The annual Christmas wish list: Rugby edition

Yeah it does. The Stormers no longer have any Super Rugby partner unions so essentially are WP under a different brand name

I really hate this argument and take particular issue with it. To try and say that Australia cannot find 180 players (5 × 36) of adequate ability to play super rugby is absolutely ridiculous. How then do the AFL find 684 (18 × 38) players of sufficient ability to play in what is arguably an equivalent level competition? The fact that the five sides are not doing as well as they have previously in the most recent season is not a reflection of the quality of the players available but a myriad of reasons from the strength of the opposition to the quality of the coaching. Australian sides have won as many super titles in the 4/5 team era as they did in the 3 team era, so it has hardly posed a more significant barrier to forming a good enough side. You say we are putting the cart before the horse but I strongly disagree. You increase depth and quality by exposing more people to higher level competition and giving them the chance to improve. This is what is happening in WA and VIC by creating this pathway to super rugby, more local level players are exposed to higher level rugby and are forced to improve to match it. Without this top level available, how can you ever expect the WA and VIC local comps to ever produce Super rugby level let alone Wallaby level players (apart from the odd one or two naturally superb players which come along occassionally)? You can't. If we go back to trying to get all our Wallabies from NSW and QLD then we are deliberately hamstringing ourselves by only tapping into a fraction of our potential.

Redsfan1, there are currently 10 West Australians in the current force squad, up from 8 from 2016, out of a squad of 36. So admittedly not 1/3 but better than 1/4. https://www.westernforce.com.au/article/western-force-confirm-2017-super-rugby-squad This doesn't diminish my point that this is amazingly better than was the case 10 years ago. If you want kids to play the game, you need them to see where it can take them, for rugby this means playing for the Wallabies. So there needs to be a clear pathway for kids to progress from the juniors to club rugby to provincia rugbyl to international rugby and before the Force this pathway simply wasn't there for any kids growing up in WA. Now there is. The fact that this strategy has to start with kids means that it takes time, and year on year the standard of kids coming through the WA system is improving because there is genuine competition and genuine reward for effort. Those 8 - 10 year old kids that would have seen this pathway appear when the Force were created will only now be coming into contention for Force spots, which is born out by the increasing number of WA born players in the Force squad year on year. These things take time, but will ultimately increase the player pool available to rugby in Australia. It is already doing so. As for taking much needed resources from rugbys core, I would need you to be more specific to respond properly. But there is always some pain for greater gain when talking about expansion. Nothing comes for free. I would hardly describe the Force as a dumping ground, we have used international (and therefore ineligible for the Wallabies) players, but we are far from alone in this regard. All Australian Super teams have done this, even the Reds so I would suggest they have all seen some benefit in doing so. These players bring experience and knowledge and for the Force, they have generally spent some time in the local comp as well which has helped to further raise the standard. Australian rugby cannot afford to retreat to what once was in the hope it will be good enough for the future, it will not. Aus will slide down the rankings as other nations stride ahead and rugby participation in this country will dwindle until it is a niche sport on the periphery of the sporting landscape. Staying still is as good as going backwards in the current climate.

My wish is a simple one Easterners to worry about their own problems and stop talking about axing my team.

Bullshxt Even with 5 teams, good players are leaving to play in Europe and now Japan I agree, the horse pulls the cart, so why do you want to get rid of the horses?

So a 10 year old team is supposed to have what? Won the championship by now? This is either a complete lack of patience and foresight (which is a common trait in Aussie rugby) Or it's a small minded preference for success for one's own province at the expense of Aussie rugby as a whole (which is a VERY common trait). Worry about your own damn teams please

Bakkies - Does WP stand for Western Province?

What! Respectfully request you shove said list

What does WP stand for ?

RT, your advice and comments are sound but as we all know kids today are spoiled for choice and that includes sport. The good old days when Santa delivered a cricket bat and the game became all consuming is no-longer the norm. Rugby is in a battle for market share agree, hence converting hearts and minds of both the sibling and parent requires generous support and input. Therefore, if we could unlock that ambiguity we may have cracked the formula. I hope 2017 delivers more favourable results.

It's an interesting conundrum and one for the times. The reasons for increasing the number of teams stem from the same reasons for reducing them...number of quality of players available. So what suits now may not suit in two or three years should there be a surge of popularity in the game. The NH equation comes into play as well. If all the NH Oz contracts were unavailable oz would have the numbers for at least five sides, NZ and SA probably another two or three sides each for the same reasons, so like it or not the NH is directly impacting on the quality of SH rugby and it requires smarter ways of managing it, competitive salaries or the Giteau rule...for test rugby...two ways of doing that.

