For all my Kiwi compatriots out there, let me say it for you that there’s really not much chance of this happening. OK, now that’s done and dusted, let’s look at the real issues.
The mid to late 90s into the early 2000s was a watershed in Australian Rugby. The moons were aligned so to speak and Rod McQueen could do no wrong. Interestingly, the administration within the Australian Rugby Union appeared on song.
But what happened?
Change happened. Now, I’m a great advocator of change, not for change sake, but to improve a process, situation or outcome. I’m also an advocator of ‘if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it’.
Change also brings new ideas to the table and whilst there was perceived depth in Australian Rugby, structures were not how they should be if we were to remain competitive and dominate on the world stage.
Our Super 14 (now 15) players were stepping up from the club scene and it appeared the gap between club (Premier Rugby) and Super 14 was significant. Both SA and NZ had that next tier providing the necessary competition so as the players were ‘battle hardened’ so to speak for that next level.
Enter the ARC. This looked the goods to allow Australia to have that next level of competition so as the Wallabies could remain a dominant force in provincial and world rugby.
So what happened?
Whilst change is inevitable, unfortunately management of that change isn’t! And whilst it was generally agreed this was the way forward, there didn’t appear to be the correct structures or resources allocated to such a bold move.
Subsequently, the ARC folded due to a lack of funds and a perceived lack of interest. I would have loved to have seen the business plan for this project! Who in their wildest dreams would have thought a project such as this would be a ‘cash cow’ in its first year of operation?
Clearly, the ARU was on the right track but had neither the long term plan nor commitment to see it through. I fear internal politics played a hand in this to some extent so it would seem, due to management changes; the scheme was doomed to failure.
Do we actually need this next level? From what I have read on this site and in other forums, I strongly believe it would benefit Australian Rugby moving forward.
However, there’s another thought process that would argue the structures currently in place for Australian Rugby are adequate and ‘why fix something that ain’t broke’. As a result, my great fear is that should Australia, against the odds, win the RWC, there will be a quorum of folk who will accept that everything is good with Australian Rugby so let’s not change for change sake.
We have depth and we have good, perhaps great players coming through our various systems. However, unless those players just shy of the Super 15 mark get competitive rugby above Premier level, I, like many other rugby followers, fear we may fall from the shaky position we currently hold.
More so, if we were to win the RWC there would be less chance of the correct structures being implemented. So, for the good of Australian Rugby, let’s not win the RWC.
Cattledog
Guest
Ack...thanks Sheek. Something along the lines of one test / S15 = 2 grade games wouldn't hurt. Or maybe 2:3. PS. I don't think Ronnie P understand where I'm coming from...lol
sheek
Guest
JF, I wish I knew the answer. NZ & SA would like to see the back of super rugby I reckon, but they also realise it brings in too much revenue to be ever abandoned. Whilstever money speaks..........
sheek
Guest
Cattledog, It applies to all matches. Which explains in the past when capped at 30, leading Wallabies were never seen playing for their premier rugby clubs. It would also have included the Subbies matched played by Giteau & Mitchell. I was trying to find the EBA the other day, without much luck, although I was in a hurry. I think there is a bit of relaxion about the 35 cap now, thanks to Deans. I think he has argued too much rugby can't seriously hurt the players, especially if it includes about half-a-dozen matches at club level. The 'fun' aspect is still important.
sixo_clock
Roar Guru
ARC comeback? A probable/possible solution is for each of the 5 Australian teams (plus 1, ARU) to maintain a feeder team which will play curtain raisers for any home derby S15 fixtures. They will not be fully professional of course. Or they could play whenever the home team is away (which solves the heat problem in Feb/Mar). Local businesses and colleges could be approached to offer work or study opportunities. Having access to S15 facilities and resources will improve their prospects, skills, fitness regimes etc. Just a thought to throw out there.
