Australian rugby doing just fine

I like a positive article, so many on the roar are so negative!!

YEah who got thrashed by almost 90 points by the Crusaders and Bulls once?

IB, good point. Rugby in Australia needs a weekly free-to-air presence if it is to reach many potential fans. Some people will naturally prefer rugby to other codes (same as some people will prefer league or AFL) but they won't know it unless they see rugby on a regular basis. But rugby doesn't need "more money and ability" to get on free-to-air. They simply have to set themselves the goal of achieving it, then move steadily towards that goal. The two things they need to look at are: (1) Re-negotiating their current deals with Pay TV when the time comes. This may not involve much change - I suspect that Fox Sports can see the advantage to itself in having at least one S15 game per week on FTA. (2) If the much-talked-about 3rd tier comp becomes a reality, ensuring that its TV rights includes at least one or two games per week on FTA.

''With the exception of the Rebels’ thrashing by the Sharks in Durban, there have been no capitulations by any of the Australian franchises this year or last.'' The Reds played well in Pretoria last year.

Brendon, I really think you are going to have great difficulty in making a "ten year cycle" argument work. For example "The reds were strong at the start of super rugby, then had a bad 10" I don't know what you mean by "strong" but they didn't make the semis in any year except 2001 (where they lost the semi and effectively came fourth) and then they topped the comp in 2011. I am not knocking the Reds in any way, but I don't see how you can use them to support a ten-year cycle argument. There are very clear reasons why the Reds have been so successful in recent years, and its not because of a cycle. "Same with the Brumbies and Blues." Brumbies came second in the comp in 1997 and 2000, and topped the comp in 2001 and 2004. So far they are doing well this season, but its a long way to go yet. Your 10-year cycle argument only works if they win or come second this year and next year. Let's talk about that when (if) it happens. As for Blues, they were the team to beat in the first three years of Super12. Then they dropped away, but came back to win the comp in 2003 - that's five years, not ten. Then they were semi-finalists in 2007 and 2011. Sure they are topping their conference now but it is simply too early to say whether they will even be semi-finalists this season. "The Bulls had a bad first 10 and then are strong." This is about as close as you get - their win in 2007 conveniently comes 11 years after the start of the Super 12 comp. But one team does not make a trend. One could equally look at the Waratahs: semi-finalists in 02, 06 and 10, and finalists in 05 and 08. There is no ten-year cycle. I think the fundamental flaw in the cycle theory lies in your initial comment:: "This happens in every sport over time with a fairly even comp." Whilst this may be true as a principle, Super Rugby cannot be described as having "a fairly even comp". That description would fit something like the AFL, which has a large number of teams in the same country, under the same governing body, and regulated by the same draft and salary cap.

But why don't SANZAR want to except it or choose to ignore it? Since the Super 10 was expanded into the Super 12 where rugby changed from amateur to professional. Its same as to ignore the amateur world cup victories of South Africa, Australia and New Zealand and its spitting in the face of the great players who won it. Dunno what you call your teams or what you preferred them to be called but I do know in 1996 a team called the Auckland Blues won it. They played against the Natal Sharks. Just the Sharks now but we still call them the Natal Sharks as its in Natal play their games in Natal and poach their talent from the Freestate mostly. And the interesting fact that everywhere Nonu plays in Super Rugby the team is underpeforming. Not saying he is the reason just like a bad omen is following the lad

Dadiggle I think you will find SANZAR themselves do not class Super 10 as part of the official Suoer Rugby records. Also the New Zealand teams may once have had regional or city specific monikers but they have never solely represented the areas that those monikers suggested, any true rugby fan would have told you that. It's not ignoring anything it is being factually correct

So if they aren't the weakest is the South African conference the weakest where their bottom team both beat the Force, Rebels and drew with the Brumbies?

I don't know the underpeforming Hurricanes, the underpeforming Blues and now the underpeforming Highlanders have one thing in common. Can you name that coincidence? Why can't he call Auckland the Blues or otherwise around. Is it cause you want to forget and disqualify any tournaments that the Kiwi's did not win first like cough cough the Super 10 which for some stupid reason do not count. So since they are only the Blues now should we disqualify their first couple of years of Super 12 wins cause it was a different team called the Auckland Blues who won it?

Apparently rugby union participation rates are at record highs in Australia also. Pats on backs all round for the great effort. NZ and GB migrants make the top five largest immigrant groups, possibly part to do with that and the growing population just hitting 23 million. Just a shame they do not have more money and ability to do what AFL does and broadcast live home state teams on free to air tv. Live Rebels games in Victoria, Waratahs in NSW etc.. Put it on the wish list. Just watching the highlights late at night, you can see what a superb league Super rugby is. Shame more people don't know about it. It is a bit like the Ice Hockey League. The best sport you wouldn't even know was there to most folks. A shame to be ruled by the devil's candy.

