Disputing O’Neill’s vision of bridging tier
By sheek, 19 Oct 2012 sheek is a Roar Guru
Easts vs Randwick. Photo via http://www.eastsrugby.com.au/
Related coverage
There are two books in my library that I especially treasure among many loved ones. They are, in fact, two editions of the same book, Jack Pollard’s magnificent ‘Australian Rugby; The Game and the Players.’
I have both the 1984 and 1994 editions. Apparently Pollard was working on a third edition to be published in 2004 when he tragically passed away in 2002.
These two books are vividly rich in the stories of the many fine individual players who have proudly worn the Wallaby jersey over 100 years, in its many variations.
There are the Wallabies herein who made the ultimate sacrifice in two world wars; those who won gallantry awards through their extreme bravery and those who became leaders in society after their playing days were over.
As you read player bio after player bio, it makes you deeply proud to be Australian and grateful that these magnificent human beings were associated with rugby union.
But here is the salient point of Pollard’s two magnificent books: it’s patently clear that while Australian rugby has been blessed by a continuous stream of magnificent individuals, our rugby history has been less successful at producing great Wallaby teams.
I have frequently described the high points of Australian rugby as isolated island peaks in the vast Pacific ocean. And in reality, that’s the truth of it. What are our high points? 1907-09, 1927-30, 1933-34, 1947-49, 1963-65, 1979-81, 1984-86, 1991-94, 1998-2002.
Even when you look at these peaks more closely, it’s not all that spectacular. In 1907-09 for example, which includes the first Wallabies tour of England and Wales, the Wallabies played eight Tests for just two wins, a draw and five defeats. Admittedly six of those Tests were against the All Blacks.
Then there’s 1947-49. The Wallabies played 12 Tests for barely a pass mark – six wins, a draw and five defeats. Our record in Europe was 3-2 and we beat the ABs for the Bledisloe Cup 2-0 (admittedly their best 30 players were in South Africa).
The Wallabies didn’t win the Bledisloe again until 1979. With many of these other cherished eras, it’s much the same story – some glorious victories mixed with inexplicable defeats.
John O’Neill has suggested that Australian rugby doesn’t need an ARC: “You have got the infrastructure there in Premier Rugby clubs in Sydney and Brisbane that’s been neglected. You look at the pathway – Wallabies, Super Rugby, under-20s, schoolboys, sevens, Premier Rugby.”
There is much to commend in what O’Neill has said, but he is basically offering the same domestic structure that has served Australian rugby for over 100 years. For a long time there was Sydney Shute Shield, Brisbane Hospital’s Cup, several interstate clashes, City versus Country and matches against touring teams.
But as I suggested at the top, while the historical structures have produced many fine individual Wallabies, they have failed to produce consistently great Wallaby teams. This is a huge difference.
O’Neill is suggesting a cheap option, which is fair enough. But all of us have experienced at one time or another the wisdom of the saying, “If cheap is what you pay, then cheap is what you get.”
The problem with both the Shute Shield and Hospitial Cup is that the talent is concentrated in too few clubs and therefore spread too thin. This subsequently means there are too many soft games during the season. Consequently, not enough players are given the necessary match-hardening rugby that eventually produces great teams.
This is a historical truth; Premier Rugby is not the answer by itself.
In all the 20-odd years I have been promoting my various Australian Provincial Championship (APC) and Australian Rugby Championship (ARC) models, I have followed three other great competitions around the world and recently introduced a fourth.
1. Australian cricket; underpinned by Sheffield Shield since 1892/93.
2. New Zealand; underpinned by Ranfurley Shield challenge since 1904 and NPC since 1976.
3. South African rugby; underpinned by Currie Cup since 1892, which became annual in 1968.
4. European Heineken Cup rugby; underpinned by qualification from English premiership, French T14, Celtic league and Italy T10 since 1995/96.
I am not asking fellow Australian rugby lovers to do “something out of this world” like fly to Mars and establish a remote colony on a possibly hostile planet. It’s not that difficult.
