No. There’s at least another 7 nations across the globe (represented in the overwhelming majority of our test match schedule) who have as good a conditions as we could hope for in producing a strong and competitive test team. Therefore, a revenue generating model built around ‘consistent success’ is a bust because consistently winning cannot be guaranteed in the professional global game. It’s something they even have to start grappling with across the ditch.

This isn’t to say that investing in pathways and/or skills/coaching programs isn’t a worthwhile endeavour- it’s just not realistic to expect that it will produce consistent success in international rugby given where the standard is and continues to evolve to. Eggs need to be put in other baskets.

That analysis is about as shallow as a kiddie pool and comparing apples with beach balls. The Wallabies are 1 team playing a season that’s sporadic in nature. Super Rugby’s Australian following is split over 5 teams that play in a league season. Yes there’s a casual following but it’s declined significantly over there years. Much like interest in Super Rugby has.

‘Most’? Pure speculation and I reckon I’m better positioned to speculate on the question you pose and tell you it’s the complete opposite. Regardless, for rugby to succeed in this country it has to be more than following the tide of when the Wallabies play.

Look I’m not sold yet… but as mentioned, it’s a good case you’ve put forward.

You’re right in that the winds that blow around the rugby globe are dynamic and ever changing in force and direction. That said, I take a point mentioned above that what we have to draw on from home is pretty close to our best, minus 1 or 2. This, despite the fact that offshore money isn’t exactly a new phenomenon. The ‘rules’ appear to be more or less serving their purpose (keeping most of our best on shore) and any kick in on field performance from broadening selection horizons is minimal at best.

I’m not sure anything that risks opening the flood gates is a good thing. I agree that SRP is suffering from a relevancy issue but I’d rather be tackling this problem instead of making a decision that (imo) only makes it more irrelevant.

Nice one Harry. Great article with a comparisons that argue the case well.

I’ve never been for the ‘open-slather’ model for picking Wallabies. We need to encourage our best to stay on our shores and remain visible to inspire the next generation. But your article has got me thinking…

Thanks

That’s understood. But is the proposed system not about giving clubs (the rugby community) the power to decide the make up of the board? If so, I can see this resulting in an over representation from the club network due to these constitutional amendments encouraging popularity contests of the ‘more vocal’ candidates that emerge from clubland.

As mentioned, the system that has produced the personnel that have overseen the game over the last couple of decades is far from perfect given their results. Nothing typifies that broken system more than a Chair making the disconnected claim that ‘steady progress’ is being made in rebuilding trust with the rugby community. But I don’t think instilling conditions that skew the talent pool towards individuals with strong club backgrounds (a space with its own history of mismanagement and self interest driven agendas) is a good thing for the game.

Yea there’s been no shortage of approaches over the years and while it’s hard to defend any of them, they all seem to end up falling foul of the expectations of the so-called ‘rugby community’.

I can’t believe I’m saying this cause he’s a tough pill to swallow even as a fan of League, but it’s almost like we need a V’Landy’s with the right people around him (who they are, I don’t know) to just disregard the agenda’s and adopt a lens of decision making that is solely concerned with attracting fans and (therefore) dollars.

Yea this is my concern. Waugh, Herbert, Roff are all rugby people. I appreciate there probably needs to be greater balance instilled at board level with a reduced membership of corporate elites, but I don’t trust the club network as the sole point of consultation for producing the leaders responsible for running the game. No doubt they represent a stakeholder group that needs a voice and I have confidence in that group producing targeted and meaningful strategy in some spaces, but the answers to rugby’s wide ranging and complex problems aren’t all going to be found in the backyard.

Given the existing constitution has provided the conditions that has produced Australian rugby’s poor results across multiple (probably all) metrics for a considerable period of time- I guess there’s merit in a review of the constitution. I also agree that the ‘rugby community’ has been neglected at the governance level, but I’m against handing over the keys to the ‘strong personalities’ from this group.

To grow, rugby needs to get into the heads and better understand the people that aren’t attached to the game and we need to look further afield for innovation solutions and not build agendas around strategy that’s worked before in a bygone era.

JD Kiwi, what I did was present evidence that counters your claim stating ‘France and England were miles ahead of those smaller countries before professionalism’. How do you do that? You present results from before professionalism which again suggests that while there have been purple patches (experienced across all teams) including the period immediately prior to professionalism for England and France, the competition amongst the 5 nations has been reasonably even throughout history. Looking at England’s record against Wales and it was really only 5 years before professionalism that they started to pull away with Wales possessing a 7-3-1 record over them in the 80’s. In fact in the 16 games from 1964 to 1979, England only registered 2 victories over the Welsh. It doesn’t really paint the picture of being ‘miles ahead’ does it?