2013 this year as been great for Australian rugby. Two teams topping the table, Brumbies and Reds. The Waratahs just outside of the six and the Force growing with every game. It is still ignorant to think that the New Zealand Conference is weak this year. Crusdaers are always contenders no matter how well they play throughout the first half of the season. The Chiefs are still playing the same style rugby as last years victorious campaign. The Hurricanes while not playing to their full potential, are still pulling the wins and the Blues are somehow topping the NZ conference without showing much dominance. The Highlanders are struggling but they will find their feet before the end of the season. The Force and Rebels still come off as 'easy beats' where the Highlanders still feel like a team you would struggle against. The AUS coneference is doing fine but we still don't match the NZ conference.

It makes sense that the Australian conference would struggle in the first years of expansion. Rarely do new teams in any sport come into an existing competition and do well straight away. There's exceptions of course but usually it takes years. Force are still fairly new and the Rebels coming on board has stretched the depth of Australian rugby which is already thinner than NZ or SA. But the thing about all this is that the only way to build depth in Australian rugby is to expose more players to a high level rugby development environment. Which is what the Rebels and Force are doing. People forget that players like James O'Connor, David Pocock and Nick Phipps all got their opportunities because of the expansion of Australian rugby. Other players at the Reds, Waratahs and Brumbies got starts because established players left for the new expansion teams. Players like James Horwill, who only got a start because Nathan Sharpe left for the Force. People also forget about South African rugby expansion. Ten years down the line they have a very strong conference across the board. But initially the Cheetahs and Lions were easy beats for a decade. The Lions never got competitive. Hell, even the Bulls were terrible for years. People forget that the Bulls used to be lucky to win 3 or 4 games a season before they turned into a powerhouse team. Give it time. In five to ten years the Australian conference will be highly competitive across the board. They'll be a new expansion team in Argentina or Japan and everyone will be moaning about how uncompetitive they are. But give it twenty years and we might be watching Buenos Aires Condors winning their first Super 20 rugby title.

No were not. Neglegt of west sydney, such an important market west sydney. The ARU should every day when they come into wake say west sydney 3 times. Sport in Australia is all about west sydney, stuff the private schools, west sydney is where it's all happening in Australia and the population size too. By being at times isolationist with private schools, and not making west sydney the focus and priority, the ARU have in the past been isolationist. But Perth.Melbourne, all need more help, as does junior rugby.

some very selective stats/arguments in this article; fair enough, opinion. A strong conference with hree teams in the bottom six - not convinced yet; give it another few months when teams have played the same number of games, and have completed their travels. Does NZRU need distraction from plight? Haven't read anything - and you are confusing Otago RU with a totally separate Highlanders franchise who are not encumbered by any debt. Maybe there is concern, just as there was for the Chiefs who finished last in NZ Conference 2011, think they picked up their game ok for 2012? Cheap shots indeed.

Especially with the score at half time

biggest loss of 2013 has been Rebels 7 Sharks 64 the 2013 season has I think seen less 'hidings' than previous years, there have been very few real blowouts/capitulations. There have only been 15 matches where the margin was 15 or more, ie more than 2 converted tries. Force don't make the list - yet most of the 'top' teams have had their stumbles, if not capitulations. Cheetahs may look back and wonder 'what?' to their 3-45 loss to Chiefs.

The way I like to look at things is it comes in cycles. Some teams have a fairly good ten years or so and then are a bit of a dip for te next ten. This happens in every sport over time with a fairly even comp. the fact is that super rugby is still in its infancy when compared to others with 40-100 years existence. The eras of each team will change over time. The reds were strong at the start of super rugby, then had a bad 10 Years and now are coming strong again. Same with the Brumbies and Blues. The Bulls had a bad first 10 and then are strong. I firmly believe that if we could sit back and watch, we would see teams like the cheetahs, hurricanes, force and waratahs have there years of dominance. We would also see teams reemerge from the depth over time

The best way to prove the point of this article is for Australian teams to do better. Over the last few years, and despite a few bright spots (e.g. Reds), our teams have mostly tended to finish in the bottom half of the table. I can see some promising signs, and I hope they result in a general lift for Australian teams this season, and into the future.

As a colleague who hails from Dunedin keeps reminding me: "100% record my frind, 100%!"

"With the exception of the Rebels’ thrashing by the Sharks in Durban, there have been no capitulations by any of the Australian franchises this year or last." That's true. If you ignore the fact the Hurricanes last year scored a combined total of 112 points against the Force and Rebels.