To all those who have read my initial article and to those who took the time to write a reply I think you are passionate about sport in general and the rugby specifically.
I have read all the replies and have decided to pen another article focusing on Super Rugby and the Wallabies.
To star, a quotation from the late great Jack Gibson “just like arseholes, everyone has one ie an opinion”. But isn’t it great that we all do, and hopefully the powers at be can look at these and learn from them. If need be they could take them as their own.
Clearly the issue is that rugby is trying to take on not one but two very large animals in the AFL and rugby league, so the platforms for free-to-air television coverage have to be different. Streaming and using the free-to-air channel’s second platform are both options. With regards to Foxtel, as they are the cash cow for the ARU and SANZAAR, they will crack the whip as they see fit.
It is my understanding that they are happy with the eyeballs they are getting. As one rugby person once said, if the Wallabies are going well then Australian rugby is going well, so there is plenty of work to do which will benefit all levels of the sport.
Participation and excellence both on and off-field should not be mutually exclusive.
We all know that we have five Super Super franchises and that you need a squad of around 35, plus a feeder group of about another 20 to run a franchise. The budget for each franchise is around $6 million ,and each player in the top squad gets $120K plus top up if they are a Wallaby. So if we do the maths then we need in Aus 275 players which are good enough to play at this level.
New Zealand are the same. They have many, many more players to choose from but do we think that overall their 275 are worth what our 275 are worth both in dollars and and ability?
I am advocating that we drop to either four or three franchises so that there is fierce competition for the now 165 spots.
For one example of what competition does for spots, look at the five Australian franchises openside flankers. Western Force have Matt Hodgson, ACT have David Pocock, NSW have Michael Hooper, Queensland Liam Gill and Melbourne Colby Fainga’a. Most would agree we have world-class players in this position.
Contrast this with how poor our halfbacks are. Nick Stirzaker did a stint in ITM Cup, and the younger halves should be looking at that option.
Compare the number sevens in Australia’s franchises with the fly halves in New Zealand. Barrett, Cruden, Sopoaga, West. The first three are All Blacks, so how does New Zealand create a culture to keep them and we can’t? One answer might be in what Robbie Deans explained to me; that opposed training in New Zealand at all levels were harder than many games and you were encouraged to rip in. If someone got injured so what as there was another who could seamlessly fit into the system and was trusted to complete the task.
An interesting thought here is that if the Western Force is shut down then the most important person in Australian rugby will be the owner of the Rebels. If they pull the pin then the ARU and SANZAAR will be in breach of their broadcasting contract which will bankrupt Australian rugby.
So to all the guys at the ARU be very careful about firstly what you wish for and then secondly what decision you make.
The Wallabies are in a position that they were 16 years ago effectively. We were very lucky to make the World Cup final against England. If IRE slotted the field goal in Adelaide we don’t make the quarters and then bow out in New Zealand.
In the latest one we made the final, just. The ARU has wasted all the money from these and chewed up a lot of good will from the fan-base. It has only succeeded in placing band aids over the wounds. I think it is unfair on the Wallabies to continually compare them against the All Blacks, however, I like to watch the replay and ask myself when was the game effectively over.
In Sydney, appallingly, it was over after 25 minutes, and in New Zealand about 60. The reality of the two games was that no guts in Sydney but then the lack of ability was evident in NZ.
So what are we looking for with the next six Tests? Against Argentina I think the Wallabies will get a win here and a loss over there. More important will be when the game was won and lost. Against the Springboks, hopefully it’s the same, and against New Zealand hopefully we’ll take it deeper into the contest.
If we lose all six, which is well on the cards then the 22nd October looms as a very important date, as that is when the Spring tour is selected.
BeastieBoy
Guest
This proposal will further diminish the quality of the wallabies. You will 2 less squads of players getting super rugby experience. No you must make 5 teams work. Maybe their locations can change. To fix the neglect is a eight year plan. It starts with junior rugby, removing the aru tax on kids playing, setting up pathways for public school kids and indigenous, supporting the District clubs and their subbies.
Kiwi in us
Guest
Hello Ian, good thought provoking read. I just went on Wikipedia and there was a table there of player numbers from all countries in the world broken down by gender and age group. It stated there were 39,000 (rounded) adult males in Australia playing rugby and in New Zealand there is 27,000 (rounded) players. It seems there should be plenty of talent to fill those super rugby spots for five teams. Obviously that is not happening and it is too easy to make one of those teams and by the way the oz teams lacked conditioning early in the super rugby season, cutting them back to four might be the best thing. Everyone made fun of the English when they looked liked they spent too much time in the gym. What is oz going to do about these guys to get them in shape. Not being fit, is a disgrace, if it is part of your job description. Take Skelton for example, as a guy who I have never really thought of as being in top shape. How many years and it still hasn't happened. Then look at RM whom even at the end of his career was in excellent shape. If those guys were fit, Chieka would have better cattle (even though there has been much talk about lack of skills) to pick from, and maybe they would last 80 minutes.