I’ve looked at the comps from other sports and countries that have worked and dove-tailed them into an Australian rugby framework.
I agree with many of the incidental points made by O’Neill. Yes, an under-20s comp is commendable. In fact, I like that idea. I also agree that Premier Rugby must remain amateur. Or at worst/best, win/loss match payments only. Premier Rugby has never been financial.
What needs to be done is to expand the professional player base at the top by introducing several more provinces, or clubs, from five to about eight. Australian rugby needs to do this to provide more incentive for youth to take up rugby. And to have a domestic comp we can put to the public alongside AFL, NRL and A-League.
Furthermore, the practical imperative of a national domestic comp is to funnel the prospective Wallaby talent into a tight, competitive eight-team structure, with all teams more or less even on ability.
Super Rugby is still required and my vision is for it to be truncated into a Heineken Cup-style format, with the top domestic teams from Australia, NZ, SA and eventually Argentina qualifying on an annual basis.
In any case, it is imperative Australian rugby develops a bridging tier between Premier Rugby and Super Rugby because PR by itself is not the answer. And historically it never was!
> Sheek’s writing: Sheekabout.com.au
I used to think I was a pretty good rugby lock, but now realise I was deluded. My nickname is a truncation of my surname, so I'm not Arabic - phew! However, sometimes I imagine myself as a Beau Geste in the French Foreign Legion, fighting evil, righting wrongs, promoting good and rescuing damsels in distress.
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.
Do you have what it takes to become a sports writer? Write for the roar
Rugby Union articles
- Where is Deans in the pecking order of rugby coaches? (319)
- Wallabies squad announced: Folau in, no Quade Cooper – yet (267)
- Deans: Should he stay or should he go? (245)
- SPIRO’s Lions Diary: Deans goes for experience, plus Folau (242)
- Wallabies 25-man Lions squad: analysis (214)
- Quade Cooper misses Wallaby squad selection (209)
- Quade shouldn’t be fly half against the Lions (184)
- Could Matt Lucas be a Wallaby bolter? (76)
- Australia, time to get behind the Wallabies (128)
- Who can still win the Super Rugby title? (29)
- Deans must forgive Quade: Slack (118)
- SPIRO: Super Rugby TMOs are making too many mistakes (88)
- Rebels’ O’Connor stays on sidelines (9)
- ‘Lucky 29′ journey into despair (part one) (6)
- Australia, time to get behind the Wallabies (128)
- Who can still win the Super Rugby title? (29)
- ‘Lucky 29′ journey into despair (part one) (6)
- My open letter to the ARU (3)
- Super Rugby teams will skin the Lions (116)
- Super B to the rescue for rugby? (53)
- Picking your ‘First V’ for the Wallabies (67)
Recommend this story.
- Explore:
- Australian rugby, Australian Rugby Championship, John O'Neill ARU, Rugby Union, Super Rugby

October 19th 2012 @ 2:56am
Johnno said | October 19th 2012 @ 2:56am | Report comment
A good article Sheek. You have provided multiple examples of domestic comps and 3rd tiers, in other countries being the backbone of development for higher levels or tiers.
-Super rugby i still think is relevant for now. However hypothetically if South Africa was cut tomorrow, I no longer believe we would be hit that much. in 2012 Asian rugby is booming, 1 could easily form another Asian division if Japan did not want in .(6 teams basically comprising from HK, Singapore, India, Thailand , STH Korea, China, where ever. And allow them imports lots of spots. Or we could just go it alone with NZ. like in NRL and Netball, and the NBL basketball. Allow private owners allow 5-10 imports per team, plus allow a trans-tasman unlimited flow of talant back and forth like in the NRL, where unlimited amount of kiwis can play. Would suit me fine, I would not lose any sleep over no South africa or SANZAR folding. Just would it be commercially successful, well i don’t know how much revenue sty africa really brings in to Aust/NZ. We could still have the RC anyway with no super rugby. Or Join on too the pacific nation cup, and ditch both south africa and Argentina.
