In light of the of the Wallabies’ continuing woes, here’s another angle on a national competition. In the magnificent movie Zulu, commanding officer Rorke’s Drift Lt. Chard (Stanley Baker) instructs his 2IC Lt. Bromhead (Michael Caine) to form up a platoon of sharpshooters.
The principle is simple – the ‘mobile’ platoon will plug any breeches in the defensive perimeter wherever and whenever they occur.
A well constructed and organised national competition ought to work in a similar fashion. Good quality players come and go. Hopefully, when they retire, an equally good player can be immediately slotted into his position.
Sometimes, it may not work as well. Either too many players retire, or of too high calibre, and the replacements take a while longer to be effective. Looking at the history of NZ and SA rugby, more often than not, they can count bad eras in single years, not in batches of 5, or 10 years.
For Kiwis, 1986 was a disaster year, with the country and ABs both split over the rebel tour of South Africa. The ABs lost the Bledisloe Cup at home 1-2. The Cavaliers were crushed in SA 1-3. The year record was 4-6. Yet the following year – 1987 – the ABs spectacularly won the inaugural rugby world cup.
For Saffies of a slightly older vintage than myself, 1965 was a bad year for them. On tour in Australia and NZ, the Boks won just one test out of 6. Yet by their next test year – 1967 – they were back in the winner’s circle.
Here’s another example of the importance of a national competition. The first year i followed cricket was 1968. That very summer – 1968/69 – coincidentally, NSW finished last for the very first time in a 5 team competition in the Sheffield Shield.
Of the first 20 Sheffield Shields following WW2, NSW won a staggering 14, including 9 in a row 1953/54-1961/62. But by the late 60s, NSW cricket, the traditional stronghold of Australian cricket, was in a slump.
In the 70s, NSW recovered slightly to usually finish midfield. But they won no SSs between 1965/66 and 1982/83. While NSW was in a slump, the WA star was rising.
WA won the SS in 1967/68, then added a further 6 titles from 1971/72 to 80/81. Critically, WA had taken up the slack vacated by NSW.
Surely, the morale to the story must be clear!
Every sport in every country has its traditional strongholds. If the strongholds are struggling, then hopefully, the slack will be picked up elsewhere.
If both NSW and Queensland rugby are in a slump, who can we turn to for relief? Had Australian rugby maintained a powerful presence in Victoria, how different might the rugby union landscape be today?
How many more Weary Dunlops, Dave Cowpers, Nicky Barrs and Stan Bissetts might Victoria have produced in the past 60 years had Victoria remained strong? How much stronger might these types of players made the Wallabies?
In the future, if/when NSW and Queensland rugby is in a rut, then we might turn to WA or Victoria to pick up the slack. This is another importance of developing a national focus and national competition.
NSW, Queensland and ACT may be near saturation in the new players they can develop. But what opportunities await the game in WA, Victoria and SA?
A national competition is of prime importance not so much when things are going well, but when things turn pear-shaped. If the national competition is healthy, then the recovery of the national team will be quicker.
Not the current 5 year rut that the Wallabies have endured, and for which there is no immediate end in sight. Perhaps after another 5 years of drought, we will see the light?????
AndyS
Guest
I'm pleased to hear that, especially after the public seemed to be anything but supportive when asked to cough up for the Eden Park redevelopment and the new stadium in Dunedin. But my concern wasn't for the IRB or the successful running of the RWC - these things generally tend to work themselves out. Sam made the point that the NZRU finances are not as fragile as some think, a position I would agree with from what I have seen with respect to financial reserves etc (and they certainly seem to be in a far healthier position than the ARU). I was merely pointing out a potential risk to that position and one to which I have not seen any allusion. If you are saying that the NZRU has a firm agreement with the Government guaranteeing their financial position regardless of the RWC outcome, then I am pleased (especially as I have nephews shortly to enter the junior levels of the system). But you are wrong if you think it is of no concern of anyone outside NZ - the financial position of the NZRU following 2011 will inform their motivations and decisions the next time a Super expansion is proposed, currently thought to be 2013. Those decisions will impact all partners in SANZAR and I would like to think that they would be balanced and in the best interests of rugby throughout the region, without hands being forced or poor compromises required.
AndyS
Guest
Oh, and in which other posts am I being all anti-Kiwi?
