The most telling moment of an opening round of patchy quality for Australian sides in this year’s Super Rugby tournament were the boos from the home crowd that broke out during the Brumbies versus Force game in Canberra on Friday.
They would have made for painful hearing in the nation’s capital, but they would have been equally as unpleasant on the ears of those who run the affairs of Australian rugby in North Sydney.
Expansion has been the philosophy with regards to Australian provinces since 2006, with the addition of two new franchises. There is another less pleasant term for it – dilution.
The domestic talent pool is too thinly stretched for five teams.
Despite a sympathetic host broadcaster talking them up, some of the least appealing games in recent years have been the all-Australian contests. And it is more than just a perception. Three out of the bottom four teams in last year’s competition were Australian.
Of course, there was always a large “build it and they will come” element to the expansion project, as well as supplying even numbers to the conference system introduced last year. Implicitly, the rewards on offer are from future gains – building player depth and competition.
These are admirable aims but in the present the growing pains are tangible.
Brumbies coach Jake White won a World Cup. The man can coach. And his outstanding Springboks side has never really been given the credit they deserved. They had more dimensions than their detractors allege. Bryan Habana did not score all those tries from intercepts alone.
Similarly, to watch a Richard Graham side is to see one with sound structure, especially among the forwards. It is true that there is sometimes an over-reliance on the boot, particularly in the Western Force’s game against the Waratahs in Sydney last year.
But you must also recognise he has an eye for pace and power out wide, eliciting career-best efforts from David Smith last year.
The point is neither would opt for the level of inhibition their sides showed in round one if there weren’t other factors in play. White must mould something from a bunch of keen but raw – and in some cases limited – players whose confidence he knows could be damaged by early setbacks.
Graham must contend with the loss of two No.10s and a back-line division that is long on perspiration and short on inspiration.
Exhortations from head office for all five teams to play attractive, winning rugby are one thing, but the question of cattle must be considered.
At times, the standard was lamentable. Not only was the kicking frequent but it lacked quality. The pace was pedestrian. Also, the broadcast schedulers had inadvertently been cruel on both sides.
The game directly followed the vivid Blues versus Crusaders game, which for consecutive years has made a mockery of the excuses about round one matches being necessarily rusty. At least Dan Palmer appears to be making strides. The Wallabies need a cornerstone like no other and on Saturday Benn Robinson again showed James Slipper to be some way off.
The groans from the Brumbies crowd can’t be put down to modern impatience either. Dissatisfaction has been building for a while. The crowd figure of about 14,000 will tell you that and it is easy to understand the reticence of the absent. Since Matt Giteau’s departure for the Force the Brumbies have bounced around from 5th to 13th.
Both coaches face a huge challenge in making their sides relevant to the finals race. It will weaken the hand of the Force as they attempt to re-sign David Pocock. It cannot be easy persuading outstanding players that their futures are at a club with only an outside chance of contending for the big prize.
Regrettably, there are too many Wallabies front-liners who fall into this category. Optimistic Melburnians will demur, but James O’Connor and Kurtley Beale will not hold up the Super crown, this year or next.
Yet these are the players you want to be playing in finals each year and establishing a winning habit. Moreover, they develop as players when surrounded by quality.
Of course, the Reds’ 2011 title argument is the counter-argument that suggests everything is rosier than painted here. But put that down to an exceptional Queensland effort and the introduction of the new conference system.
Reds fans detest such references, believing it to be a Trojan Horse argument that leads to the conclusion they were fortunate. It is not an either/or argument.
They deserved their title but it is also undeniable that 10 points accrued against the substandard Rebels eased their passage to the all-important home finals. Sharks coach John Plumtree is already railing against the intensity of the South Africa derby.
The excellent Reds will give it a crack again this year but their dynastic claims will be subject to the same tests of depth this year that will hurt the other provinces.
It is also a matter of time before officialdom loses patience with an out-gunned front row that has a habit of hitting the deck under pressure rather than be shunted backwards.
In the 2000-06 period of three Australian provinces in Super Rugby the Wallabies played 70 times for 43 wins, 26 losses and one draw at a win rate of 62.14 per cent.
In the Force/Rebels period from 2006 to present the record stands at 81 games, 49 wins, 30 losses and two draws at a win rate of 61.72 per cent. The data is not yet conclusive but the trend certainly isn’t upwards.