Ian Brown
Roar Pro
Because that is the only position we have a production line where a group of players are of a standard that compares with say the NZ fly halves and apart from Gill we have managed to keep them in AUS although now Pocock is also going to Japan. With regards to keeping them how does NZ manage to only have their marquee players leave when they are a lot older than their AUS counterparts.
Ian Brown
Roar Pro
Exactly that is the point many people including myself agree with you. The issue is how the aus players get themselves to that near that standard as a group
Darwin Stubbie
Guest
The decision to cull will largely be taken away from the ARU .... if the SR competition review comes back recommending a cut and a SR restructure that will deliver similar revenue levels to what the partners are already receiving the ARU will play along ... if they try and play hard ball then they may well find themselves on the outer - all this SR / NZ need a strong Aust is starting to become a myth - the game, competition and revenue streams can survive without Aust participation
taylorman
Roar Guru
And why are we comparing the Oz sevens with the NZ 10's? You mean 10's I assume? And what does 'how do they keep them' mean? Do you mean how do we stop them going north? Oz can't keep theirs? Other than Coopers last stint haven't oz kept their 10's? Don't get the opening few sentences...?
P2R2
Roar Rookie
New Zealand are the same. They have many, many more players to choose from but do we think that overall their 275 are worth what our 275 are worth both in dollars and and ability? Ummm - I think many people both sides of the deetch would disagree most vehemently with this....I would say that NZs 275 are worth double if not triple AUS's lot....
Cameron
Guest
I agree with the culling of the Super Rugby sides, we dont have the money nor the players to sustain 5 sides. Frankly, we never did. But the huge problem in Australia with regards to rugby is the sheer lack of interest in the sport. And im not talking about part time fans turning away, im talking about people in Australia who couldnt care less about the sport, who have never seen a Super Rugby game and never will. We need more people watching and playing rugby in this country in order to produce enough players to sustain 5 Super Rugby franchises and a produce a world class national team. And the only way you do that is by channeling funds into the grass roots, taking one or two Super Rugby games to rural areas each year, promoting the sport in schools, etc. The game is focused too much around the metropolitan areas of the nation. You only need to see the number of Indigenous Australians playing in Super Rugby teams or the number of Wallaby players with rural origins to realise that. Until that changes, expect more of the same mediocre rugby we've been subject to for over a decade.
Browny
Roar Rookie
Can you realistically expect to create greater depth through reduced opportunity? Obviously there will be greater competition for that starting spot in each team, but can you expect players to improve if the only game time they play is 10 minutes at the back of an SR game or they're the third string player on the list who never gets to play with the big boys? How do the young kids coming up make their way onto a list when the current top players occupy all of the spots? You talk about flanker depth and mention Pocock, Hooper, Gill Hodgson and Fainga'a but there's also McMahon, Reid, Butler, Alcock and more, not to mention when a lot of these guys made their way onto lists there were other names still floating around like Robinson and Smith. Remove one SR team and you reduce the potential top level depth by 20%. Go back to three teams and Australian Rugby might as well hang up the boots. Also, I'm not sure about your SR salary numbers but if that $120k is right then it's pretty sad when you consider the average AFL salary is over $300k. Not that $120k is a bad paycheck, far from it, but more as an indication of how far off the pace rugby is when talking about their stake in the Australian sporting landscape.
taylorman
Guest
You make a good point about the 'point the game is actually over'. I think getting to that point as quickly as possible is embedded into the AB psyche. When you get to that point so many things happen. -The opposition stop trying to 'win' because even though they continue to play, they know its over as a result. For some players that point will be at different times, leaving the most optimisitic still playing his heart out for the win, till last. -You remove the 'luck or unfortunate' obstacles that can turn an otherwise straight forward win to a loss- ref decisions, lucky bounces, intercepts, carded players -You get to clear the bench, give experience to those with little where they get to 'experience' test rugby in a safe environment- who gets to do that today? Its a pity that one of the statistics gathered isnt 'the minute the game was effectively over' using some logical formula combining points ahead versus minutes remaining a a likelihood of winning partially based on historical results. A kind of duckworth - Lewis rating formula. I think that would be a way to measure the success of a side in terms of both winning and losing and could be a useful tool for improvement. For example if a side has 'lost' with one minute to go the changes required are vastly different to one losing with 15 minutes to go- all other things being equal. A common saying is that rugby is an 80 minute game when in one way it actually isnt. In some cases the game as an outcome is over at 78, 76, 72, 70, 65, 60 minutes and even less.