AndyS
Guest
God no - do you even read other people's posts or just assume the content? The point of my post is that I just resent the constant implication that Australian rugby exists solely due to the "goodwill of the South Africans and New Zealanders". Everyone benefits from the SANZAR deal, otherwise they wouldn't be there. New Zealand might not bring huge numbers, but why do you think I said that "their teams and play bring a huge amount to the product"? That they stand so tall and have so much to lose is actually one of NZ's problems, and why Tew can't (or more likely, wouldn't) decide to go it alone with just the ANZ cup. NZ rugby as a whole is of such a quality that if the funding mechanisms supporting it collapsed, they would probably be the most affected by NH raids on their players. I certainly think they would be taking far more players from NZ than Australia, while SA probably has enough support, population and other options to better defend itself. But if that then forced the ABs to select from overseas based players, what young player wouldn't be looking to European money and what would be the implications for the standard and earning potential of the ANZ cup? I have no idea where the hell you got "claims that the tournament is only making money because Australias viewers make it viable". If that is anyone it is probably SA, but they have to have someone to watch - they have already separately sold the rights to them playing each other in the CC. If you go back to the the original post to which these are all replies, the point is that Super Rugby is only likely to grow, not shrink or be disbanded in favour of some other totally unproven and unknown product. But that is true because everyone would be hurt by it, not just Australia.
QC
Guest
AndyS, Im detecting a very anti New Zealand sentiment in all your posts. Is it a problem to you that NZ for a country of only four million is so dominant on the world stage when it comes to Rugby? I'd even argue with you that NZ has a greater viewer market when it comes to rugby so it is Australia who are the beneficiaries of the SANZAR deal. Do you really think that if NZ wasn't involved that the comnpetition would get as much money? Do you think the quality would remain at such a high level. The tournament would be affected more if either NZ or SA left more so than it would should Australia leave. I love your scaremongering it's entertaining and frankly you know absolutely nothing about New Zealand rugby and the financial state it's in. However I'll give you top marks for your claims that the tournament is only making money because Australias viewers make it viable. Because that is how I interpret your post. Very brave call but not a very intelligent one. 14 years this tournament has been running and sadlly haven't seen much improvement from Australia be it on the field or in the bank? How much have the ratings changed in that time period and how much have junior numbers increased?
QC
Guest
I very much doubt it AndyS The NZ public realises this will be the last WorldCup held in NZ due to the exhorbent fees the IRB wants a country to pay to host a tournament. The majority seem very content to pay to host it and fork out from their pockets. Rememebr Andy S this is New Zealands national sport it is the lifeblood of the country almost so many are prepared to make small sacrifices. This is the first World Cup since South Africa to be hosted in a true rugby nation where most people understand the game, How can this not be good for rugby. Any loss that the tournament makes is of no concern to you or anyone else for that matter that is not a NZ citizen. No matter what the IRB will get their money. the only people who stand to lose anything is New Zealand itself but I can assure you everyone who I have spoken to is pretty stoked about the cup coming down here and don't mind having to pay a little extra to have it!
Working Class Rugger
Guest
Westy I would have dearly liked the ARU to put through the Western Sydney bid alongside Melbourne/Victoria. That way even though WS would likely miss out on 2011 they could be given the green light for 2013. This would have allowed them to develop a squad predominently from Western Sydney and build the connection needed with the community. If the suggestion of the S15 growing to a S18 in 2013 are true then hopefully this will occur. Though have 2-3 years to grow that bound would be the better option as opposed to 18 months. Rugby can have a significant presence in the area. From my experiences though few in number many of the Rugby Clubs in the area are well subscripted. With the prospect of a WS team that number would ideally grow. For an area with around 2.5million people living there or in close proximity the attention it has recieved is ridiculous. I am of the belief that though I'd really like to see a seperate National competition, the only way this ambition will be achieved would be through Super Rugby andf it's continued growth. And if that is the case then the ARU needs to look toward future prospects. WS being the no. 1. priority for any future growth. If so something has to start on that now. Rugby has to work toward connecting with the greater community. Something it hasn't ever done. Much to it's detriment.
sheek
Guest
Guys, Thanks for your contribution. Who Needs Melon said the national comp debate is much like the Australian Republic debate - we mostly agree on the need, but disagree on the fine details. I would go further by mentioning what a particular journalist said, whose name I forget. He said Australia would eventually become a Republic when we became more mature in our understanding of it. I would say the same about a rugby national comp. If my constant articles help provoke thought on the topic, then discussion leads to ideas & resolutions. I am impressed by the number of hits on this post. So I see that as a positive.
