Given the competitive state of Australian rugby, it seems pointless to expect the suits at the ARU to come up with a badly needed national competition anytime soon – if ever.
Objectively, John O’Neil’s canning the national competition experiment was probably the right thing to do. It was useful, but riddled with so many flaws as to make it unsustainable where it really counts – at the local level.
Distance kills, and in the context of the world’s top ten rugby nations, Australia’s geography presents unique challenges to any prolonged national competition. If ill-conceived, a true national competition may require inordinate amounts of travel. Another critical issue is that of identity.
One of the singularly successful Australian events, rugby league’s State of Origin, provides a clue – no, a requirement – for making a successful competition: give the locals something with which to identify.
That simple truth was largely ignored with the ad hoc setup the ARU came up with. The teams and the players in front of the local ‘crowds’ often meant little or nothing to them.
It would be tedious and pointless to go into this and all of the competition’s other shortcomings here. Suffices to say, I cannot remember one team name; where they were nominally from; who played in the final; or who won. Is it just my bad memory?
It is my impression that a national competition that falls between the top club level, and the Super 15 and national level is generally agreed to be needed. Without it we have a nominally ‘elite’ pool of players who almost seem to acquire tenure if they don’t totally lose it, and if their agents are clever enough.
Lack of a proper, routine peer to peer testing environment gives them a huge incumbency head start. To say that this is not good for the game seems somewhat trite, given the state of Australian rugby this week.
With many of the domestic competitions well along in their seasons at this time of the year, we are facing a rather long competitive break between those competitions and the spring northern hemisphere tours. Not good. Not good at all.
Our fair-haired boys will probably take a nap and wake up on the beach sometime around Christmas – wondering what happened. Is anyone still harboring thoughts of a ‘grand slam?’
We need a national competition to flush out the complacency that seems to have become so much a part of the chosen elites, get would be tourists in match condition, unearth new talent, and generally revitalize interest in the game.
Just as an aside, while watching the Tasman v Hawkes Bay match on Friday, the announcer mentioned that a TAB representative said a punter had $NZ 100K on Hawkes Bay to win the match. Now that’s interest! Hawkes Bay won – but barely.
The old competition is gone. What can be learned if we think about where to go now?
First, if it was really a good program, local organizations may well have stepped up to rescue it. It wasn’t, and there is a big key to the problem.
It wasn’t something that local organizations knew much about, let alone in which they had any real stake. They collectively wanted something, but if it was what the ARU designed then the ARU better pay or forget it.
Most Australians will drink almost anything if someone else will shout. We all wanted (still want) a ‘drink’ but if we have to buy the second round ourselves it probably won’t be what the ARU was pouring when they were paying.
Ironically (not really) the key to a successful national competition is to think ‘local.’
Organisers and sponsors don’t, and won’t, work for the ARU. Since they inevitably end up doing the work, it must pay off for them. They know that, rhetoric aside, the ARU doesn’t really have much interest in them and the feeling is reciprocated.
They want their players and efforts recognised, but they do it for their own reasons, not because they are committed to a greater good in the form of the ARU; rugby union as a concept perhaps, but not the ARU.
So, what must a national competition look like to have a chance of being successful?
ORGANIZATION
• It must be organized by a national coalition of ‘locally-based’ entities.
• It must be run by those ‘locally-based’ entities, so they develop a stake in the competition.
• It must be coached by local coaches who have a personal interest in the success of the sides.
COMPETITION
• It must have a similar sized player base for all teams to be at least nominally competitive.
• It must be oriented to the aspirations and competitive needs of all players – not just the established elite.
• It must be open to 18 year olds – physically mature high schoolers – to keep emerging talent interested.
• It must be, and also be seen as, a clear pathway to S15/Wallabies.
• It must have a meaningful name (some historic figure?) and an appropriate national sponsor.
• It must have a large $$$ prize ($250K?) for winners – Australians will pay attention to anything where serious money is involved.
TEAMS
• It must be comprised of local players (preferably state of origin for S14 players).
• It must be virtual representative sides drawn from the ‘local’ pool of players.
• It must have team names that fit the needs of ‘local/regional’ marketing.
• It must be primarily supported by ‘local/regional’ sponsors who see what they are getting.
• It must be outfitted in very well designed ‘marketable’ uniforms (keep club socks to encourage ‘tribal’ instincts).
MATCHES
• It must be supporter-oriented/’tribal’ (make matches a spectacle for families, if possible).
• It must be attractively priced. It may need local ‘not-for-profit’ entities for each side, to discourage marketing stupidity by officials who get carried away with revenue potential.