England have finished in the top 2 on 15 occasions in the 25 years of the 6 Nations era. Meanwhile, you need to go back through the last 33 years of the 5 Nations era to 1967 to reach the same tally of 15 top 2 finishes. Do you think they’ve really gone backwards?

I owned at the outset that I ‘cherry-picked’ the 5 Nations championship results from 69’ to 85’. It’s simply an example that suggests that not only were the likes of Wales and Ireland competitive against England and France, there have been significant periods where their records were superior in comparison to them. It’s a window comparable in length and success to the recent success of Wales/Ireland where they’ve won 9 of the last 13 titles. It’s convenient that the 11 years before that and following the inception of the Pro (where they won only 3) you put down to ‘bedding in an initiative’.

I haven’t got any evidence to suggest that the URC/Pro has made the celts worse because that’s not my argument. As outlined in the comment you’ve replied to here, it’s clearly served its purpose for two of the three home nations stakeholders. My argument is that France and England weren’t ‘miles ahead’ of these three and while the URC/Pro has more or less served it’s purpose, it doesn’t give it’s participants some sort of advantage over their 6 Nations competition with large domestic leagues.

I haven’t missed the point of the article at all. I haven’t commented on the article- only on your comment that I’ve continually referenced.

I actually appreciate the research you’ve put into the article agree with much of the premise that improved junior pathways have provided a glimmer of hope for Italian rugby (I’d pull up short of it being labelled a ‘success’). This (as you’ve outlined in the article) is the key reference point though and not so much their participation in the URC. Their sustained strong showing in the U20 6 Nations (featuring just 1 spoon and 4 top 4 finishes since 2018) clearly demonstrates where Italy’s improvements are coming from.

I do have a problem with the Italian glimmer of hope that comes in the form of a respectable 2024 6 Nations (and on the back of 8 years of… blah) being held up as a beacon of light for Australian rugby though. I could unpack that for you but that’s probably more than enough for tonight and I’ll spare you my confronting language. We’ve had ‘our differences of opinion’ in this space previously and it’s easy to revert back to that ‘front foot’ demeanor. Your research doesn’t deserve it so I apologise for that.

There’s no comparison in the playing background across the make up between most Japanese and Argentinian teams. Almost all Japanese players are drawn from their local league while almost all Argentinian players are plying their trade in Europe (predominantly the Top14). As for the rest, it kind of goes without saying that Celtic teams performing strongly in the URC will translate to some form of test success.

Look, I don’t argue that the URC more or less serves its purpose for its stakeholders. It’s been what it’s needed to be for Ireland. Wales has achieved success previously with their players drawn from the Pro. There’s probably an argument that being confined to only 2 professional teams hasn’t served Scotland well, but what expanding beyond that looks like- I don’t know. What I do argue is that the Pro/URC has given the Celtic nations some sort of advantage over England and France because their national leagues are supposedly holding them back. Their professional landscapes are serving their purpose for those markets too, which are vastly different (larger) than the home nations participating in the URC.

Thanks Tony. You’ve hit on a bit issue for the game currently and it’s not really getting the attention it deserves. In part, I believe that’s because it’s predominantly a biproduct of the recent rule changes that have attempted to instill a greater level of fatigue in the game which you obviously touched on in the article. The single greatest contributor to injury is fatigue and the NRL’s recent agenda has been to lay it on so the injury epidemic we’re left with is no great suprise.

Fans (not to mention broadcasters) want to see teams with as close to their strongest teams on the field each week and these rules are compromising that. Squad depths are being tested like never before and I don’t think fans want to see the ‘survival of the fittest’ storyline play out over a season.

Furthermore, as well as testing the player depth across the game with injuries, the new direction the game has headed in is probably shortening the career span of its athletes. That higher rate of retirement that I’d expect to creep in over time is going to further test the player depth and production line.

It all leads to a weaker product and something the games powerbrokers need to have a good hard look at- preferably for longer than the 5 minutes it appeared they spent bringing the rule changes in that sent us down this path.

Exactly. All to build this false narrative that multi-nation competitions with small representation from each participant is supposedly superior to a wider-spread domestic league. That’s before going back to the ultimate clutch from the article where 2 RWC floggings in 2023 and 1 win in 40 6 nations starts are brushed aside to elevate a somewhat respectable 2024 campaign as a signpost of supposed Italian success (said as someone who’s suffered through no shortage of Italian rugby as a fan).

