- Video
-
Club Roar
Captured a great grassroots sporting moment? We want to see it!Content Collections
The Roar Community
- Join
- Login
This is the second installment of my dissection of Australian rugby following France ’07. This article will be the first half of my discussion and judgment of the performance of the governing body, the Australian Rugby Union (ARU), as led and embodied by John O’Neill.
In this article I will discuss the major structural changes and concepts adopted with respect to the Wallabies team, while in my next article, I will discuss Super Rugby changes and player retention (a key ARU responsibility).
1. Australian Rugby Championship (ARC).
One of the first major decisions taken by the ARU following France ’07 was the scrapping of the ARC. The Flowers led ARU (predecessor of O’Neill) received a fair amount of criticism during its existence and a substantial amount following its end. However, one of the few bright, if poorly executed, ideas that were implemented during that time was the ARC.
This article is neither the time nor the place to discuss the ARC in depth, suffice to say that it served more than adequately as a “third tier”. Although I was overseas during its only season, I was informed that the standard was good and potential was there.
However, due to a reported loss of $4.4 million in the only season and projections that the 2008 season would see a further loss of $3 million-plus, it was deemed untenable due to the precarious finances of the ARU at that time. It’s fair to say that Australian rugby fans have been discussing this decision ever since.
The questions is, should the ARU have pressed on? I am led to believe that the ARU actually had to pay the ABC to televise the games.
Considering Foxtel shows the ITM Cup and Currie Cup, I find it phenomenal that the ARU could not broker a deal with someone that was for at least a “break even” amount (i.e. Foxtel would cover the tournament for free but cover all their own costs).
Furthermore, no attempt was made to restructure the tournament into a more cost-effective format. For example, why not drop one of the Sydney teams and one of the Brisbane teams, bringing the tournament down to six teams? It still would have served its purpose, whilst costs would have been cut.
In conclusion, whilst obviously the inherent flaws in the structure lie with the previous ARU administration, I am of the belief that more could have been done to save this necessary tournament.
2. Australian A.
The pathway to the Wallabies should be a clear one – Australia U20, Australia A, Wallabies. Other avenues, such as the Sevens program, or going straight into Super Rugby, are obviously possible and maybe preferable in some circumstances. But the Australian A program serves a vital purpose.
As recently as 2008, the Australia A team was entered in the Pacific Nations Cup against Samoa, Tonga, Fiji, Japan and a New Zealand “A” team of varying descriptions. Unfortunately, in the economic environment of 2009, the program was scrapped and the team was no longer entered in this tournament (and indeed disbanded).
One of the great irony’s of the loss to Samoa on 17 July 2011, is that if the program had been kept, then the Wallabies backup players would have been familiar with playing the Samoans.
Instead they were taken by surprise and simply not ready. I hope the irony was not lost on the Samoan coaching staff and Rugby board.
Whilst a similar team, the Australian Barbarians, played some games in 2010, there has been no confirmation that this team will return. With the relaunch of “tours”, hopefully the Australia A program can be restarted as it serves a vital purpose in providing additional rugby for players who we generally agree, do not play enough rugby (one of the few great insights from one Robbie Deans).
3. Four game Bledisloe/off-shore Bledisloe.
When this “event” was first held in 2008, I must admit that I was rather keen on the idea. We had only completed the second ever three game Bledisloe/Tri-Nations (2006 being the first), and as such I was not yet “over” playing the All Blacks.
Unfortunately this money-making exercise never fulfilled its potential. Not all of the blame lies with the ARU, it was probably not foreseeable that the 2009 event would be rather disappointing (more Japans fault), nor could O’Neill and the ARU foresee that the Wallabies would lose 10 back-to-back, making the second Hong Kong event a hard sell.
However, surely losing some of the lustre must have been foreseeable with the teams playing each other four times a year. Furthermore, whilst I appreciate that the original intention was to grow the game in Asia, surely more money and prestige could have been obtained from playing the 2010 event in London or America, rather than back in Hong Kong, again.
Whilst the aborted idea should be congratulated simply for refilling the ARUs coffers, it is certainly for the best that the match has been shelved for the foreseeable future.
4. Mid-week tour matches.
I will conclude this half of my assessment of the ARU circa 2007-2011 on a positive note. The return of tour matches in Europe has been, in my opinion, a great success and a necessity.
Despite the loss to Munster, the concept remains sound and should be kept for the foreseeable future and even expanded.
In fact, the only “negative” to this concept, is that media reports suggest the idea really lies with Robbie Deans and not the ARU – who no doubt are happy enough to pocket any income made from the matches.
Join The Roar rugby editor Christy Doran, former Wallaby Matt Toomua and a cast of regular and special guests as they look at the biggest issues in the game on The Roar Rugby Podcast. If you’re looking for great odds on the next game check out Aussie bookmaker PlayUp. Chances are you’re about to lose. Set a deposit limit.