The Lions form offers a King-sized opportunity

True Mania, but we have the players - loads of them running around in clubs every week. But there is no filter with which to work out which ones have what it takes and which ones haven't. They'll be there, but it might be one in every four team, lost in a mediocre crowd. What an ARC does is sift out the ones that look like they might have what it takes, put them together and see who rises to the top. The average would still be below Super standard and most won't make it, but all the ones that were going to will all be in that group and much more apparent. That is why the school carnivals are so useful, because they bring all the best into one place to be assessed. That is also why almost all the players that make it come from that path - not because they are necessarily the best, but hey are the only ones that have a showcase instead of relying on dumb luck to be seen by the right people at the right time. As you correctly point out though Jiggles, the huge downside is that it ignores any kid that might not have had the money or luck to go to a private school, or that went and got a trade. That is a lot of potential talent to ignore. Ultimately that is what an ARC would be - a huge school carnival for the clubs, enabling all ages, all backgrounds to show off what they have, hone their skills and hopefully impress.

very very true jiggles. waste of time having a 3rd tier when there arent any players. its like building a building or a bridge. u have to start from the bottom up. get the kids ito it 1st and foremost. the rest will follow

brett - waste of time having that comp between club and SR when u have bugga all players to man it. grass roots first then when thats been successful for 5-6 years then you'll have more players than u know what to do with. thats when a domestic comp cant be denied and it will happen

Nice article Brett. Great to see the brumbies show the lions for the soft cats they are.

I think for Australia we can't really look at what happens in NZ or South Africa and adopt their model thinking it will improve the success of the national team. We need to look at our own situation as it stands and do what is beneficial for us. And terms of success for the national team you can't automatically say a 3rd tier is directly beneficial anyway. The stats show that despite having a 3rd tier, South Africa is an inferior rugby nation since 1992. In terms of rate of return, I believe the return on junior development far out weigh the theoretical return of a third tier. The introduction of an extra super team will only mean there are more players able to compete at super level. The introduction of a 3rd tier would only mean we get a handful more players being able to compete at a standard somewhere below super rugby, and somewhere above club rugby. by increasing development and placing the importance of junior rugby on club rather than school rugby, we would see a larger number of kids playing rugby up until their 20s with access to better coaching. The reason why you rarely see players not from the QLD GPS system playing rugby is because they are simply not developed outside of the QLD GPS system. Therefore if more kids are playing the sport, the competition to break into those 5 profesional teams would greatly increase when they mature, which is a good thing. instead of 1 Will Genia emerging every 10 years, we might have 2. All the introduction of a 3rd tier does is provide us with more players able to compete at a level higher than that of club rugby. It does not provide us with more players who have the skills set to be world class players. it does not provide us with high quality which is what we are really are. Economics teaches us increased competition provides for better efficiency and quality leading to maximum welfare. By developing a 3rd tier with out corresponding junior development, all we do is decrease competition for elite positions thus decreasing overall welfare.

Certainly agree with that. But it doesn't matter how well the structures work up to 20, schoolboys rugby is still a bunch of kids running around. Put them straight into Super rugby, even at twenty, and it is sink or swim with the likely outcome that they will get ironed out by some 115kg behemoth who has spent the last 8 years developing himself into a human truck. The only way to improve is to continually test against the best, and we simply don't have that graded system where players can find their level. As a one percenter, does anyone really think that Pocock would have been improved by spending three years playing against amateurs before really starting his professional career? Other players might though - late bloomers that take time to work their way up to being ready about 22. In our current system however, they are likely to have missed their shot or will flutter around on the edges of the big show - let's face it, like Beau Robinson so nearly did.

Although there will be few who would recognise it, the addition of the two teams in Melbourne and Perth is and will provide more depth for young Australian players by providing 60 more squad places, taking the total from 90 to 150. This is why there are now Pocock, Gill and Hooper competing for the no7 position, and over the next few years hopefully the same competition will be seen in other positions. Of course if there were another 30, or 90 squad places then further possibilities would open up.

I think it has more to do with development structures before the age of about 20 to be honest and thats where I would prefer money to be spent rather than on a 3rd tier comp. I think the GPS systems in both states, but especially Queensland should be congratulated with regards to how they have fostered Rugby in this country historically. If they didn't play rugby, no one would and we wouldn't have a national team really. But we need more kids playing the sport at a younger age. this means taking away the importance of Schoolboy rugby, and putting the importance on club rugby at age group level. This means that the kid from Rochdale State high has potentially the same access to coaches and skills development as the kid from Churchie, which is clearly not the case now.

1992 – Present: Wallabies v All Blacks 34% Success Rate 1992 - Present: Springboks v All Blacks 30.4% Success Rate 1996 - Present: Wallabies v All Blacks 32.6% Success Rate 1996 - Present: Springboks v All Blacks 31.7% Success Rate Post isolation The Wallabies have a better record against the All Blacks than the Springboks, FACT. Since 1996 and the introduction of Super Rugby, and effectively a 3rd Tier for South Africa, The Wallabies have a better record against the All Blacks than the Springboks, FACT.