There is much work to do yet before expansion can be regarded as an intrinsic good.
This is the first of a new weekly column for The Roar by Paul Cully. He joins our expert Rugby team of Spiro Zavos, David Lord, Brett McKay, David Campese, Murray Mexted, Matt Hodgson, Andrew Logan and the ever-knowledgeable community of Roarers.
Ted Skinner
Guest
Matt your comment about the AFL sewing-up Australia's main centres brought a wry smile to my lips. I know if you listen to the AFL propaganda it is all but a fait accompli. However,their expansion teams in to Queensland & NSW suffer from a worse case of lack of talent than any any of the ARU's expansion teams. The GC AFL team finished last &the Brisbane Lions 3rd last. Despite what they say very few NSW & Queensland born players make their way to the AFL. This is after 20 years of having a AFL team in Queensland. They have been rightly condemned for hugely inflating their playing numbers. The Brisbane Region has probably less than 6000. GC AFL have cannibalized the Brisbane Lion's crowds with the Lions' last crowd for the season last year a little above 10,000. The FTA TV Ratings for both of their last games was 35K - the lowest in recorded history for a South-East Queensland professional mens' sport. The Brisbane Lions have accumulated losses of many millions of dollars & the GC Suns have a reported loss of $20 million in their first season. Even the AFL itself has had a loss of about $30 million. The GWS is going to be another financial sinkhole for many year. Its odds-on to also cannibalize the AFL support in Sydney. BTW beore the AFL expanded into Queensland & NSW both Brisbane & Sydney had thriving local Aussie Competitions. They have largely withered. So in the case of AFL expansion into Queensland & NSW it a case of one step forward & two steps back.
kkovak
Guest
this is the first sensible commentary I have read about the state of Australian Rugby . It is the second week of the super 15 and we have an Australian teams playing after New Zealand and it is like watching boys after the men have played . The media continues to overstate the ability of our teams to compete and yes Australia does punch way above its weight but the teams today are not the same as 10 years ago bar a few players ( Pocock ) . I used to be a force supporter but I predict to your readers that the Force will not be in WA within 5 years , the crowd numbers continue to drop , I watched the force play QLD today and even with 2 referees they could not get an unbiased ref who did not favour QLD . I used to watch the fox Rugby Show ( stopped that a few years ago it was so bad ) but I am not sure they even know where the force are located
Dave
Guest
I agree entirely with the columnist. With five Australian teams, two or three will be always be rolling around the bottom of the barrel, and maybe two will be contenders for the semis. Those two contenders may, or may not, make the semis in any given year. There will be the fifith team which may be a contender for the semis, or just join the other two at the bottom. If we had enough depth, why are 34, 35 and 36 year old players coming back from overseas stints and still getting one or two year Super 15 contracts?
Rugbug
Guest
It would be good if you did some homework first. I have just done a bit of research myself and the only teams to take more points in local derbies than the Reds was in fact the Waratahs taking 33 pts and the Stormers who took 31 pts. The Reds and Blues both took 27 points in local derbies The Bulls took 26 so one less than the Reds The Crusaders took 25 points in local derbies, The Sharks only took 18 points from local derbies. So in retrospect the two finalist from each conference tallied total points in local derbies Aus 60 points Local derbies Tahs / Reds NZ 52 points local derbies Cru / Blu SA 49 points local derbies Sto / Sha
Rugbug
Guest
KPM when will you get it into that head of yours there is never going to be three teams in Auckland in the forseeable future its just not going to happen!!!
simon
Guest
The only real quibble I would want to add, is that under a scenarios such as Matt's, the domestic part of the series probably wouldn't be separated from the international component. In other words, I think they would look to continue to call it super rugby with three conferences (albeit closed off with a domestic winner) followed by cross-over finals. 8 teams home and away plus two bye = 16 weeks, plus all teams playing two inter-conference games each (a team from each of the other two conferences) = 18 weeks, then 3 weeks of finals = 21 weeks already. Taking into account the June inbound tours, there's just no time in the season to have a prober separate domestic comp and finals and then an international tournament, and include the Rugby Championship.