-Like in soccer now our biggest rival is fast becoming Japan, and we have had some titanic struggles with the all whites.
-SO a trans tasman ARC, with an under-20 south-east Asutralia comp, plus a pacific nations cup every year
Pacific nations cup teams
Australia/NZ/Fiji/Samoa/Tonga/USA/Canada
feels far more natural than a RC with Argentina and South Africa:
And in this PC you have 3 home , 3 away, top 2 teams play off for a grand final, done.
And play the (home) Samoa/Tonga matches in Auckland or Brisbane or Sydney.
Winning away in Auckland /USA/ Toronto/ Tokyo/ and maybe Suva if Fiji play the tests there would not be easy at all.
All these teams are getting better, and playing Samoa or Tonga in Auckland would be mighty tough big PI populations and Fiji in Auckland would be tough as lots of Fijians.
-I like you domestic comp structures sheek, and reading your article got me thinking again how I don’t think in my opinion we need Argentina or South Africa anymore. Japan, USA ar bigger econmies than them and there rugby has improved out of sight, in the pacific nations cup they were very unlucky to lose there home matches and only just lost them,. Japan is hosting the 2019 world cup and are pumping big money into rugby, and so are USA/Canada, they have USA just before the AB’S announced deal with AIG.
USA rugby also has AIG as one of there major sponsors. So money is flowing into USA/Canada/Japan rugby and they have massive economies to develop players. The amerces rugby championship has been going on there in Canada which Argentina took part in.
Canada has built this year a high performance centre in Langford Canada. The type of high performance centre Ballymore could have. And the type Qaude Cooper talks about.
So yes sheek have an ARC, but I say ditch super rugby if need be and have SAZNAR fold Australia/NZ don’t need Argentina or south Africa for survival . We need too look at our own Asia-Pacific region more than our own SH Hemphispere.
October 19th 2012 @ 2:33pm
Who Needs Melon said | October 19th 2012 @ 2:33pm | Report comment
Johnno, I’m no expert but your comments are just too long mate. TLDR. Less is more. Sorry.
October 19th 2012 @ 3:00pm
The Battered Slav said | October 19th 2012 @ 3:00pm | Report comment
+1
October 19th 2012 @ 7:57pm
sledgeandhammer said | October 19th 2012 @ 7:57pm | Report comment
Good stuff Johnno, love the long winded comments, people need to learn to skim read. At least you look at beyond our shores whereas most Roarers are too parochial. There’s lots happening in the world of rugby and we should be more aware of it. In fact, it is a point of difference which should be celebrated.
October 19th 2012 @ 11:36pm
peeeko said | October 19th 2012 @ 11:36pm | Report comment
you certainly have a lot of time on your hands Johnno? Enjoy a few of your comments and your outside the box tinking at times. Are you in Australia? i notice that most of your comments come around 4am in the morning?
October 22nd 2012 @ 7:50am
Andrew C (waikato) said | October 22nd 2012 @ 7:50am | Report comment
As I’ve said to him before, Johnno’s a bean counter/accountant type
…………. I hear AIG are looking for a few bean counters to figure out another Obama bailout as well as ‘fixing’ an IOU to the NZRFU
October 19th 2012 @ 8:12am
Rough Conduct said | October 19th 2012 @ 8:12am | Report comment
Nice article Sheek, so glad to see regular articles about ‘filling the void’, surely some of it must be getting through to the ARU!