• It must have scheduling that fits the needs of local markets (time, venue, etc.)
• It must be on free to air TV – in real-time for away sides when distance is substantial; slight delay locally.
FUNDING
• It must have some mechanism to even out the cost burden. The major market sides in Brisbane, Sydney, ACT and Melbourne save on travel, so they will all need to pitch in to the effort to make the whole program work.
• Prize money should come from involving someone who stands to benefit. Perhaps get a coalition of big punters to put up the cash – they will get it back in spades.
• Anything that raises the profile of local/regional rugby will enhance everyone’s incomes. Let the local organizers figure out what works.
IMPLEMENTATION
At this point things become a bit problematic. If local is the key then the local entities must work this out – not a bunch of us here on the Roar. That said, here is at least something to get the discussion started. Please remember, I said the locals need to figure this out.
START DATE – Spring 2010
TEAMS (16)
• Queensland (4) Brisbane; suburban/country; coastal.
• New South Wales (4) Sydney eastern; western suburbs/country; north coast/country; south coast.
• ACT (2) Canberra; ACT/country.
• Victoria (2) Melbourne; suburban/country.
• South Australia (1) Adelaide.
• Western Australia (2) Perth; Fremantle/country.
• Northern Territory (1) Darwin/Far N.Qld/drafts.
SCHEDULE
To minimize travel and enhance local interest, the teams must be grouped in ‘local’ pools. These pools would play round robin home and away. This makes six matches in six weeks for Round 1.
ROUND 1 (six weeks)
• North pool – QLD 1; QLD 2; QLD 3; QLD 4.
• Central pool – NSW 1; NSW 2; NSW 3; NSW 4.
• South pool – ACT 1; ACT 2; VIC 1; VIC 2.
• West pool – SA 1; WA 1; WA 2; NT 1.
ROUND 2 (one week)
1. North 1 v South 2.
2. North 2 v West 1.
3. South 1 v Central 2.
4. Central 1 v West 2.
ROUND 3 (one week)
1. W1 v W3.
2. W2 v W4.
ROUND 4
W 1 v W2
Perhaps the most obvious problem with this structure is inclusion of SA, WA and NT. The travel may be a deal breaker for the first iteration of this competition. Two imperfect alternatives would be:
1. Drop the SA, WA, and NT from the first year to get the competition started, and figure out the details going forward
2. Give WA 4 sides and let them include SA and NT players in their pools.
Regardless of what is done to address this conundrum in the short run, these sides will need to be subsidized by the east coast (for everyone’s benefit) to make their travel costs viable.
That is what I think. Your turn.
ozxile
Roar Pro
I hesitate to suggest this because it means more work, but...it seems that we are in the process of creating a blueprint that might actually be worth properly documenting. If I commit to spending the time looking through all these posts and doing a synthesis will the rest of you hang around long enough to look it over, critique and polish? We can then say we at least gave it a proper chance and maybe Spiro or someone will push it in the right direction(s).
sheek
Guest
WC, Apologies for not remembering it was you.
Working Class Rugger
Guest
In terms of intial quality of the competition. I'd be happy to see something around the current Shute Shield. Would give it a solid base to build off and allow the clubs to focus on further developing toward full time squads. Once that is achieved I'd open the door to foreign imports. There presence would bring an something extra to such as competition. A T.V deal would be essential. Which is now more of a possibility than ever before thanks to the digital TV revolution. I agree with Sheek. Each team should have a number of development officer's to engage the community and help grow these teams supporter and player bases for the future. So each team will need to develop or at least adopt localised programs to grow the teams footprint. For such a competition to realistcally occur 2010 is too short a notice. As it would be highly unlikely for anything to happen this year, so 2011 would be ideal. These clubs would need at least 12 months to align clubs both senior and junior, promote their presence and develop the necessary supporter base through merchandising and memberships.