zhenry
Guest
"....Why do NZ & SA let us ride on their domestic shirt-tails (with super rugby)?".... Money yes but a wrong perception of it. You can include the isolation of NZers, their colonialism, far too accepting of authority, a black and white ultra conservative business culture that holds too much sway and the absurd fact that NZ does not own its media. The last stated are the most important and should never be ignored (I do my best on this site), and the lack of awareness in NZ of those factors is appalling. I don't want to get on the Super15 treadmill, its too depressing for NZ, but must mention that this comp is not what NZ needs. There are far better options available for the interests of NZ based around our NPC and cooperation with SA who have 'a similar set up': Finances are important and can be respected by such a system, the present NZRU is so doctrinal it cant see the obvious.
Derm
Roar Guru
Troll? Don't be a dimwit if you can help it. :)
p.Tah
Guest
Sorry I can't agree. Winning a RWC would be very beneficial for Australian rugby. Think of the crowds, the sponsors, the revenue and the number of kids that would be inspired to play rugby. I agree that the rugby structures in Australia could be improved, but a national comp is not the answer. It would be a financial disaster, JON was right in canning it. No one but die hards union fans would follow a 3rd tier national comp. If they don't follow the pinnacle of test match and super rugby why would someone start watching the next best... who would invest in it and who would sponsor it? In Australia it would only ever be a development tool and an expensive one at that. As others have said, Australia is wedded to Super Rugby. The format still needs some tweaking but overall I'm very excited about the new comp. The next tier has to be a beefed up club rugby scene in Sydney (and possibly Brisbane). Some have complained that club rugby hasn't stepped in the past so they should be banished. I'm not affiliated with club rugby but I would argue that they never created a national comp in the past because their was no money and secondly there was no need. Expansionism and corporate dollar is a modern day attraction, we are criticising the supposed in action of those in the past using a modern view point. A tier under super rugby will only survive with tribalism. An artifically created national comp will not have this and will fail. As others have said club rugby needs to finally step up to the plate and fill the gap that currently exisits. This is the only format that Australia can sustain against the strong competition from NRL and AFL.
Nathan
Roar Pro
Change is automatic, progress is not.
Ronnie P
Guest
what a stupid article
Crashy
Guest
Does anyone on this sight take a positive from the performance of our sevens team this year? This pathway seems to have unearthed a few gems and that chap from Eastwood that beat Hayne has ben picked up I hear to play sevens as well. Bring the aussie leg over to Sydney!
Crashy
Guest
O'Neil has admitted that 14 tests are too many. I would prefer about 10 or so as long as this doesn't leave the ARU short. Yes the structure is not as good as it should be, but in comparison to the near state of collapse that the A-league is in, it could be a lot worse.
Gary Russell-Sharam
Guest
I agree with Sheek he has the right format but looking at the standard that the ARU operates I do not think that Sheeks idea would ever get off the ground. I do however think that an ARC is needed and I did hear a whisper that the Sydney clubs may be commencing to get something off the ground next year or so, whatever it is. I think it is imperative that Australian rugby invents a second teir system to compliment the top tier of the Wallabies I am thoroughly enjoying watching ITM on Fox, its great rugby. What better place to bring young players on playing alongside existing Super players and learning how to play the game. It doesn't get much better for the players and the viewing public. Why we can't get a second tier up and running with corporate sponsorship etc and put it on free to air tele for a return for the dollar. Why not. Why can't it be done?????
JF
Guest
Pretty good summary Sheek, the problem is there is no real unified plan for SH rugby, what are we working toward? If there was a plan in place to either keep going down the Super path - eventually relegating NPC and CC, or a plan to phase out Super Rugby and promote a H cup provincial comp, we could all be working toward it. At the moment, there are many people working in polar opposite directions.
cm1
Guest
To me it's a no-brainer. If we don't nurture the roots, the tree will die. Whenever I'm asked why I'm watching the ITM cup, I say I'm watching All Blacks and Super players. Then Israel Dagg just about supplants Joe Rockstar on the AB wing forever. I appreciate the ARU's dilemma about expansion of the Super game and the need to secure revenue etc. And maybe it is too hard to fund all tiers, But if the money going into the Rebels, for example, were used as seed money for an APC then who knows how that might grow? The gap in standards is evident in Sydney's Shute Shield, with Waratahs and Wallabies players returning in time to radically revive the semi-final prospects of Sydney Uni and Randwick (in particular).
