Australian rugby has more depth than ever before, which not only provides for a strong chance of winning some silverware in the immediate future, it is also allowing us to prepare our next crop of superstar players for the future.
This depth is protecting our young players from too much exposure before they are ready and allowing them time to develop both as rugby players and as young men away from the prying eyes of media and the rugby public.
It’s a spiral of perpetual excellence when compared to the misleading depth of young talent in Australian rugby circa 2011.
With the quality 22 players already named in the Wallaby train-on squad from our weakest Super rugby sides, combined with the fact that both the Brumbies and the Waratahs could conceivably provide 15 players each to this squad, we are looking at a very healthy and mature talent pool.
For the first time in Wallaby history we could field three Test-standard XVs capable of doing well at the elite level. While this does not equate to us being the best in the world – there are other countries also capable of doing this – this kind of depth leading into a World Cup is a first.
With the five Super Rugby sides this is perfectly natural and reason to declare expansion a success, when many doubted it as even feasible. With any luck the expansion to five sides and the ensuing depth it has created will provide us with the World Cup we so desire.
It should be noted the expansion to five teams may have done exactly what the formation of the Brumbies did in the late 1990s. The Brumbies provided opportunity for fringe players who would have otherwise been lost to Australian rugby. The likes of Owen Finegan and co. were not only able to stay in professional rugby but also to develop as just as good if not as better players than their previous superiors. This depth led to a World Cup in 1999 and the Wallabies’ greatest era of success.
Unfortunately the rest of the world got better and so we needed to expand further to create depth.
It is worth noting just how few teenagers there are running around in Australian Super Rugby franchises in 2015. Compare this with the four years prior, when the ‘Amigo generation’ was let loose at the 2011 Rugby World Cup. In this period we saw a plethora of very young talent proverbially setting the world on fire, both on and sadly off the field.
On the surface this lack of young talent on show in 2015 could be viewed as a concern, but the fact is the next generation of talented teenagers are being kept safe from the rigours of top-class rugby. They are in the academy set ups and in the club rugby systems where they belong both physically and emotionally.
Sure there are exceptions, such as Sean McMahon, but generally speaking we are not seeing the very young players coming through as we once did.
While we may not be seeing them on the Super Rugby field, there is just as much talent coming through. What has changed is that with the five Super Rugby sides we’ve been able to develop more players along the way and keep them in the system. This has increased the average age of each side but also our depth of quality both on and hopefully off the field. This keeps us from needing teenagers to pick up the slack and fill the gaps before they are truly ready.
Players like Bernard Foley and Matt Toomua would’ve probably been spat out in previous generations because they took a bit longer to come good. They’d have been lost to the Wallaby set up.
Not only does the five franchises spread the talent and provide opportunities for players not as initially gifted as the likes of the ‘three Amigos’, it actually gives them an opportunity to become better than them in the long run. This is why players like Toomua and Foley are likely to start in the next Wallaby XV ahead of Quade Cooper and Kurtley Beale. Once upon a time men like Toomua and Foley would have most likely have been pouring the beers in the stadium bar.
This mature depth in turn protects the need to blood our talented teenagers who are nowhere near emotionally ready to deal with the money and fame. This keeps the lucrative contracts in the hands of mature young men capable of handling a bit of stardom.
I feel for Quade, Kurtley and James O’Conor. Had there been a bit more mature depth in Australian rugby when they came through they’d probably have played half as many Test matches by now but they’d be much better players, probably with pristine reputations. Sadly, our lack of depth 10 years into professionalism cost them. Their likely massive future French club contracts might be compensation enough.
Which brings me to my last point. The only thing that can deflate the mature depth we now have in Australian rugby, considering we now also have the NRC to further keep this spiral of perpetual excellence producing the goods, is the player drain to Europe. We may need to reassess the eligibility laws further down the track.
In the meantime we have good reason to be excited by the prospects of rugby in Australia.
peter hughes
Guest
Sunday morning after Tahs & Brumbies were both beaten easily by NZ teams in Super semi finals. DOSE OF REALITY FOR YOU LAST NIGHT MR ESSA. Hope it kicks you out of fantasy land but it probably won't.