Eight is the number, we already have five established rugby ‘provinces’, leaving three – the number of provincial teams to be developed. Three! That is all! I would suggest that both QLD and NSW Country could be developed into semi-pro / pro organisations, both NSW and QLD are massive rugby provinces and both country teams have established identities, this seems a perfect fit. When was the last time the Reds or Tahs played a regular season fixture outside Brisbane / Sydney, never! The third ‘province’ is more difficult, I would suggest a team along the lines of NSW Metropolitan could work, based at Concord this team represents all those in Sydney who love Rugby but not the Tahs. Those supporters who find the Waratahs too inaccessible or unrepresentative of them, a bit like North Harbour or Counties-Manukau, who both broke away from the Auckland Rugby Union. Ideally this province would develop their own Shute Shield style club rugby comp, promoting some clubs from subbie level to club rugby level and maybe some existing SS clubs such as Parramatta and Penrith. This would create genuiune identity and a genuine rivalry, the Waratahs as an organisation have performed so badly over the last ten years that it actually makes an alternative Sydney team viable.
October 19th 2012 @ 6:37pm
GWS said | October 19th 2012 @ 6:37pm | Report comment
Concord? Not west enough
October 19th 2012 @ 8:22am
The Battered Slav said | October 19th 2012 @ 8:22am | Report comment
Great read Sheek, nice one.
I too have the ’84 Pollard. How sad that we never got to see a volume covering some of the professional era.
As to what Campo was saying yesterday, about Aus rugby having no discernible history, one read through some of the old war stories compiled by Pollard would demonstrate how wroing such a statement is and how rich and proud a history we are belssed with.
I think your idea of having a qualification style system like in the Heineken Cup has merit, but I don’t think SANZAR would be prepared to take the cash cow knackery any time soon.
But, really sensible stuff here Sheek, let’s hope the new CEO has a similart line of thought when looking at how to rectify the issues facing Aus rugby.
October 19th 2012 @ 9:38am
Rickety Knees said | October 19th 2012 @ 9:38am | Report comment
G’day mate – good article.
From my recent post ” I only hope that the new CEO doesn’t have an accounting/banking background were where everything is viewed as a cost centre and the focus is almost solely on how overheads can be reduced. Where the strategy is based around user pays, where kids and coaches have to pay for every activity. A focus that does not consider promoting the game to the uninitiated but one that seeks to relentlessly cash in on the faithful”.
We need a genuine growth strategy.
October 19th 2012 @ 10:04am
Jutsie said | October 19th 2012 @ 10:04am | Report comment
great post mate, nails it.
O’niel served his purpose the first time around and brought aus rugby into the professional era and made the sport economically viable. But now is the time for a CEO with long term vision.
October 19th 2012 @ 9:39am
Snobby Deans said | October 19th 2012 @ 9:39am | Report comment
So, you’re saying we shouldn’t fly to Mars and establish a remote colony on a possibly hostile planet??
October 19th 2012 @ 10:08am
peterlala said | October 19th 2012 @ 10:08am | Report comment
Snobby Deans, that’s blue-sky thinking. For next season, perhaps.
October 19th 2012 @ 10:09am
sheek said | October 19th 2012 @ 10:09am | Report comment
Snobby Deans – Not on ARU budget & vision we shouldn’t!
October 19th 2012 @ 10:15am
Snobby Deans said | October 19th 2012 @ 10:15am | Report comment
I thought that would have been a perfect junket for those self-important ARU officials – surely they’d have enough (hot) air of their own to allow them to survive . . . .more’s the pity
October 19th 2012 @ 10:03am
peterlala said | October 19th 2012 @ 10:03am | Report comment
sheek, thoughtful article. I like the idea of domestic competitions leading into the Super competition.
Rickety Knees, I agree. The CEO needs to be a rugby visionary, who works with a strong-minded accountant, for the good of Australian rugby.
October 19th 2012 @ 10:52am
krill said | October 19th 2012 @ 10:52am | Report comment
Why can’t we have double headers with our super 15 derby’s with say for example a waratah’s b team playing a QLD reds b team as a curtain raiser. It would be great experience for our up and comers.
October 19th 2012 @ 2:22pm
bigbaz said | October 19th 2012 @ 2:22pm | Report comment
Great idea krill.