sheek
Guest
Ozxile/Midfielder, There's a perception thing happening here. By implication, a provincial comp (S14, CC, ANZC) is of a higher (slightly) standard that a national club comp. Don't know why I said that, & putting it aside for the moment.......... The reality is, in 2009, the 4 Aussie provincial sides had about 33 professional players each, 4 x 33 = 132. My understanding is, when/if the 5th team comes in, the ARU will adopt the NZ method of only 28 players per province, 5 x 28 = 140. This would represent a net gain of just 8 professional players. Ozxile, by implication, you're suggesting if we had a 10 team comp, each team would have a starting XV from the pool of 150 professional players. That's assuming we lived in a perfect world. Reality says the stronger teams would have 20, & the weaker teams 10. Trying to be brief, my view is that the Australian rugby problem needs to be attacked from both top-down & bottom-up. The national comp (8 teams) provides the incentive pathway for youth. Once that's established, the development officers have to go out & recruit schools & individuals. The development officers would have to be given 100%support by ARU & other unions in what would undoubtedly be a very arduous task. The youth need to be encouraged - this is what you can look forward to - school first XV; maybe school reps; premier rugby; national comp & s12/16 whatever; Wallabies. Every person can find their level that they're comfortable with. As for ARC/APC/ARS, start small, then build. 8 national club teams eventually expanding to 16. Wouldn't want to give a time frame. Maybe..........? I myself have said many times, that everything has to have a start somewhere. Certainly agree with that.
ozxile
Roar Pro
OK, Shute Shield 12 sides; Qld Premier Comp 10 sides; Canberra 8 sides; Melbourne 9 sides; Adelaide 9 sides; Perth 10 sides. That is a starting point of 58 teams (admittedly uneven quality). With 30 player 1st XVs that is 1740 players. That isn't even including all the viable high school 1st XV players who might step up. I ask again, just how good do you think this competition has to be to be worthwhile? Isn't the point to lift them up so some of them eventually make it? Also, I said 'we may soon have 5 S15' sides. I did not say we have them right now.
Midfielder
Guest
ozxile First you only have 4 Super sides ... do you honestly think their are 100 to 150 RU players running around close to super 14 standard that play for nothing ... Finding players of quality is a very hard job...
ozxile
Roar Pro
Midfielder, Sheek: Help me to understand this issue of ‘not enough quality players.’ We may soon have 5 S15 sides. If each of them have working squads of 30 we have already identified 150 core players. While not really anywhere near enough for 10 national competition teams, it means that someone has already found half the bodies for a 10 team competition. Are you both suggesting that we cannot find another 70 players to provide them each with a bench of 7 players from all the rest of the bodies in the country? Throw in a few more to make up a decent sized squad and you easily have 10 sides. On the one hand we lament ad nauseam the lack of opportunity to develop quality players. Now the lack of quality players is presented as a rationale for not doing something that has the potential to develop more quality players. Just how good do you think these teams have to be to make this worthwhile? Have a look at the NPC. It is loaded with unknown but solid players and, if the jersey markings are any indication, they are heavily reliant on local/regional sponsors. My sense is that a huge part of the problem, even with those of us who want to see this is that the expectations of the level of competition are unrealistic - not the ability to establish the competition itself. It is pointless to expect that this national competition will be the world’s best at the outset. I think we are talking about trying to get something between the top clubs and the S14 competition. These teams and this competition should not be compared to the NPC or the Curry Cup to make this worthwhile. It should address our needs. Period. We do not need competition that involves NZ side or anything else. Lose sight of that fact and the whole thing seems impossible and too expensive. Try very hard to look at this from the bottom up. I will say this over and over again - don’t underestimate the importance of locals who want to see their ‘local’ super-rep side win a national championship – or for that matter, the interest of players who right now don’t see any chance to break into the big time by playing with and against the putative best. It is far too facile an excuse to say we don’t have the players or resources if no one puts the opportunity out there, or arbitrarily puts the bar to high at the outset. If we did wake up one morning with all the quality players we want where would we put them? Everything has to start somewhere. Starting with the premise that everything needs to be really top notch is meaningless when there is no platform to develop from. There is nowhere else to start with but the existing local base. While the Shute Shield competition is arguable excellent, restricting this to the top 4 Shute Shield sides, the top 4 in the Qld. Premier league etc. is nothing more than fiddling with the status quo, and importing all the parochial politics along with it. No one will buy that as being a movement in the right direction. It is an approach that will systematically exclude too many important people and players. The local 'suits' will kill it. Whether a national competition works or not is not up to us to debate to a conclusion. The people who have to actually work on it need to get involved. I am not thinking about the ARU. I know, talk is cheap. Believe me if I currently lived in Australia I would work on it. Right now this is about all I can offer.