Wilson
Guest
Robbie Deans is personaly responsible for deciding who and when Wallaby players get to play Club Rugby. This is determined on a case by case and week by week basis based on fitness, workload and travel. Last year was the worst for participation due to the World Cup. Usually there would be a solid handful playing at any one time. Unfortunately the Sydney & Brisbane comps are the only ones that usually benefit. The WA and ACT comps are just not up to the same standard so the local players are expected to head east to keep match fit and prove form. Which perpetuates the problem with the local clubs. I would love to see this fixed but I'm not sure it will happen soon. Ryan Tyrrell was the other WA guy who played front row for the Force. Let go due to a neck injury. But I believe he is now playing for the Cardiff Blues.
kingplaymaker
Roar Guru
Well Matt let's hope something resembling what you suggest comes to pass. I don't think anyone can sleep easy in their beds in any of the three countries with the current set-up. Having got themselves into this position with the bizarre format of Super rugby, they have been labouring to get out of it to something more reasonable ever since. 8 teams in each conference would go a long way to solving each country's problems. I would implore you to try and write an article sometime as posts such as the last one often just get lost in the middle of discussion threads. Think how wonderful it would be with South Auckland, North Harbour, A.N.OTHER, Adelaide, Western Sydney, Gold Coast, three more SA teams, and then Tokyo, L.A, Buenos Aires, Vancouver. All within five years!!! Rugby would be in a position of double the strength it is now, endless new players would be developed, there would be the money to stop players going overseas, crowds would soar, the best young atheletes would want to play rugby, there would be many more derbies and a more national nature to each conference, a grand, global international game, colossal TV money, four teams being prepared for entry to the Rugby championship, an endless potential global audience!! :-)
Matt
Guest
To be honest, it's pure coincedence that just yesterday I said (above) "I tend to think the answer is to aim for a sustainable 8 team professional model, with a completely amateur level below where players get match payments and no more". The answer to DS's issue is that the current problem is that Test matches, Super Rugby and the NPC in New Zealand is ALL controlled financiall by the NZRU. They decide what happens where, who is available and how much money comes to each level via TV and sponsorship. And the NZRU places the AB's winning as the one untouchable goal, to the detriment of the sustainability and interest in the levels below. Domestic Rugby needs it's own set of independent goals and a leadership group championing it's cause. Super Rugby and the NPC are by products for the NZRU. Everything is catering towards the AB's, which sees them remaining successful but where the NPC is struggling. You can't have a whole year of Rugby with all these different NZ identities and hope to pay everyone money. You also can't go and make then entire NPC amateur again, as that'll drive away most of NZ's young talent and old heads. Overnight you'll drastically erode the depth. So you need to offer enough pro contracts to keep a solid foundation, but to get rid of the 3rd professional tier. The only way is to increase the number of pro teams from the current 5. And if you do that, why not go back to the old identities that people still love to follow? Then, to allow the original NZRU goal of providing a tough preparation ground for test match rugby, why not play the best against the best. It is essentially what makes the Kangaroos so good in League. They have 3 meaningful games each season. Some would argue that a NZ State of Origin for Union would be tougher that 99% of test matches, such is the depth of players and intensity of play. It also embraces the modern trends where big games draw special attention, just as Origin does in Australia. South Africa would have a Coastal vs Highveld series (provinces shown here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:SAunions.png.) Coastal: Stormers, Kings, Sharks (plus Griquas, Eagles and Cavaliers) Highveld: Bulls, Lions, Cheetahs (plus Grifons, Leopars and Pumas) New Zealand would have North vs South series (based on the original 1841 border of New Ulster and New Munster, seen here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Provinces_of_New_Zealand) North : Auckland, Waikato, Bay of Plenty, Taranaki (plus Northland, Harbour and Counties) South:Hawkes Bay, Wellington, Canterbury, Otago (plus Manawatu, Tasman and Southland) That means both countries would have 8 professional provinces in the Currie Cup/NPC. And both would have 6 amateur feeder teams in the second division. The Origin series would be a high quality domestic affair aimed at being a marquee event and an excellent test selection tool. The 8 team domestic comp would be divorced from the national unions control. It would have it's own board, marketing department and would have complete private ownership. This would allow the comp to really promote itself and an attractive competition with old rivalries and true national flavour. A truncated cross border provincial comp (as Sheek has talked about a lot) would then replace Super rugby, with the possibility of Japanese Top League sides taking part to raise revenue streams. The All Blacks and Origin series (in NZ for example) would pay for the top players to stay in the country, the amateur NPC level plus the domestic game and community funding. The domestic pro comp would pay for the players on it's books.
kingplaymaker
Roar Guru
RB I was referring to the Taranaki proposal of 8 teams, which is just what Matt and WCR had been suggesting: that was the coincidence. Not the Taranaki proposal for its own team.