October 19th 2012 @ 7:17pm
Blue Blood said | October 19th 2012 @ 7:17pm | Report comment
This was already done last year for the first few rounds. Those in the squad who were not chosen in the starting 22 plus EPS played games before the main game. It was great to see and useful for coaches to see where their entire squads were at in game mode. It helped with match fitness too which is always a win. However it was only for the couple of Australian derbies as the cost was deemed to be too high for the clubs to justify. I hope they do it again this year.
An issue I have with O’Neill’s statements is that it still mainly focuses on the east coast (NSW & QLD) club competition. That does nothing for 3 states who have super teams. So tired of the bias in policy and funding between the states.
October 19th 2012 @ 12:44pm
Jagman said | October 19th 2012 @ 12:44pm | Report comment
Sheek as far as I have read there seems to be a few more factors that don’t allow Australia to easily slip into the kind of structure you’re proposing, namely history and politics.
The separation and animosity between Qld and NSW is a problem notwithstanding the fact that they control the vast majority of “amateur” players in australia and are not going to be fond of any suggestion that relegates their premier grade to fourth tier.
In terms of history does a club like Syd Uni, formed in 1863, really deserve to be relegated to a 4th tier comp made even more meaningless than the shute shield has become.
You left out the part about how JON mentioned that the best teams of NSW and QLD should play each other (but that he also wanted NSW to branch out to Canberra) after their comps are over. In a way this is probably the only option for financial and political reasons and I for one would be behind it. There are no artificially formed teams under this proposal and the Super Rugby players will gravitate to the best teams, as they already do and it we will see a decent comp. It does not fix the problem of whether or not the players should be paid but a suplementary under 21 comp might fix player retention-pathways.
October 19th 2012 @ 12:57pm
Rough Conduct said | October 19th 2012 @ 12:57pm | Report comment
The clubs have put themselves into this position, they have had ample opportunity to develop a national club competition that would completely destroy any discussion about a third tier. The clubs choose not to do this, the Sydney clubs would not even allow Canberra in the competition. The clubs cannot have it both ways, they want to be an exclusive, metropolitan park football competition, but they also want to play the role of a key link in the professional structure. If Sydney Uni doesn’t to be relegated to fourth tier, how about taking some steps to evolve club rugby into a real third tier?
October 19th 2012 @ 1:55pm
Jagman said | October 19th 2012 @ 1:55pm | Report comment
From what I understand Syd Uni have been pushing for Shute shield to evolve and hence the shortened comp we had this year which may allow for a heineken cup style comp (what is the correct term for this cause they are getting a lot free advertising on here) to take place in the future. Taking that from comments they made last year criticizing the competition. Balmain subbies are also pushing for something different.
October 19th 2012 @ 2:38pm
sheek said | October 19th 2012 @ 2:38pm | Report comment
Hi Jagman,
Is it too much we ask NSW & Qld administrators to grow up, & the clubs as well?
As for premier rugby, in my vision, it’s not relegated to 4th tier, but remains 3rd tier (senior level).
1st tier: Wallabies, Rugby Championship & other International tests.
2nd tier: National comp (ARC) & Super Rugby (Heineken Cup-style).
3rd tier: Premier Rugby in each state/province.
4th tier: Suburban rugby & Country Rugby.
October 19th 2012 @ 2:51pm
Jagman said | October 19th 2012 @ 2:51pm | Report comment
It’s probably not too much from a fans perspective but you are asking people to not do their jobs well by not seeking the best for their club/ state union but rather falling on their own sword for the benefit of the Wallabies and aus rugby overall.
I’m not against your idea necessarily but I want to see 3rd teir grow without diluting second teir and any solution that doesn’t take the political arena into acount is redundant until that political arena changes which in Rugbg Union doesn’t happen very fast. I’d like to see what JON proposes because its immediately fees able.
October 19th 2012 @ 3:20pm
sheek said | October 19th 2012 @ 3:20pm | Report comment
Jagman,
Right now there’s a practical reason why premier rugby can’t be elevated & that is the talent is spread too thin & concentrated in too few clubs. Consequently there are too many soft matches. This is a historical problem, as I’ve pointed out.