sheek
Guest
Midfielder, Well, I still think the ARC is a starting point. But our professional players would have to take a mighty pay cut, that's obvious. Of course, I'm sure many of them would be unable to appreciate the the long term benefits of any cuts, or whether previous Wallabies had been living well above the game's means!
sheek
Guest
No, that's not right. Aus played NZ in one cricket test 1946, then not again until 1973/74. After that, it was considered inappropriate to have NZ national team playing in Aus domestic one-day comp. Between 1946 & 1973, Aus considered NZ a cricketing 'lightweight'. At least in rugby union, the Kiwis were more gracious in return. Or perhaps they just enjoyed flogging us on a regular basis!
sheek
Guest
Yes... accepted!
Pippinu
Roar Guru
Whenever the chicken and egg analogy is used, I often wonder where the act of copulation fits in.
onside
Guest
This forever discussed subject, is similar to the chicken and egg debate. In rugbys case,club football is the chicken,and a national comp, the egg. A chicken and egg are lying in bed. The chicken is leaning against the headboard smoking a cigarette,with a satisfied smile on its face. The egg, looking pissed off,grabs the sheet,rolls over,and says, 'well I guess we finally answered THAT question.....
warrenexpatinnz
Guest
The NZRU is dropping four teams from its NPC first division competition because it is financialy unsustainable and as we saw it was also unsustaianable for the ARU. What I propose is that the ARU and NZRU talk about the four NZ sides being dropped from the competition combining with four teams from Australia. Team one would be based from Perth however all that means is that the most financialy viable side in NZ picks up players and a cash injection from Perth and that play from NZ? Team two is from *Melbourne, Team Three from *Sydney Team four from *Queensland with the Sydney and Queensland teams playing club promtion relagtion to determine either the bulk of a squad or selectors pick from all teams? You would then have half Aussie and half Kiwi sides in those four relagated Kiwi sides with the ARU having to provide funds, probably about a third of its own failed competition and the NZRU kicking in the balance which would be far less than what their cost is now? The NPC competition then should become a far more marketable competition and through this should help pay its way more. NZ die hards would throw their arms up however from where I sit (Rotorua NZ) rugby in New Zealand is in denial and in comparison with Aussie rugby is falling from a far greater height as the only reason the NPC is seemingly thriving this year is the added knowledge that four sides will be dropped and that the big sides are struggling with three minows or the favourites to be dropped above the so called 'safe' unions. The other win factor for the NZRU, who would also avoid a costly and embarrasing legal battle of the four sides being dropped is that then the ARU and the NZRU have a starting point for a combined competition should the Super foureteen/fifteen implode or go the whole hog and have a 'domestic' competition under that of the Super fourteen made up of eight sides and a second teir competition beneath that of eight sides. I know the later ideas may be expensive however the sporting sponsorship dollar in Australia is looking for a home from the NRL, not all but enough and by having a branded competition which has pay for view potential, good advertising marketing these teams, I suggest also being privatised (the first trial four) would make money. Cheers
Jolly Jupes
Guest
No arguement from me on ARC - pulling out after one year when all the start up cost were incurred was stupid. The second year could have been managed and decisions made. For me it is typical of the ARU who have spent all their time destroying anything Flowers introduced. For me we are were we were in 2003. You mention the contracts for the junior league players - union does not have the funds to do this. That is why the ARC was important as it gave a focus to the regions in the other part of the year - it was tangible Thanks ARU
Tom Alexander.
Guest
It would have been interesting to find out, if the outcomes for the ARC would have been any different if, (with sanzars approval of course) the Super 14 was to be given a 12 month break in competition. Which would have allowed the ARC plus the NZPC, CCup etc to run singularly unhindered for a season. Running the 2 competitions regardless of their status and lengths etc, seemed a pretty ambitious undertaking by the ARU. Even the NRL gave up attempting to run, on that scale anyway, 2 quality comps side by side (that's why they got rid of the mid-week Panasonic Cup). It forced even the most diehard fans to choose both financially and emotionally between 2 quite legitimate but at the end of the day, totally separate competitions. Too much of a good thing can both confuse and ultimately turn people off. Keep the choices more affordable and not too overly complicated. Outside of the Major Metropolitan areas, Regional Rugby is woefully underfunded, especially at the Junior level. A lot of dedicated parents, coaches and local administrators deserve a lot better from the various state Unions. Strengthen the grass roots first.
