The key argument for expanding Australia’s Super Rugby franchises from 3 to 5 was to keep up with New Zealand and South Africa and provide greater opportunities for development.
This enabling of the conference model has exposed more players to the highest level of club rugby on the planet in order to prepare them for the next level up.
With the announcement of the National Rugby Championship, five Super teams are not only unnecessary, but may hinder the success of the NRC without adding any value to the development of future Wallabies.
For the NRC to be successful, it needs to be ‘national’. At a minimum that should mean teams from New South Wales, Queensland, the ACT, Victoria, Western Australia and South Australia.
At present there is barely enough support in Western Australia and Victoria to sustain the Force and Rebels respectively, so giving them two teams to support would only dilute an already thin fan-base.
In my view, WA and Victoria would be better served by having strong teams in a domestic competition rather than weak teams in an international one. Winning teams attract supporters and sponsorship, which translates directly into revenue.
What would the NRC look like?
Along with the Force and Rebels, there should be three teams from New South Wales, three from Queensland and one each from the ACT and South Australia. A nice even 10 teams to begin with, representing a truly national competition.
The Force and Rebels would be strong with existing players and infrastructure in place, although they’d likely lose Wallabies candidates like Scott Higginbotham, Kyle Godwin and so on.
This is a good thing – not losing Higginbotham, Godwin and so on, but the fact that they’d be strong.
Having strong NRC teams in WA and Victoria will grow the game outside the traditional rugby heartlands. This is what rugby needs.
For the same reason, the ARU should also ensure that South Australia are sufficiently funded to attract and establish a strong team. I’d go as far as suggesting that the South Australia, Western Australia and Victorian teams should be allowed a slightly higher salary cap to maintain competitiveness.
The NRC would then be a truly national competition, with these three teams being consistently at or near the top of the ladder.
What would Super Rugby look like?
With only three teams supplied by Australia, South Africa would have a spot for the sixth team they want in the competition and the other spot could go to an additional New Zealand team (no shortage of talent there) or an Argentine entry.
The conference system would need to be abolished but there are other ways to structure the competition, so I see no major issues there.
Importantly, this would not be detrimental to the Wallabies in terms of supplying talent. In fact, I’d argue it would largely benefit the Wallabies.
Firstly, three Super Rugby teams are more than enough to populate a 30-man Wallabies squad. Remember, that’s all we had last time we were ranked No.1 in the world.
Secondly, rugby is a team game, and champion teams more often than not beat teams of champions. What I’m getting at here is that combinations matter, and I think this played a big role in our past success and ability to punch above our weight.
Take, for instance, a guy like Godwin. He is widely regarded as one of our best future prospects but his development is limited playing alongside a backline of largely uncapped players.
His potential would be realised much sooner playing at the Reds alongside the likes of Quade Cooper and Will Genia, or at the Waratah’s with Israel Folau and Adam Ashley-Cooper, or at the Brumbies with Matt Toomua and Tevita Kuridrani.
Even someone like Higginbotham is too isolated at the Rebels. His leadership role has certainly taken him to another level in Super Rugby but I suspect he may struggle in the Wallabies set-up as he doesn’t play with any of the current pack week in, week out.
He would lack a connection with others in the pack and that lack of understanding would limit his effectiveness.
Thirdly, with guys like Godwin and Higginbotham concentrated across three Super Rugby teams, all three teams would be stronger. I dare say we could expect all three teams to be consistently in the top six, with two in the top four more often than not.
This would be great for Australian rugby. We’d have three strong teams in the ‘heartlands’ providing an ample supply of talent for the Wallabies.
The Super Rugby teams would in turn be supplied by players from the NRC, which would (at least initially) be strong in the emerging regions of South Australia, Victoria and WA.
As the player base grows and more talent is available, more NRC or Super teams will emerge organically, but this needs to happen over time. Starting the NRC with five Super teams when two are already struggling will strain our already thin resources.
What Australian rugby needs is winning teams in the emerging regions at NRC level, and winning teams at Super Rugby level. Again, winning teams attract supporters and sponsorship which translates directly into revenue.
Robert Dowling
Guest
Wow reading this with hindsight of the Australian Conference dominating Super Rugby this year is refreshing. Just goes to show some fans need to shut up and enjoy the game!
chris
Guest
I think Australia is over subscribed with with Football codes and clubs and really don't see a National Rugby Union comp working......unless reunification of the Rugby codes which I now don't i see in the near future.
The Ham
Guest
C L I C K B A I T
Crazy Horse
Guest
The first thing I would do is move the ARU out of Sydney. There would be a lot to be said for have the national administration in the national capital.
Crazy Horse
Guest
Perhaps many of you on the East Coast do not realise thet there around 300,000 rugby mad South Africans living in Perth. Most of these support the Springboks in preference to the Wallabies. There are a similar number of New Zealanders who generally support the All Blacks. Both groups tendto support the Wallabies as a second team, but not in preference to the team of their country of origin. From a marketing point of view it makes very good sense for Rugby WA to bring in players from these two countries.
