our second year of having five teams – this means for the first time Australia has the same number of fully professional spots as its direct rivals in NZ and SA.
The expansion has weakened us but I think most Aussies are quietly confident that we will get stronger from these increased spots. I Australia is entering a key phase where it needs to build its strength and quality under the curent structure. Ultimately these new found professional spots will enable greater ability to collect or retain players who might otherwise have headed to league, but largely it will provide opportunities for guys who were performing well in club rugby to have a crack at the pro environment.
A next tier in Oz would be good but don’t think it could ever be economically sustainable. Would love to see it happen but certainly under JON his focus was the fifth team rather than the next tier.
June 2nd 2012 @ 11:42pm
jmacredie said | June 2nd 2012 @ 11:42pm | Report comment
guys endgland has over 1 million Rugby players. France has 400,000, SA has over 600,000, USA has over 120,000, Australia has over 130,000, Ireland has over 150.000. Wales has over 65,000, NZ has 130,000. There are still more countries that have more rugby players than NZ yet we are the best. I think oz might have over 150,000 players now. The problem with ozzie is that they play far to robotic, which is a flow on from rugby league.
June 1st 2012 @ 8:01am
tc said | June 1st 2012 @ 8:01am | Report comment
Sorry about the lack of paragraphs ,I did it on my iphone
June 1st 2012 @ 8:32am
Brad said | June 1st 2012 @ 8:32am | Report comment
I’m actually starting a Wallabies supporter group. We are meeting on the Monday night before the Wallabies test. There are some guidelines however to become an Australian rugby fan.
- all positivity is to be condemned
- all conversations must begin with the topic of lack of depth
- if members attended a GPS school they must always criticise the system in order to portray themselves as regular Aussie blokes
- the ARU must always be spoken of in a derogatory manner
A John O’neill dartboard and kick meter will provided upon payment of membership fees
June 1st 2012 @ 8:40am
Justin2 said | June 1st 2012 @ 8:40am | Report comment
Classic
June 1st 2012 @ 2:15pm
Mals said | June 1st 2012 @ 2:15pm | Report comment
You forgot to mention
- the Waratahs must be lamponed at every opportunity.