Cattledog
Guest
Sheek, out of curiosity, is the 30-35 matches at any level? Does it include the domestic (Premier) level, or Super 15 and above? EG. Does the 'subbies' match Giteau and Mitchel played in 'qualify'? For my mind I see a difference, however, interested how RUPA see it, if you know.
Denby
Guest
I like the idea of a national super comp where the top 5 teams move into the super comp for the following year. Kind of like A-League being the national comp with maybe 8 to 10 teams and then Super rugby being the AFC. The teams who miss out on super rugby can play for a secondary national title to keep them playing. This would provide player depth and a platform for injured Wallabies to come back through. It will also keep back up players match fit against professional opposition. All this with a much lower cost than setting up a new national comp. The coaches and players are already on the setup for more of the teams. Their are obvious problems, sheeks point of top players only playing 35 matches. Most of the Wallabies will never play in this comp due to Wallaby duties. It will also dilute the Super rugby teams talent, unless new teams are brought in slowly and try to emulate the Rebels with more imports.
Darwin Stubby
Guest
''I doubt the Wallabies can sustain their intensity for 15 tests EVERY year'' .... hmmm - far too obvious even for me to have a crack at that one
sheek
Guest
Jiggles, The whole idea of a test is the ultimate physical, mental & emotional confrontation on the sports field between one team & another. Sport is all about peaking for the contest. We humans understand we can't be 'up' all the time. If we try to remain 'up' the whole time, eventually our performance will suffer. It's simply human nature, we're not robots. With everything else asked of them, I doubt the Wallabies can sustain their intensity for 15 tests EVERY year. So yes, the value of the jersey has been devalued through overuse. De Beers diamond company creates an artificial scarce supply of diamonds by controlling it's production & point of sale. This convoluted scarcity helps keep the price of diamonds high. The ARU is going the opposite way, flogging the Wallabies to everyone & everywhere, devaluing both the jersey & test matches. But it's not just the ARU, but most sporting bodies across most sports. The same is happening to a greater extent in cricket.
jiggles
Guest
Do you think that the Value of the State/National jersey has decreased since the advent of professionalism? Playing for QLD or NSW now is not what it was 15+ years ago, it is merely a club team now comparable to the Roosters in NRL or Carlton in AFL. Perhaps the Wallabies play too many tests? but hey i guess the $, which 15 tests a year brings is way more important these days.
sheek
Guest
Cliff, I did also say earlier in the year this current super rugby concept (S15) with the 3 conferences, is the best model yet. And totally nullifies the need for an ARC/APC. Having both the super rugby & ARC/APC can work, but only if the former is truncated. But I can't see this happening in the foreseeable future. Why do NZ & SA let us ride on their domestic shirt-tails (with super rugby)? I guess because they realise Australia is financially the wealthiest of the 3 countries. Having a reasonably strong Wallabies also helps their financial bottom line. The jealousy of the Sydney & Brisbane premier rugby clubs is always a problem. One reason why I prefer the APC to an ARC is that the APC is like an above story extension above the PR clubs whether they like it or not. An ARC is an attachment at the same level causing jealousy & uncertainty. Someone's going to have to take on the premier clubs, & put them in their place. The last time JON tried back in 2003, he was shafted for 4 years. Someone else also questioned the lack of patience during Flowers watch, in giving the ARC time to grow. Unfortunately, the ARC was conceived poorly in a climate of utter distaste & mistrust. I think it was intended to fail.....