Crazy Horse
Guest
What nonsense. There a several home grown players in the Force squad who never would have been heard of under the East coast centric regime that was the ARU pre force. Kyle Godwin is the best know but not the only example. There are six more WA raised players joining the Force squad this year. Not to mention all the players who have been given a chance at Super Rugby who never would have without the extra teams. What's the difference. When I played in WA pre Force we all knew that you could be the best rugby player in the world but you would never be given a chance at the Wallabies because the ARU basically ignored WA Rugby. So there was no point getting too carried away. Now every kid knows that if they are good enough the sky is the limit. The change obvious to anyone who was around before and after the change. The problem in WA Rugby is not lack of players, it's finding grounds to put them on. BTW Rugby WA ran a very successful team in the ARC at the same time as the Force and will do so again.
Sandgroper
Guest
Great article, while I disagree I think it has raised some pertinent issues for our game. While I have a natural soft spot for the Force and delight in the chance to see first class Rugby at a great venue (and the occasional streaker:-) ) I see where you are coming from. UA and the Sheek offer some good advice. Perhaps a better out of the box solution is for WA to implement the secession plan, long a dream on this side of the Rabbit proof fence. Then the Force games would be real internationals, AFL would become an international sport and the Australian Super Rugby would only need 4 franchises! Brilliant I reckon and SANZAR would become SANZARWA, sounds cool to me.
redbull
Guest
Something does need to be done about Super Rugby. Why not cut the competition back to 12 teams on a round robin basis? Four teams from each country. Australia could add a combined AFL-states team to the 3 established states (though travel and location will cause issues). The problem would be for NZ and SA to select the 4 teams. Super Rugby cannot keep expanding so that it starts to reflect local competitions. The Super Rugby format should be the highest quality possible, and I can't see 5 teams in OZ or NZ or SA being competitive. Even the domestic comps of SA and NZ are fairly lopsided affairs when you look at the history of who wins.
Wozza
Guest
+2 (from a Tahs fan)
Eagle roarer
Guest
Everytime I see the title of this article I have to laugh...as Sheek said Congrats for having a go....But this is a stitch up surely!
Eagle roarer
Guest
I 100% agree with the sentiment Sheek and in a perfect world nothing would be about money and we would all work for free because we enjoy what we do...(dont lock me up as a communist). But unfortunately we live in this world and the money has to come first that is a sad truth but a truth none the less. Money is what enables us to have such a great sport to support and if you dont embrace that to some extent the sport will die.
CHT
Guest
Further, flip your argument about Godwin on the inverse and ask yourself if he would have had a chance this early if there weren't that many spots available. Same goes for Kuridrani, he was a fringe player until he had a shot.
CHT
Guest
What a garbage article. One anecdotal example of the positive change in skill levels as a result of more teams would be evidenced by the WA Premier Grade... The quality of rugby is far superior to a decade ago. More guys compete at a semi-professional level because there are more potential pathways available to them. In other words, competition grows in proportion to spots available!
JB
Guest
At the very least this article will have created some debate. But let's be serious here: going back to three Australian Super teams would be a disaster for Australian rugby. If niwdEyaJ has not realised yet, the problem of Australian rugby is a lack of depth. Reducing the number of Australian teams will only result in concentrating the little talent we have into 3 teams and all the other promising talents will go to Europe to play. Having 5 teams force the franchises to constantly look for new talent which is the best thing that can happen to the sport. 6 franchsies in South Africa, that is nonsense, everyone knows it but politics are taking over in that debate. The Kiwis know that they do not have enough talent for a 6th team and they are not asking for one.
jonty
Guest
NZ doesn't need another team and we wouldn't have enough players with Australia poaching them all
Rugby stu
Guest
Yes but In 2012 the rebels beat the Storm pretty well 13,914 to 12,685. Pretty good considering the results on the field.
PiratesRugby
Guest
Well, actually that is precisely my point. Melbourne a vast untapped resource. With the advent of the Rebels, there has been tangible improvement in Melbourne. Did I mention I was from Darwin?
Pot Stirrer
Guest
Logics simple imo. Instead of talented juniors sitting on the bench hoping to get a run they could be playing quality club rugby in thier preffered position honing and developing thier skills and helping the development of the next batch of players so they are not exposed to early.
Thunderguts
Guest
so you are the judge of what is "well reasoned and educated". The comments made by "Purce" are well reasoned and are reflective of the majority of comments. Dont always agree with "Sheek" but at least his responses are courteous and considered.
Stormer Supporter
Guest
As a Stormer supporter, I am looking forward to the Super Rugby season this year. It will be a tough tour for us. At least De Villiers will captain the team. Unfortunately Cheslin Colby will be out of action for 8 weeks. Otherwise we are ready to go. Good luck to all.