Former boss of Australian rugby John O’Neill’s abrasive style is both grating and polarising, but there’s no doubting his success rate.
You can argue O’Neill was lucky, especially during his first stint with the ARU (1996-2003), when a great collection of players came together at the Wallabies.
Then again, when he moved briefly to the FFA (2004-07), the same thing happened, with a great collection of players coming together at the Socceroos.
But O’Neill played his part in both triumphant periods, off the field as well as on, ensuring behind the scenes that both the Wallabies and the Socceroos had all the tools necessary to succeed.
To very broadly paraphrase the great golfer Gary Player, successful people often make their own luck because they work hard at being the best they can be.
In an article in the Daily Telegraph, O’Neill has waded into the Super Rugby debate, calling for the Argentine Jaguares, Japanese Sunwolves and Southern Kings (from South Africa) to be axed.
I agree with O’Neill about the latter two being dumped, but disagree on the Jaguares. Structurally, since the Pumas are part of the Rugby Championship, it logically follows that they ought to be represented in the Super Rugby.
O’Neill is right in saying that the SARU should have been told to sort their franchise arrangements in-house, instead of unloading an uncompetitive team onto the international stage.
The Sunwolves is a clear case of SANZAAR over-reaching, putting revenue raising ahead of sound, practical principles.
O’Neill argues the Super Rugby should return to 15 teams, followed by a dialogue with New Zealand Rugby Union about a trans-Tasman comp.
I’m not too sure what O’Neill is trying to conjure at this point, as it is simply a continuum of an already cluttered method of thinking and planning. However, I agree with him on this: “[who] called on the ARU to stand up and fight for the best interests of Australian rugby instead of trying to please SANZAAR and world rugby”.
Amen to that. As an aside, where are the Roarers who were proclaiming we should continue to expand Super Rugby into the rest of Asia and North America? Leave that to World Rugby (ex-IRB), that’s their job.
O’Neill goes on to provide a counter-point to current ARU boss Bill Pulver, who argues that sometimes you have to put the good of all rugby ahead of Australian rugby.
However, this is clearly not working for the good of Australian rugby. In fact, this line of thinking has directly contributed to the mess Australian rugby finds itself in today.
O’Neill says the ARU must put the interests of Australian rugby first, noting “What Australian rugby needs is prime-time content. Everyone knows content is king.”
However, O’Neill doesn’t differentiate between pay-TV and free-to-air, prime-time content.
Clearly, Australian rugby is being cruelled by not being seen on free-to-air.
I also find it ironic that O’Neill goes on to talk about the importance of tribalism and the need for teams to be playing regularly in their home cities to win the “battle for hearts and minds”.
Ironic because O’Neill appears to be a champion of revenue streams first and foremost.
Yet, by its nature, Super Rugby runs counter to these sentiments mentioned by O’Neill. The Super Rugby teams play too often overseas in unfriendly time slots.
If the ARU wants Australian rugby to improve and win its own niche of fans separate from the AFL, NRL and A-League, then they need their own national domestic comp, with Australian teams full of Australian players, playing against other Australian teams on Australian grounds in Australian cities.
That is what made South Africa’s Currie Cup and New Zealand’s NPC so beloved and successful before professionalism arrived.
Finally, I also agree no Australian provincial team should be culled. These five teams are the base, the building blocks, of any future national comp.
To drop any of these teams would admit failure and be the beginning of the end for Australian rugby. Another way forward must be found that helps preserve these five provincial teams.
Cros
Guest
Think also Kings and Sunwolves should go. Super 15 worked, but should have Jaguars included.
BeastieBoy
Guest
Move as quick as we can to teams in the same time zone. So Australia New Zealand and Japan. At the same time fix the foundations. Then revisit
Scott Menzies
Guest
It's a pity that this years rugby show on Foxtel should be called "Kick and Chase". That's one of the big problems with Australian rugby, too much kick and chase and not enough ball in hand.
Johnno
Guest
We have booted the kiwi teams from out Netball comp, the Nix are on the way out in the A-league, there failing to mer the licensing standards set by the FFA e.g. crowds/revenue etc, plus NZ is not an AFC soccer nation, a real bug bearer and rightly so for the AFC.
lassitude
Guest
SA pay subscribers ? I've never seen any numbers that support that thesis. And how would it given the ever declining rand value.
mania
Guest
get rid of kings, rebels and force
Republican
Guest
.......the %'s in League you have ref here, are exactly why a NZ presence in that code is hurting the GR here in this country. You have in fact reinforced my very rationale for not including NZ in our domestic leagues and none moreso than in RL.
