If, heaven forbid, Argentina wins the Test match this weekend, what happens? The reaction to recent results have generated reactions nothing short of apoplectic, one can only imagine what losing to Argentina would be like on the back of the Wallabies’ recent form.
In light of recent losses, there has been much soul-searching; about playing styles, organisation, national squad members, etc.
Perhaps the biggest issue of them all that would arise if the Wallabies lose, however, is the nature of professional competition in Australia, based on the Super Rugby model.
The Pumas and the Wallabies are teams in a similar position in terms of the issues they face to organise a team, issues that South Africa and New Zealand don’t seem to have.
South Africa and New Zealand have large development structures underneath that:
a) keep a larger number of players active in the sport and keep them fit and competitive for a national squad call up; and
b) promote local engagement by basing teams not just in the largest cities.
Argentina can’t (or at least don’t) keep their test-level players in country, who instead play abroad.
One has to imagine this makes the locals a bit apathetic about local games, hence the emphasis they place on the national squad.
Australia only has Super Rugby. This means there are five squads’ worth of players, and five teams that can engage with residents of some of Australia’s largest cities.
A model like the ITM Cup and Currie Cup is a virtuous circle; large numbers of players and a wider range of communities represented promote more public engagement and therefore more potential players in the next generation.
Australia is stuck in a vicious circle – localised centres of rugby are causing dwindling interest outside of the home bases of the franchises, which means less potential players and poor on-field results that turn off fans even in the home city by the next generation.
To retain the Super Rugby model is to limit the player base and popular connection of Australian and Argentinian rugby.
And to South Africa and New Zealand, it’s all just an expensive distraction from their local competitions which seem to be doing just fine without having to fly players halfway across the world and back repeatedly.
One has to imagine that eventually there’s going to come a time when New Zealand and South African administrators realise that they don’t need Super Rugby as much as Australia needs it.
The ARU has thankfully seen the writing on the wall and appears to have set Australia on a path to have a more diverse local competition ready if Super Rugby goes belly up.
By allowing Super Rugby teams to dictate where their players play club rugby, and by limiting across the board how much clubs can pay players, it is hoped a national balancing of talent at club level will occur.
After that, some kind of Champions League system will be set up so that the best of the individual club competitions will meet and contest a national title.
Once that’s in place, I can’t see a reason why any of the SANZAR countries would be willing to stay in Super Rugby.
All of the participating countries would have more affordable and more sustainable competitions that would promote community involvement across more regions.
There would still be scope for each of the champions to come together annually.
As with many things, it comes down to money. Argentina would have to start allowing Campeonato Argentino representative sides to pay players.
A few years with at least two Super Rugby sides would probably make this transition much easier on them.
ITM Cup and Currie Cup teams as well as clubs in this new Australian scheme would probably see some costs rise due to salaries but would likely also see revenues rise with new TV contracts, etc.
Likely all countries would probably have to adopt centralised contracting to keep Test level players in country, at least in the interim.
But I can’t imagine long-term how it would be worse than sticking with a competition that has an uncompetitive format, unwieldy travel schedule, restricts community engagement, and limits player development.
Especially when the stark contrast between the state of Australian and Argentinian rugby and that of New Zealand and South Africa is laid bare, as I expect it will be, either this weekend or after the dust settles from this years Rugby Championship.
A loss to the Pumas would send the alarm bells off at ARU headquarters and convince the suits that something has to change. Even a mess win might only buy Super Rugby some time.
The straw that breaks the donkey’s back might not be too far off.
Seb
Guest
The only country with a problem getting people to watch and play is Australia, rugby is booming everywhere else, more kids playing, more teams, bigger audiences. The fact that Australia doesn't have a very good team means most Aussies will watch AFL, League, even football (soccer for some) but not rugby except in Oz, people don't mind a tough battle of forwards, since Australia doesn't have a good scrum since Noriega was a tighthead(no surprises, born and bred Argie) or before then Topo Rodriguez (whoops another ex Puma) they struggled to get a team that wins the forwards battle A lot is written about the problems of super rugby, and the poor crowds in Australia, well.....the rest of the world doesn't have that problem, so you can't make the world change because Aussies don't like it. Typical self centric provincial mentality, "we need open fast running game" which means = we can't scrimmage We need to make the game more entertaining = our forwards are not tough, don't like to push, they all want to be fly halves Kiwis and Saffas are thugs and cheats = we are a bunch of pussycats
Hannes Marais
Guest
Hi guys jusyt want to add that I think it is that funny game "Aussie Rules" or what do they call it? That weakens the Wallabies chances of having a No 1 team. NZ is good at playing rugby because it is almost all they do..at his first birthday he gets a rugby ball, same here in SA, there is hardly any child that hasn't played rugby at some point in his life, even if it was only for the C team at his school. And as a South African I truly do not want to lose the Wallabies from rugby...it just won't be the same anymore without them. Goodluck guys with getting your Rugy back on track.
Ra
Guest
Yes Devo and we make sure we have sufficientpeople across the ditch Iin key positions making sure the Aussie economy stays healthy and keeping an eye on our tugby investment at the same time;
Ra
Guest
Adam they kick the ball away in AFL and they can't hog possessoon as they do in rugby because u get a bounced ball. Giving the ball away in rugby is a tactic only done where the team giving it away is confident of its ability to defend against it. I think its a dumb tactic but it has come in with the use it or lose it rule where the team with the ball has less time to make a decision. In rugby codes u kick to gain ground or to regain possession. The Wallabies recently have not followed either of those two protocolswhich frustrates the hell out of their supporters.