100 years of competitive rugby amongst the home nations and France (periodically) has been discounted in this discussion where a small window of French/English dominance leading up to professionalism supposedly set the historical trend. Also discounting the fact that while the game was still amateur in the 80’s and half of the 90’s, the forces of pending professionalism were very real and the larger markets that the French and English clubs operated in were positioned to better leverage ‘shamateurism’ in comparison to Ireland, Scotland and Wales. The transition into professionalism was much smoother than what the 3 smaller home nations experienced and they spent the next decade playing catch up to build themselves up to where they were before the early impacts as the game moved towards outright professionalism were felt (a point in time well before the game officially went professional).

Really!? I’ve shown you a window where they weren’t only comparable but superior which shuts down your claim, but beyond that I’ve looked across history and presented a sample size longer than 15 years. There was a short period in European rugby competition leading up to professionalism where England and France were somewhat dominant. You’ve latched on to it to make the absurd suggestion that they were ‘miles ahead’ to suit your narrative. I’ve shown you that they’ve been far from ‘miles ahead’ throughout history, but by all means keep ignoring that reality.

For the first 15 years of the Pro/URC Australia had an 80% win record against the Celts. They’ve declined against all teams (not just celts) since. As for the Boks, well Scotland have clearly gone backwards. Wales punched out 4 consecutive wins in the second half of the naughties that makes their record against them look respectable but has gone back to resembling what it has previously over the last 6 encounters. Irelands record against them this century is very good.

So why not expand it out to include records against the AB’s? And how about we go even further and compare their records against Argentina who have benefited immensely from having their players playing in the Premiership and Top14? Or even including records against Japan which has the only other real ‘national league’ of sorts? It’s very easy to snip things out to build a narrative. Really all that is definitive is that Ireland are in the midst of a golden generation.

‘France and England were miles ahead of those smaller countries before professionalism’

I’ve just shown you a period of time before the Pro/URC that’s comparable in length where both Ireland and Wales won more 5 Nations than England and France.

In fact, up until late 80’s/early 90’s the celts had comparable and in some cases better records against England and France. To suggest they were ‘miles ahead’ just doesn’t reflect reality.

Well they (Ireland, Scotland, Wales vs Australia and South Africa) play against each other every season or two now whereas last century they’d go more than a decade without playing each other (longer vs SA for obvious reasons). In any event, all of their records against Australia were good up until the 90’s. They all struggled 15 years either side of the inception of the Pro/URC and then were helped by Australia’s basketcase status that we’ve entered since we last made a RWC final (and further aided by the frequency of games).

‘France and England were miles ahead of those smaller countries before professionalism’

Wales were the northern hemisphere’s powerhouse in the 60’s/70’s. Their 3 wins over the AB’s all came before that too.

Scotland in the Pro/URC era haven’t got within cooee of some of their better teams such as those they produced in the 80’s.

Italy could only go in one direction having joined the 6 nations after professionalism began. As a fan of Italian rugby with ancestry from the boot-shaped peninsula, I’ve been lured into a false dawn of excitement before and as great as this 6 nations was, it’s come on the back of another 3rd placed pool finish at the RWC where the AB’s and France put 96 and 60 points on them respectively. It’s not really a position to be crowing about.

Yes, Ireland is in the midst of a golden generation but they still can’t make a RWC semifinal which England and France have done 4 times each since professionalism.

‘They went from winning 16/20 Five/Six Nations (18/22 if you include shared) to 4/13’

This is such a blatant cherry pick. I can do it too… in those years when Wales and Scotland had some strong teams, England and France only won just 3 of 16 5 Nations championships outright between 1969 and 1985.

Your ‘evidence’ here is the so-called success of countries like Italy, Wales and Fiji…. meanwhile the countries that house the 2 primary examples of ‘rugby league-style’ competitions in world rugby (England and France) are infinitely more successful by almost every metric in comparison to three you use as ‘evidence’. In fact, those two countries are only behind the All Blacks and Boks (at worst, on par with Australia and Ireland but arguably still beyond them) in terms of the most successful countries in world rugby since professionalism. Even Japan which is the country that is home to the only other professional example of a ‘rugby league-style’ competition has achieved as much (if not more) than Italy since they’ve been a part of the Pro14/URC.

Congrats to the Jack Jumpers, Melbourne and the NBL. I’ve had a fleeting interest in basketball (first time ever commenting on a basketball article on the roar here…) but this series has been epic and a great billboard for the sport in Australia. After watching the end to Game 3, I couldn’t not watch the remaining 2 games which were just as exciting. Great to see the league delivering a high calibre entertainment product and going through a renaissance of sorts.

I’m not sure how many teams would consider a defensive lineout deep in their redzone ‘very little downside’. Under the existing rules it’s still a pretty common option (kick to touch) and I haven’t observed many defending teams being too psyched about it. It’s just not a place (your own goal line) teams want to be playing rugby- even those with a dominant lineout. Sure it takes away an option from the attacking team, but I wouldn’t expect a consistent trend to emerge across the game where defending teams willingly put themselves in this position.