Rugger
Guest
Sheik I think you might be talking about issue from another thread. Having closed-shop Super Rugby is good but results will be like this: NZ teams - 10 Australian Teams - 0 Played 10 games. All the ex-factor resides is on other side of tasman and whatever is available on this side is lost to NRL because we prefer to be arrogant and have anti-islander policy. Its a free world and if the islander want to play rugby here as long as they satisfy criteria - 3 years seems reasonable to me - they should be selected to Wallabies, just as Eddie Jones has taken Vunipola brothers, Nathan Hughes and now ex-NRL player Teo. One could argue these "islander" are providing point of difference to England team atm, and RFU is not so naive as to say we want white-only policy. Why should Super Rugby be any different and would AFL say the same if Islander decided to play the game - AFL would infact make a big deal and throw a marketing spin on it.
Republican
Guest
......rubbish, you flatter yourself Jacko. NZ are altruistic in lining up to be part of our domestic sporting DNA because they know how much we need them, yeah right? We do not need NZ while NZ require NO support in Netball or Union and I would also extend this to all other codes these days. There are plenty of domestic options that could easily take the place of any of the current NZ sporting entities leeching off this nations misplaced largesse while the Warriors and Phoenix are not exactly compelling cases in supporting your point of view. Conversely, Australia have long needed NZ support in Union but as I have often stated, NZ will never reciprocate. No need to remind you that your are a sovereign nation that is far superior than we are in every way, well thats what you keep telling us ad nauseum so surely it is the right time to begin building your own domestic leagues.
Darwin Stubbie
Guest
The obvious flaw in that argument is that free to air channels aren't lining up to be a broadcaster ... you're saying that financial hit will be taken but it's worth it ... well zero $ from a free to air channel (if you can find one) plus somewhere in the region of what fox currently pay for the NRC - which is what - $5m ? to cover admin expenses that's what the value a national rugby competition at ... that's not a hit that's a death sentence ..
grapeseed
Guest
Jacko, unfortunately that's not how free market economics works.
Ken Catchpole's Other Leg
Guest
Jacko you are ignoring the cultural differences between OZ and NZ fans. Rugby here is the Invisible Code. It is not in common language. AFL dominated zones dont know that there are 2 rugby codes. We are currently running a slow fourth and visibility is key. It has little to do with cost of Foxtel but rather that a viwer has to pay at all. Personally i believe hope lies in giggle tournaments like the 10's and the 7's, giggle in that the general punter knows about them (because they are more easily promoted) and can turn up and follow the simpler laws. These may be small but important thin edges to wedge some attention from the masses. Grapeseed well put.
Ken Catchpole's Other Leg
Guest
I like that Fionn
Jacko
Guest
So just play the other 17 teams once and you have an easy to understand and an even comp. With a bye before the finals you then have 18 weeks. Why constantly complicate the simple
Jacko
Guest
Agree. The designer is rubbishing the design
Jacko
Guest
Republican do you blame them? Look at the Netball comp. NZ idea and then when it becomes successful, they get crapped on. Look at the A-league. Wellington keep getting threatened with expulsion even tho they are VERY financially solid. Look at the co hosting of the 2003 WC........Aus sports have proven to be very fickle indeed and NZ rugby is anything but. We already have super rugby plus international rugby competitions between the two countries and now you think we should add a 3rd teir comp between the two. NO that should never happen
Jacko
Guest
So make Foxtel affordable in Aus then?
Jacko
Guest
Aus rugby has proven to be a bit of a slag. Happy to hop in to bed when it suits them but will steal your wallet and re-neg on agreements when they get what they want. ( like co hosting a WC for example)
AndyS
Guest
But some are, and I would think they would have to come up with a pretty good reason to be telling a club what they can and can't do if it didn't affect their competitions...would open all manner of questions about who actually owns brands and what is reasonable restraint of trade. My recollection is that some of the French teams are part of bigger multi-sport organisations, so the FFR already has limited control over them. I also wonder if there would be anything at all they could do if Boudjellal felt like fielding a separate team called Toulon that happened to share some of his facilities? Half his team aren't eligible for France anyway, so that stick won't work. But then that only matters if you were talking about the home nations anyway. Georgia has just been flipped the bird by the 6N, and they in particular might benefit from some summer rugby. There is a lot of rugby in Europe that is being left out and whose Unions might have no qualms. Mind you, I wouldn't necessarily rule out Ireland, Italy, Scotland and Wales getting sick of fighting it out for 7 spots between them in the ERCC and liking the idea of a second string to the bow. They could quite reasonably argue that it has nothing whatsoever to do with any of the other competitions, so the other Unions could mind their own business.
Bakkies
Guest
'In the NH the clubs are private entities, so if they felt like putting a team out in the African conference I’m not sure there would be much anyone could do to stop them' Not all of them are private entities. The respective unions also have to sign agreement too before the IRB can approve participation in a cross border competition. That won't happen.