Rugbug
Guest
KPM it is no dam coincidence at all and it hasn't just appeared, I have repeatedly told you on many occasions that Taranaki is and has been very keen to get a Super Franchise for a while and I have supplied links to back this up and you go dead quiet I also posted the link you have shared here earlier this morning on this and a few other threads here at the roar. You continued to deny everythying I said about Taranaki even though I have given you facts and articles of support, yet you constantly tried to deny that Taranaki was worthy of a bid and systematically have been shown the door in relation to this. I have always maintained my stance that SR expansion is not necessarily good especially to far flung corners of the world and within the Australian conference however I have also strongly maintained that NZ is the best placed of the SANZAR partners to supply a team with talent that could be resonably competitive from the get go without having to resort to foreign imports. I did post earlier to you that however for it to be fair that all conferences must have the same amount of teams it just wouldn't work with uneven conferences so maybe Australia may get that extra team afterall.
kingplaymaker
Roar Guru
DS, Matt and WCR what a coincidence that this has just appeared: http://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/rugby/super-rugby/6503170/Taranaki-in-bid-for-Super-Rugby-franchise
Rugbug
Guest
Taranaki again will put forward a bid for inclusion post 2015 and the TV deal, Maybe this is what South Africa should do also wait and bide its time, this potentially may be the catalyst for Australia having another team in the competition although not sustainalbe in reality due to playing numbers I do believe if expansion is to occur which in alll likeliness is going to happen should we like it or not, there must be an even number of teams in each conference. I am not in favour of the US or Japanese teams joing SR as is the travel is extreme, remember how much the Boks bit ched and moaned back in S12 do we really want to go down that route again re travel and trips away. http://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/rugby/super-rugby/6503170/Taranaki-in-bid-for-Super-Rugby-franchise
kingplaymaker
Roar Guru
DS I'm not suggesting going to 12 or 14 teams where there is a far lower standard, but to 8, which is a lot less than 14. Also, many of the players in the these teams would initially come from elsewhere thereby maintaining quality, and importantly many many many many new players would develop through these new teams so they would soon be just as strong as the existing ones. But I wouldn't worry too much as I'm sure your point of view is that of the ARU and NZRU so there doubtless won't be any more until 2016, by which time the NRL and AFL will probably have finished off Australasian rugby.
Darwin Stubbie
Guest
No I said I've been guilty of fueling your highjacking of other threads Saying it doesnt magically make it so - the evidence is there to see now that the competitions expansion has lead to a drop in quality .... You yourself have posted that NH rugby has an abundance of poor rugby on display - where's the logic in dumbing down SR even more so we get to a point where we then need to invent a different layer so we can try and get quality rugby - we have had that in the past and still get it now in some instances in the current format ....
kingplaymaker
Roar Guru
I thought you said you were guilty of talking about this subject too much DS :-) As said in abundant length and right above, I don't think more teams would lower the quality anyway.
Darwin Stubbie
Guest
So dilute the quality of the current competition (even more) and then create a new upper level to try and replicate the standard and quality of rugby we once had in S12 (or still get in some games) ... Paul C is 100% correct - SR has stretched things to thin already .... The argument of more teams equals lower quality that'll enable a better competition doesn't wash because if that's the case why aren't we seeing it now
kingplaymaker
Roar Guru
I would also add that it would be good to have a separate table for each conference from which semi-finals, a final and a trophy were taken, to make each part of it feel more national and to give teams more than one shot at a trophy.
kingplaymaker
Roar Guru
Matt Cooper and Barnes are injured though, while JOC is playing 12 and another potential 10, Beale, will be playing full-back. So that's four good international class 10s in fact.
kingplaymaker
Roar Guru
Agree Matt, rugby in New Zealand needs to do absolutely everything to dominate and saturate its market thereby protecting its turf: have a look at my article on the right as I talk about this probably much of which you have heard before, but maybe not all.