Devo
Guest
I once read an article on Australian rugby union written by Dave Brockhoff on how the NZ rugby union had helped the ARU. In the early seventies the wallabies were to tour the UK but could not afford to go so the NZRU outfitted the team which then meant the Wallabies could afford the trip. Later in the seventies the IRB decided that as the ARU were so cash strapped still that they would be relegated to a second tier test team ,which meant they would only get to play teams like Fiji Tonga the US and so on with occasional games against top tier teams. The NZRU again stepped in and said no thats not fair and they offered to play a Bledisloe test in Australia each year with all proceeds to go to the ARU, and that was sufficient enough to keep the ARU afloat.I dont expect that arrangement is still in place but it does go show Samual Johnston that the all Kiwis really rely on rugby union in Australia to survive
Ra
Guest
Hey u guys leave the kid alone he's trying to match it with the Roarer big boys. A bit like the apprentices apprentice asked to man the phone while the office girls out to lunch.
peterlala
Guest
New Zealand and South Africa need Super Rugby for the international competition -- they already have local derbies. Selling Super Rugby on local derbies is the same as calling a match between Australia A and Australia B a Test match.
Johnno
Guest
Unlimited foreign imports or 10-15 per squad. Better haveing rugby teams than no rugby teams, so much foreign import talent that would love a start in OZ. Rebels have recruited well, got a former AB centre signed up for next year. Now force and rebels will be allowed 6 developmental foreign import spots. By that definition sign up any players who have not played for there country of birth. Opening up rugby markets is what it's about, rather than no rugby at all. Then spend big on juniors.
Sharktooth
Guest
The solution is easy. Australia must drop two Super Rugby franchises (Force & Rebels) and merge all players into the Reds Tahs and Brumbies. Australia are not a rugby nation and trying to have 5 franchises without a domestic competition is just plain madness.
Colin McCann
Guest
So you're saying it's rude and arrogant but then proceed to propose the exact thing? Doublethink much? We're in agreement here about something, and that's that most people agree SR is flawed, and both NZ and SA have their alternatives. Australia doesn't and if it does develop an alternative I think all parties will realize that it's the perfect time to scrap SR. It would be far too acrimonious to do so right now, but once everyone has their alternatives everyone would be in agreement. All i'm saying is that a loss to the Pumas would put the gears in motion extra quickly.
thor "god of truth"
Guest
Reading in the aussie press how there building up 2 this pumas test WoW!man how far the wallabies have fallan of there own high horse!this is shocking yet understandable they fear the argies there so amazing lol
bokmania
Guest
Aussies pfffff!enough said
fredstone
Guest
Ahhh mate that's just the usual drivel coming from the Aussie media after a loss. It usually goes from our backs did this or that wrong to the game plan was to smart to they cheated in the scrums to the ref cheated to they didn't play much rugby and now the latest one is we didn't GTBTIF enough.
Two Eyed Cyclop
Roar Guru
+1000. Just beat me to the punch. I actually found Samual's comments quite arrogant and offensive, can't even be bothered to address them.
Johnno
Guest
Simple answer. -Rugby was an amatuer sport played for years basically only played properly by a few commenwealth countries, and France and Argentina, and all who played were basically the upper classes, except in the pacific islands,NZ(no surpises why NZ is no 1), and wales where everyone plays. -Now global rugby has changed massively. Turned pro in 1996, and game changer that. Slowly now the game has gone more global, and more proffesional, and new markets and money being invested. USA/Canada(which is a commenwealth country), Georgia,Romania is making a comeback well, Italy getting big, Russia,Belguim,Germany,Ukraine. Now money is being invested in global rugby, if wallabies go into slump not as easy to get out of it. And all the established rugby nations, most are investing big into it. So wallabies are behind the pack. Also many of these countries have spread rugby to the masses at a faster rate. -Argentina now, USA/Canada. Canada has really improved, they have a new high performance centre just for rugby.
chris
Guest
There are a couple of holes in this article. Firstly, the Super rugby teams might be very localised in the largest cities, but so is Australia's population. The metropolitan areas of Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane, Perth and Canberra account for something like 70% of the Australian population. But for one or two exceptions any domestic competition in Australia would be based largely within these cities. A greater problem is rather that the people living in these cities struggle to identify with their teams. Secondly, the international team is a poor measure of the health of the domestic game. The EPL is massively successful in England, but hasn't done anything for the national team. Same thing with the T14 in france. On the other hand the Welsh national team is travelling OK, but the domestic game is in shambles.
bokmania
Guest
This time next year argentina should be third on the log....again losing to the boks and all-blacks beating the aussies twice I'm kinda psycic lol or is the obviuos making me c this coming
awesome george
Guest
I'm still shocked at how well the aussies have done on the international stage at rugby without a second tier rugby competition I'll coment them for that...but with that being said there smuck attitude surrounding there play is an ass-whiping buy the boks justly reward team playing tv rugby
Aussie in London
Guest
they tried something like that in 2000 with the Australian Rugby Sheild, it didnt work out and was abandoned in 2008. In 2006 the ARU createrd the APC, but canned it after one season. Then again in 2007 with the Australian Rugby Championship and it 'didnt work'.. again ARU only gave it one season. Picking up a trend here? I agree, there needs to be a national grade competition that rep players are enticed to play in that feeds into SR, but the ARU just dont have the wherewithall to make it work. Maybe its the players contracts with the franchises are too strong, not sure, but I think there is a real risk of just relying on GPS to provide us with rep rugby
allblackfan
Guest
you mean '81; G '86 doesn't count!!