Of course it won't, directly. It will however provide a huge amount of depth for the Super rugby teams, so that there is not such a yawning chasm between the professional game and the schoolboys/amateur level we currently have below it. As it stands, we basically have to pick someone who looks good against kids/part-timers, stick two years of hard work into them to bring them up to the necessary standard for speed and strength, hope they don't flake on the pressures of being a professional sportsman and they remain good enough. The reality is though that maybe one in ten is actually good enough to make it. Our partners on the other hand have a club competition where those players go up against the rest of the best and any non-AB professional to hone their skills. Once the one in ten that is going to make it has become apparent, then the Super teams can step in and put the last polish on them. It is why they have an endless production line of Super players. Having honed their skills against professionals in open competition, it is why the NZ U-20s are nigh on unbeatable. It is why they have five very competitive Super rugby teams, and ultimately why they have three or more genuine players for each test position. How does that compare with our situation?

1992 - Present: Wallabies v All Opponents 65.2% Success Rate 1992 - Present: Springboks v All Opponents 62.2% Success Rate 1996 - Present: Wallabies v All Opponents 64% Success Rate 1996 - Present: Springboks v All Opponents 62.3% Success Rate Post isolation The Wallabies have been a superior rugby Nation, FACT. Since 1996 and the introduction of Super Rugby, and effectively a 3rd Tier for South Africa, The Wallabies have been a superior rugby Nation, FACT.

Just consider the political cloud that hangs over the South African team- you cant for a second believe that Australia have better players. If they were coached by Peter De Villiers I shudder to think how they would have gone. Even so, De Villiers still has a better record than Dingo Deans- can you honestly say Austtralia have better players and depth than SA.

South Africa have been a better rugby nation than Australia, just being shaded head to head due to tactical deficiencies. They are far better against other rugby nations notably the All Blacks, and were easily better than the Aussies when they had a decent coach (Jake White).

This entire notion that that a 3rd tier would automatically make Australia better is a bit short sighted and just parroted by people who can’t really think for themselves. The argument is “Having a 3rd tier would get more players exposed to a higher quality of rugby than Club rugby in Brisbane and Sydney.” True, but it still doesn’t mean they’d improve to Super Rugby level does it? Let alone Test Match Rugby. At the end of the day there are only 22 spots in a test match team for any given match, and I fail to see how an APC style competition would provide more test match quality players then currently available in Australia, which is about 30 today. South Africa, for all the benefit of having a great domestic competition in the Currie Cup, has historically been a worse rugby nation than Australia since re-introduction. Australia has a 54.3% wining record against the Springboks since 1992. South Africa has not benefited at all at a national level from the Currie Cup post isolation and since the Super Rugby system started, FACT. The Wallabies have a 60% record against the Springboks from 1992 to 1995, reflecting pre super rugby, and a 53.7% record from 1996 to now. There is no way you can claim that having a 3rd tier competition has helped South Africa be a better rugby nation than Australia. The fact is, it hasn’t. The fact is that despite not having a 3rd tier, Australia has become a superior rugby nation than South Africa. Additionally for all the benefit of a supposed 3rd tire, it has taken the introduction of 2 teams from Australia for the South African teams to get some competition at the bottom of the table. The only thing that improves the test quality of a nation is exposing that nation to tougher test matches. An ARC won’t do that.

The only option in the current conference system is to add another three teams. It would solve all of SA's problems, but Australia simply does not have the depth for another team. NZ has the depth but where would another franchise be based? I don't know of anywhere that springs to mind. There is always the possibility of adding an Argentinian, Japanese, US, or Pacific Islands team, possibly based in NZ or Aus.

Nice piece Macca. The Lions have been a rabble from day 1 and are simply pedestrian playing in front of 50,000 empty seats at Ellis Park. The Brumbies have been a revelation so far this year and kudos to Jake White giving his young team the freedom and confidence. That's quality coaching.

They do need to develop more but the Brumbies have done it in the past well with Roff, Larkham etc and Lilo, Johannsen, Taps and Digy are all Melbourne boys so they have done and are doing it.

Rather than a draft, perhaps we could hope that The Rebels, Force and Brumbies develop their own players. Then these players can go into the free market and end up at any Super Team as happens now. Who really believes the Reds are "hogging players"? The have about 35 on their books, same as other teams, this is a tiny fraction of the kids produced in Qld who play rugby. I bet more kids who played school rep rugby last year in Qld are with RL clubs than out of state Super Clubs.

Kingplaymaker, You say SA, "only uses 9.6% of the population". Australia have about 100 thousand rugby players and a population of approx 20 million. That is half a percent.

Sheek, Did you mean "epitome of dumb"?