There are also other reasons but whichever you cut it, the clubs themselves, despite 50-100 years existence have created the circumstances they find themselves in.
We all want things. But we can’t have everything we want.
Sydney & Brisbane premier rugby clubs simply haven’t developed themselves to the same extent as Australian football or rugby league clubs. Irrespective of whether they were amateur or not in the past.
Rugby union simply doesn’t have the same deep root system in Australia as in NZ or SA & that’s not something you can blame on amateurism.
In any case, premier rugby can still play a role to play – no one gets a SR contract straight from school. They MUST go through a premier rugby club, then onto a national comp team & super rugby.
October 19th 2012 @ 4:35pm
Jagman said | October 19th 2012 @ 4:35pm | Report comment
If the best clubs are filtered into a “champions league” shortly after Super Rugby and the best players gravitate to the best clubs then you will end up with an end of year Heineken comp that is re-concentrating the “spread too thin” talent. This to me is a plausible baby step.
Step 2 would be to create a new comp out of the clubs who obviously excel at this over a brief few years and before you know it you’ve negotiated the impossible hurdle of making a new comp out of a two (or more) rigid organisations.
Step 3 introduce WA, VIC teams that are a composite mix of their best players with a few local SR players.
The idea of diluting the Super rugby teams is the equivalent of making a not so super Super Rugby comp the 3rd tier. This might work for Aus because we can always just throw our best 5 teams in even if we only have 5 teams and it might work for SA because their SR teams are also Currie Cup teams but it won’t work for NZ because it will just make their SR teams redundant as they are independent of NPC clubs and they probably won’t be too happy about that.
October 19th 2012 @ 8:16pm
Ian Whitchurch said | October 19th 2012 @ 8:16pm | Report comment
“Is it too much we ask NSW & Qld administrators to grow up, & the clubs as well?”
Yes. Yes it is. Clubs and State leagues will *always* act in their own interests, and the interests of the code be damned.
The lesson of the AFL Independant Commission is you need to keep control of the money, and use that to break them.
October 19th 2012 @ 12:52pm
Banksy said | October 19th 2012 @ 12:52pm | Report comment
There have been many articles explaining the most obvious and effective strategy for Australian Rugby. I hope…no I PRAY that they are reading this. All we need is 3 MORE TEAMS to take not just Australian Rugby, but ASIA-PACIFIC Rugby forward….
1. Any costs in establishing an ARC will easily be outweighed by the benefits of a Heineken Cup featuring the professional competitions of Australia, New Zealand, South Africa and Japan. Those that think that Japan should not be included should remember that its population is 127 million people. Even if they get flogged – the sheer market is enough to make this feasible. Also, the number of professional players heading over to Japan now makes it even more appealing to viewers. Imagine the QLD Reds playing against a Japanese Team featuring players such as Will Genia, Mils Muliaina, SBW, Brad Thorn etc…
2. Having a domestic comp with the U-20′s underneath, not only improves Australian rugby, but gives New Zealand and South Africa their national tournaments back. No longer do they need to support the Stormers/WP or Canterbury/Crusaders!!! I could not think of anything worse.
3. We would be better supporting the Pacific Islands…more teams means that more Pacific Island players can go into each Tri-nations tournaments. This reduces the amount of Rugby Union/Rugby Sevens Players that get recruited into Rugby League/Toyota Cup. This makes the World Cup even more appealing, as there are greater numbers of Pacific Islanders playing top tier rugby.
* * *
The hardest part is recognizing that Australia does not have the capacity to support 3 more teams. I would argue to make these three teams “developmental” – similar to Connacht in Ireland (who have now made the Heineken Cup). Put them in small stadiums, fill them with Pacific Islanders/Argentinians/Americans/Russians and recognize that that these teams are here for the benefit of taking Australian Rugby forward.
October 19th 2012 @ 1:58pm
RickG said | October 19th 2012 @ 1:58pm | Report comment
Great read as always Sheek. Thanks