westy
Guest
jolly jupes I have had a look at rugby league and AFL in this regard. talented rugby league players in U/18 SG Ball are already contracted for two/three years or so. The NRL clubs also charge each other development fees if they wish to take over the contract. AFL clubs other than Swans and the new Western Sydney franchise use scholarships. I was being trite with Tuquir.s contract. In the AFL the other clubs are precluded from recruiting in the new franchise areas. No rugby project in the west has sunk. The development officers funded in Penrith resulted in penrith making the semi finals. After this it was withdrawn. the problem is you are either in for the long hall or not. Turn the tap on but just as quickly turn it off. Spend 4.3 million on the ARC / pull out within a year. Imagine if the funds had been targeted to Western Sydney. Imagine the management foresight to announce a Western Sydney franchise for 2013 and build a team. Give it exclusive recruiting zone . Tie western sydney academy players to the franchise. Rugby league and AFL manage to do it. The Western Reds rugby league team will be withdrawing from the Bundaberg Cup and they will be playing in a national U/18 SG Ball competition to build a reservoir of players for their 2013 bid for an NRL licence.
Jolly Jupes
Guest
Nice in theory Westy but the real world is:- Tuqiri's contract money can only be spent on players not staff or development Agree on the colts but the problem is that any good talent will be poached by other Sydney Clubs and more likely the Force, Brumbies or Melbourne - you will never hold the good talent long enough - that is the reality Many rugby projects have already sunk in the West - I guess we can still dream
westy
Guest
You start at the little things. For the balance of Tuquiri contract I cam employ experienced coaches at a Western Sydney Academy based at Blacktown Olympic centre. . Within two years the aim is to have first grade colts teams tied to Parramatta and Penrith. None exist at the present time. I seek not to train for the Waratahs but for grade. and a future super 14 franchise. Do not bite of more than we can chew . be patient . Fund a Western Sydney U/20 rep team to tour . Build a culture within the region that will support a future Super 14 team in the region. You never know what you may achieve. You have to do these things to be ready in five years time if the ARU is genuine in providing a super team for an area that dwarfs ACT or Perth and makes a mockery of the number of rugby juniors in Melbourne the waratahs have no nexus to this area. It is tribal and the Waratahs are not of their tribe. Give us a weapon to take on the other sports you might be surprised at what you find. Basically no one out here cares what school you went to , or who is winning the GPS , but they just might care about a rugby team who unapolegetically represents the less well of members of Sydney, its islander communities and its less skilled working people a novel concept for a rugby team in Australia harking back to the days of the Balmainiacs. The players we currently produce are hesitant to play for parramatta or penrith because they fear it will hurt their chances for higher honours. We have had senior rep coaches encourage our juniors to leave our rep teams if they really want to pursue their rugby careers. We can only compete if we have our own team and it is not the Waratahs.
Frank O'Keeffe
Guest
I have nothing really to add to this discussion, other than to say I enjoy every article Sheek has posted on Australia's failure to have a National Rugby Competition. As his last article rightfully contended, Australia is just incapable of having a successful national competition. It's a shame rugby union isn't more popular in Australia. If you read Peter Jenkins terrific book 'Wallaby Gold' it seems all Australian Rugby Union administrators tried to do since the league defections of the 1909 side is to somehow keep rugby afloat in Australia. Whether it be playing the Fijians and trying to entertain people that way, or offering coaching clinics to try and assist skill levels at lower levels, it just doesn't seem like rugby has captured the hearts of enough Aussies. Ironically it would seem that New Zealand playing Australia in 1979 in an attempt to help raise funds for the ARU was the start of the rise and rise of Australian rugby. Nick Farr-Jones has always remarked how rugby registrations went up 300% when he came back from England in 1991. But for all that, Australia can't seem to get a national comp going and keep it alive. In hindsight I guess I did have a bit to say other than thanking Sheek for his article.
Pippinu
Roar Guru
I can't help thinking that the only response is to grow what is already fairly successful (super rugby), rather than go double or nothing on a national comp that doesn't really have a strong enough business case.