Ken
Guest
A river rock could work it out quicker Tinfoil .Keep going .hehe
PeterK
Roar Guru
Most of them are established super rugby players. I agree some players are not that good, nor are they in the 3rd 2015 team. I compared them man for man and the 2001 comes out on top. Croft was a very good player but new at that time hence rated Gill better at this stage. Croft had Smith and Waugh ahead of him. The forward pack is a LOT better than the 2015 one. For some reason the numeric signs changed the post. The missing ones Arnold is worse than Harrison or Sharpe Timani better than Fava White equal with Cordingly CLL better than Edmonds TN worse than Staniforth Inman equal to S Kefu Tapui better than Inman
Tinfoil Hat
Guest
What are you blithering about?
Michael Essa
Roar Guru
yep okay whats that got to do with anything we're discussing in this article?
Michael Essa
Roar Guru
peter honestly that 3rd string side you've named from 2001 is a horrible horrible side...look at the back line its absolutely disgracefull! some of those forwards were rubbish fava and croft the flankers.. you must be kidding!
Old Bugger
Guest
Absolutely agree Peter.....surely, the rugby fraternity doesn't want to see a replication of FIFA's "one country, one vote" system where a country with 100 registered players, is in line to sell their one vote, to the highest bidder?? Geddawaywitya..!!
Squirrel
Roar Rookie
Only Folau , AAC , hooper, pocock and Moore would make the 1999 sude
Ken
Guest
THIERY DUSSATOIR schooled Ritchie in the final ,so winning teams it matters not, come back to me when the AB`S can win a world cup on foreign soil.. hehe OH YEAH!!
PeterK
Roar Guru
You are seriously wrong about the 2001 sides. The 3rd side I picked reflects how much depth and strength there was by the number of years most were in super rugby before earning a test cap. The stats below are as at 2001 not reflecting at the end of their career. 3rd team 01 Stiles 11th year with the Reds, played tests for 2 years previously 02 Cannon 6th year of super rugby, 1st Year of tests 03 Dyson 4th year of Super rugby, played tests in 2000 04 Harrison 5 years of Super 1st year of tests (Sharpe could not even make the 3rds was in his 4th year of super) 05 Connors 8th year of super, played his last tests in 2000 06 Fava 3rd year of super rugby 07 Croft 2nd year of super rugby 08 David Lyons 2nd year of playing tests 3rd year of super rugby 09 Cordingly 4th year of super, played his first test in 2000 10 Edmonds could not find when he started super rugby, played his 1st test in 1998 so at least 5 years super 11 Staniforth 5th year of super 12 S. Kefu 6 years of super, 1st year of tests 13 Inman 1st year of super. The only really inexperienced player 14 Graham Bond 5th year of super 15 Bartholomeisz 4th year of super 3rd team 2015 in general is less experienced in super rugby, and less have played tests. If I compare the players at the same time in terms of who is better the 2001 (in 2001) v the 2015 01 Robinson > Stiles 02 Hanson < Cannon 03 Alo-Emile < Dyson 04 Coleman < Harrison 05 Arnold Fava 07 Gill > Croft 08 Vaea Edmonds 11 TN Inman 14 Cummins < Bond 15 Mogg = Bartholomesz So IMO 7 were better in 2001, 5 in 2015 with 3 draws. Note the 1st's and 2nd's is not even close, 2001 far better
PeterK
Roar Guru
one country 1 vote is very unfair. A country with say 100 registered players , still a member country, should get the same say as a country with 100,000 or more registered players? A country that has invested very little in rugby compared to countries that have a lot more.
Michael Essa
Roar Guru
the 99 and 2001 sides (and teh 84 sides) being posted are ridiculous... a lot of the players mentioned were far from test standardeuither because they weren't regular super 12 players yet (hindsight can be perverted i mean is anyone going to say in 2007 we had 5/8 depth because Beale and Cooper were in the tah and reds squads respectively even though it was years before they wwere test standard) or they were less than test standrad entirely..some of them i've never even heard of and i class myself as a bit of a rugby tragic I mean what makes more sense.. we could field 3 XV's at a time when we only ahd 3XV's at super 12 to choose from or we can field 3 test sides from the 5 franchises today... its a no brainer and as for your centre example... was Mortlock test standard in 99? He was barely test standrad in 01... he was a good test player from the 03 onwrads... you can't go back and say he was an example of depth before he was genuine test class... the fact Mortlock played test rugby 2or 3 years before he was ready is kind of the point! on the flip side Jason Lttle hadn't played good rugby for about 4 or 5 years in 99... another example of how bad our depth was... he was rubbish by 99... and a reserve winger.. in fact apart from Roff and Tune we had no depth in wingers either.. our nexct best was Stanifortyh ffs... ordinary average player... and apart from Burke we had a very under developed Latham at fullback (again we must judge Latham on the palyer he was in 99 not the player he was to become) There is no way we had more depth of players to choose from in the days of Super 12.. in those days we could field 1 possibly 2 test standrad teams and that begab to bite us once professionalism had fully kicked in... that is why we stopped winning bledisloes.. today we can fill 3 xv's... simply because we expanded to 5 franchises... and we are going to start reaping the rewards.