What! No need to apologise. 5,000 people at $1,000 per head doesn't warrant the term commitment. 5,000 is a paltry 25% of our stadium capacity to date, is only over 50% of Rebels total membership, Perth is the ridiculous lowly 4th largest city in Australia, Perth Spirit should be trying harder, in 2016 the number of WA rugby clubs grew by only 67% when the target should be 80%. And as for a Bledisloe coming this way I think they will have to move that to Canberra in order to get a full stadium.

A reduction in teams will not mean an improvement at super rugby level. All dropping to 3 teams does is reduce the playing pool. If the rebels and force were no longer, the timani's, McMahon, mccalmans etc of this world would not be playing for the other 3 teams. They would simply end up overseas. Currently the focal point of Australian rugbys finances comes from tv content. Reducing 5 teams worth of content to 3 would effectively mean our revenue from tv would be reduced by 40% as well. Therefore each team would effectively have the same resources available to them. Unless the star players from the force and rebels want to earn a wage which reflects a squad member, they will not be turning out for these new teams. Crowds would also no improve, as not one of the teams is canabalising the others supporter base. All you will end up doing in minimalisng the opportunities for potential players, the Reece Hodges's of this world would be constantly missed. You'd be pretty much sticking the finger up to the rest of the country, good luck trying to return to Perth in 10 years time with fans that remember the way they were treated. The nrl would swoop in and pick up from where the force left off, the storm would strengthen in Melbourne. Let's not forget these are very new teams, traditionally in any sport around the world expansion teams take decades to establish themselves. We just have to be patient.

Nobrain,I like rule no.2.But it won't happen.It was the north that pushed through the current eligibility laws so they are not going to change them.They completely benefit from the current set-up ( I am thinking France,Ireland,England in particular). What! if SA is dropped from SR,where do NZ/AUS/ARG get the wages to pay their players.And you can forget about a TT comp,that won't fly.

puff, some good comments but really everything starts out with a hope or a dream, or aspirations of greater ideas. There are many dooms-dayers out there who just accept the status quo. We all know the competitive nature of the Aussie sports market but that is not a reason to 'throw one's hands in the air' suggest 'all is too hard'. We also all know if it were too easy, the millstone of complacency rears its head. Not suggesting Rugby is not without its challenges in Australia, but hope and unfettered belief will carry the aspirations a long way.

Brett, have always appreciated your honest input but unfortunately hope seldom delivers desired results. In the real world someone needs to be accountable as action will always speak louder than words. I had hope, 2016 may see resurgence, with some sort of winning formula in SR. Before the season we all became excited about the revitalized Wallabies and as 2016 draws to a close we all worry that 2017 is not another repeat. We all see regained momentum with the NRU but unit all the fixtures are played on grounds that showcase the sport. With suitable crowd attendance, then serious new strategies will need to be discussed. We OZ’s can be hard headed, we have never genuinely asked the question: why is rugby one of the fastest growing team sports in the world. Yet locally it is stagnating. I sincerely hope we look at all the models used by other nations, to see what may work of us. Hope and dreams are eternal and rugby today is no-longer a sport for the good old boys. It is a business with franchisers, sponsors and professional players with families. Yet, there are certain elements of this code that are not at this level; hence their commitment needs to be reviewed. I hope the sport can recapture lost impetus and again have enthusiastic bums on seats.

Great wish list Brett I am hoping that at least a few of those gems can come through. Keep flying the flag on the NRC. It is my hope that the investment, crowds and the exposure all increase. Your articles on the comp have been a great advocate, so keep spinning them out. I am big on the idea of an NRC XXIII touring after the season. Maybe to the Pacific Islands, Japan, or even Canada. But again it would need to coverage and backing to be worthwhile

Erm...we're fine thanks "up here". The AP has its issues, but imports and stuff isn't really one of them because the clubs are rewarded for developing England players and you don't play for the national team if you ain't in the country, playing. The latest idea on the table is to make the Rugby Championship (level below AP) as a sort of feeder/experience system for young players in the academies.....

Interesting you raise NZ. Until relatively recently at least two of their teams were just making up numbers. What changed was them having the teams, then treating them all even handedly rather than just favouring a couple of them. Perhaps that could be an example the ARU might want to look into further.

Just observing the glaring inconsistency. If having imports in Australia is "propping up" teams and they should therefore condense, then surely if "Europe has most of the best players" from around the world to fill their sides then they should be getting rid of a good half their teams? It is still you changing the point though. Regardless of what country they come from, if getting rid of lesser players and pushing the better ones into the other teams made for sustainable improvement then surely everyone would benefit by doing it. So maybe Eddie should crack on with it in England...they are making a run on a record after all, and it wasn't that long ago the country he seems more interested in tipped them out of their own World Cup. Get rid of all but six Aviva teams, stick all the best players in them, sack the remaining players and I'm sure they'll be well fit to take on the ABs for top spot.