Hi Ben,

Interesting read. It’s hard to argue that there isn’t room and a need to make alterations to the ‘spectacle’ we have in rugby for the better. That said, I’m not sure some of the symptoms of the modern game that you’ve outlined are accurate.

‘less and less versatile’

Today’s forwards are infinitely more skilful with the ball than those from yester-year. Meanwhile, we have backs that can hit a breakdown and take a carry with as much skill and force as forwards from previous generations.

‘Is the fact that the range of sizes and body types with a chance of cracking the top level seems to be narrowing a good thing?’

I’m not sure that this can be seen as a criticism of rugby still. The ‘template’ 105kg rugby league player seems to be somewhat of a thing that the other code is drifting towards, aided by the more recent NRL rule changes that attempt to speed up the game. But rugby still has Tate McDermott, Josh Flook, Fraser McReight, Harry Wilson, Seru Uru and Zane Nonggorr all pulling on a jersey to go into battle together.

‘when skinny little fellas were playing in World Cups’

Two words- Finn Russell. Arguably the best 10 in the world right now and rugby’s self-proclaimed Messi. Take a look at him in the 6 Nations Netflix doco. He still comes in in the 80’s but he’s got the physique of Monty Burns.

If there’s one rule in rugby that I would change it would be only allowing penalty kicks to be taken inside the attacking 22m. That a team can keep a scoreboard ticking over from inside their own half or even around the midpoint of the field is a travesty. Teams should be encouraged to play rugby all the way up into their opponents red zone (and preferably into the in-goal).

Vic Park was a great public course! Used to love teeing off into the Brisbane skyline…. It’s a shame it’s gone, but if it can’t be a golf course I’m ok for it to be the Olympic precinct. There’s Downey Park to the north and Roma Street Parklands to the south and the precinct designs seemed to maintain plenty of surrounding parkland with the ICB being built over the top of.

The Raymond Park warm up track wasn’t going to involve the resumption of houses. It seemed like plans were in place to navigate the challenges of the Gabba becoming the site for the stadium, but if what you’ve put forward there didn’t make it feasible, the Vic Park option is more favourable than QSAC.

Of course there’s no law saying an Olympic stadium has to be built in the middle of the city, but there’s an unwritten law that says you want to develop stadium infrastructure that doesn’t become a white elephant. Most of Australia’s successful stadium precincts are in areas with people, transport and entertainment venues and these factors decline the further out you go.

Homebush is at least close to the geographic heart of Sydney. It’s location hasn’t exactly been void of criticism throughout it’s lifespan though either.

Clearly Miles is trying to save his hide for October and it’s unfortunate that the result of his shortsighted clutch at power is going to have a global audience and be nothing short of embarrassing whether we make it to 2032 as the host city or not. It’s the bloody Olympics. Not the Comm Games, not some political football. It’s an opportunity, and it’s being squandered.

Political survival needs to be cast aside and what’s needed is strategy and a vision for what the Olympics could mean for Brisbane and SEQ. Investing in QSAC might be the cheaper option but it’s wasted investment. Apparently the quoted QSAC upgrade also doesn’t factor in 4 to $500 million on required transport infrastructure either. And for what? Transport that leads to a white elephant in the burbs that gets used once every blue moon.

The Gabba is clearly 5th in the pecking order of major capital city oval stadiums. Its capacity is 33k and 38k for cricket and AFL respectively. The Olympics presents an opportunity to do something about that. The funding for the school relocation has been allocated and works are underway. There’s no bigger show or platform than the Olympics and once the world comes and goes in 2032, you’ve got a stadium being used by 2 major sports for almost 12 months a year.

A world class 50/55,000 seat oval stadium wouldn’t exactly sit idle in Brisbane. The investments already been made to connect the Gabba to the rest of the city with CRR. Stop playing politics that risks us becoming a global laughingstock and just get it done.

Yes and no in terms of this dynamic being a bad thing for Super Rugby. And it’s not too dissimilar to how things work in the NRL- just different. For instance, I’m a blue living life north of the border and in a family full of maroons. They all have their local team they support but they also have skin in the game when one of the other 3 QLD teams is in action.

Watching the 2015 NRL GF was an interesting one. As an outsider that can’t stand the Broncos, I was almost more invested in the game than they were because they were playing their little brother and even if (when) they lost, it wasn’t easy to be too upset cause it meant a Cowboys victory.

It’s similar in Super Rugby. Instead of our group of teams being QLD based, they’re the Australian based teams. We all want our team to win but we also have skin in the game when another Australian team goes up against someone outside the extended family. From an engagement and interest perspective, that’s not necessarily a bad thing.