Don
Roar Rookie
Rubbish Michael. If Kuridrani and say Toomua get injured we will likely slot in Kerevi or Giteau and AAC. Are you telling me that is as good as when Horan and Little got injured we slotted in guys like Herbert, Mortlock and Grey? What about if Skelton and Simmons / Carter are injured - none are as good as the 3 regular lock starters in '99 anyway. However, if Eales and Harrison were injured we slotted in Connors and Giffin - both still better than the starting locks today. These examples exist in almost every position as many posters have shown. Your argument is to simply say "no, you're wrong and I'm right." Telling people to read the article as if they are not insightful enough to pick up some nuance within is just silly. Some of the detailed responses from guys like Bakkies and Peter K show they have done some research and have proven your theory of greater depth today incorrect. If you actually think there are 3 world class XVs available today then how about you post them up against some of the examples from 99 - 2001 you have been given by other posters here? Prove your theory so we can all assess who you believe are these topline players we have to cover all positions.
Michael Essa
Roar Guru
Harrison made his etst debut in 2001... in 99 he was not close to being test standard... Connors was not anyone that i woud associate with being a good test player... he was the Dean mumm of that era even the fact that Giffen was a starting lock showed just how poor our lock options were in 99 and our alck of genuine depth.... sure he was okay but not a great by an stretch of the imagination
MatthewSkellett
Guest
IRB rankings hsve been a rort , a fraud and a instrument of power monopoly ever since it's inception . It's fixed so that the top ten countries make sure that largely they only play ....the other top ten countries so that most of the revenue flows to them , their rankings are artificially constant and the rest of the rugby-playing world only improve by accident or by increments with scraps thrown from the IRB's table for the priviledged. If it was one country -one vote and all member countries had a chance of playing each other Scotland would be down to # 35 for example
RobC
Roar Guru
Thanks Michael. Ye, an expanded comp creates opportunities. imo the expansion that needed and yields maximum result, is the domestic comp. As I believe the critical factors are good administration and coaches
Ken
Guest
Blues players havn`t won anyhing neither as opposed to the reds 2011 rugby final trophy and tri nations title..The very few blues players picked will be carried by the other AB`S ..So which Blues will be first choice AB`S bro?? Kaino, Mealamu ?? Who else ?? OH Yeah When the AB`s were beaten 5 years in a row by the WALLABIES from 1998 to 2002 the selectors kept picking Crusadaers players ?? mmm..WHY?? You cant have it both ways bro.. Keep up the average work..Ps The frogs were dudded by Joubert and are the RWC 2011 winners in my eyes ..Fancy not scoring a try on your home soil and the player of the WORLD CUP FINAL being a FRENCHMEN .. OH MY ...HAHAHAHAHAHA..
Michael Essa
Roar Guru
no doubt the 99 side was a great side... but we did not have the depth we have today... a few of the 99 side get injured and we'd have struggled to win the RWC.. today due to the 5 franchises there is more choice and therefore a few injuries and we're still covered. again read the artile people never did i say that havig depth makes us the best team.. it just means we can afford injuries and that may be enough to see us get some major silverware in the first tuime in along time!
Mike
Guest
"Change nothing…and nothing changes." Interesting point, but why do we see "change" as meaning only "change in selections"? Is it possible, for instance, that a team could play exactly the same players, yet turn in a very different performance due to change in other areas?
Mike
Guest
"wow that was a clinical and careful analysis there Michael, about the same effort as went into your article." That is unfair Peter. Your analysis of three teams is largely built on assumptions about how current players careers will turn out - it was reasonable for him to point that out. Not that I agree with ME's original point, but his comment was a fair one. The fact is we don't know how most of these younger players will go.