Working Class Rugger
Guest
Sheek Using the ARS format was my idea. Did a write up and everything. How I saw it Sydney, Brisbane, Western Syd, Gold Coast, Perth, Adelaide, Canberra and Melbourne would be the intial competitiors. With NSW Country, QLD Country to become development squads for future growth. N.T would fall under the auspices of either QLD Country or Perth whilst Tasmania would fall directly under Melbourne. Intiate an indigenous development and talent identification program. They have such a program for AFL in WA called the 'Clontarf Academy' which would be worth a look. The sticking point again would be the clubs. However, offer them an olive branch. Give them a say, not a big say, but some level of input.
sheek
Guest
Ozxile, Someone, & I apologise for forgetting who, it might have been True Tah, has suggested the ARS format. This, & your suggestion, follows on from the Wallaby Trophy of the 1970s. This was a great concept, but perhaps before its time. In 1st Division you had Sydney, NSW Country, Queensland & Victoria. In 2nd Division you had Qld Country, WA, SA, & Tasmania. When ACT split from NSW Country in 1975, they went into 2nd Division. As Midfielder point out, 16 teams is simply unworkable from a financial viewpoint. It's a point we might want to reach in the future, but far too big as a starting point. I would love 10 as a starting point, but realistically, 8 is the max number we can afford. But even then that would require concessions. Reds fan has argued quite rightly that if Sydney should have 3 teams, Brisbane is entitled to two. Which only leaves Canberra, Perth & Melbourne. More realistically would be to adopt the initial A-League format, with Canberra replacing Wellington & Gold Coast replacing either Newcastle or Central Coast. The multiple Sydney & Brisbane teams would have to wait their turn! At least between us, we have Roarers thinking more about a national comp, & mulling over ideas.
Midfielder
Guest
The A-League in Hal 1 cost 6 million per team to run... you need quality players ... 16 teams is well over the top ... As I have said before the only answer I can see is a redrawing of the Super 14 / 15 into a Champions league type format.. Say 8 Australia sides ... 2 Brisbane ... 1 Newcastle / CC ..... 4 sydney & 1 Canberra... Then as an example merge existing Shute Shield teams into 4 Sydney teams... the top four of Australias go on to play the top 5 from SA & NZ in a Champions League format... then grow from there..
ozxile
Roar Pro
Midfielder. My point is that we can only look at this from the local perspective if we expect it to ever work, be sustainable, and be good for the game at the local level. Would you let the ARU run this? Just for illustration IF it cost A$1.6 million - that is a average of $100K/per select side drawn from a pool of about 4-5 senior sides per region + all the rest of the clubs. Double it and it still doesn't sound like too much to me. For the bulk of the competition the travel is minimal so that big cost is largely gone from the picture. Consider that it is not going to come from club coffers. The money comes from good local promotion and merchandising. Bad product - no money. Good product - pay the bills. Examined this way, the total amount is a red herring. Let the locals have a chance to figure it out - if they and their sponsors get the primary benefit from it they will make it happen. If not good for them it is fundamentally unsustainable anyway. This just suggests a way to start the discussion without the ARU saying no because that TOTAL does not leave much left for their 'business' junkets to HK and Twickenham. Oh yes, this might actually help that rebuilding from the club sides - if not it isn't working.
Midfielder
Guest
Ozxile Good effort ... but pipe dreams ... do you have any idea what a 16 team national comp costs ... and RU does not have enough quality players to put out 16 teams..You need to re build from the park sides ...
Lorry
Guest
I agree we need a national comp - but let´s remember that unfortunately there is tremendous, powerful opposition to a National Comp, from the bloody leather-elbow patches brigade (yes, I went to a private school but like to distance myself...!), who will miss their sausage sizzles and ´rat-pies´ and Tooheys New on saturdays at the local oval. One well-known columnist (initials G.G.), who is a vocal member of this brigade also infamously claimed that having a rugby world cup in Japan was a bad idea becuase the japanese are ´too small´. And of course Mr. GPS Old boy JON himself is adamantely opposed to a national comp, whilst I´ve written about Russel Fairfax´s sins re. the infamous Springbok tours of the 70s elswhere on this site (i.e. not admitting recently that he made the wrong choice in playing the racially selected team in 72 whilst other, braver but sadly forgotten Wallabies refused) Ridiculous - but I digress....it´s time to put aside the tweed jacket and get over the obsession with the local grandstand bar! We need a national comp now...
BigAl
Guest
Bingo !!!!! . . . why hasn't somebody thought of this before ?????
Chris
Guest
Ozxile, its a beautiful and a well thought out comp. Now all we need are people to move away from the TV/computer and get it up and running...
Karl
Guest
Ozxile, I admire your passion and that is hard for me to say as I admire so little of what Rugby Union has to offer. It is nice to dream and that is all this will be for at least 200 years.
ozxile
Roar Pro
Whoops. Overlooked Tasmania. Draft them into Victoria suburban/country