“Winning is not a sometime thing; it’s an all the time thing. You don’t win once in a while; you don’t do things right once in a while; you do them right all of the time. Winning is a habit,” so said legendary NFL coach Vince Lombardi.
“Unfortunately, so is losing. Running a football team is no different than running any other kind of organisation – an army, a political party or a business. The principles are the same. The object is to win – to beat the other guy.”
The Australian sporting psyche has always prided itself on being the winning mentality, the toughest out there. When all the punches have been thrown and taken, the Australian is the last man standing.
As Lombardi says, he is the guy who “plays from the ground up – from the soles of his feet to the top of his head. Every inch of him has to play.”
In my experience, words like ‘rebuilding’ and ‘development’ tend to dominate a sportsman’s vocabulary when the sense of winning – how it feels, what you have to do to find it again – is becoming a fading memory.
And this is where Australian rugby finds itself right now, in a situation where there is a lot of talk of development and ‘building pathways’, while the on-field results suggest that, over a period of time, the winning mentality is being steadily eroded away.
Towards the end of this week, there will be discussions held on the future of the five Australian franchises within the overall structure of Super Rugby.
The principal criterion used to decide their fate, and whether Australia sticks with five or drops back to four, should be: what action will best enable us to recreate the winning mentality in Australian rugby?
The combined record of the Western Force and the Melbourne Rebels stands at 32 per cent since the inception of the two expansion franchises (2006 for the Force, 2011 for the Rebels) and neither has ever reached the knockout stages of the Super Rugby tournament.
The last time I wrote an article on this topic, back in July 2016, Australian teams had just experienced a weekend where they had lost to their (non-Australian) opponents by an average score of 13-45.
Over the first two rounds of this year’s competition, the score is remarkably similar, at 19-42. The ultimate question is the same now as it was then: at what point does talk of development stop, and a conversation about winning begin?
This is how a table of Australia’s decline in Super Rugby appears statistically.
| Seasons | 1996-2005 (three teams) | 2006-2010 (four teams) | 2011-2016 (five teams) |
| Average win percentage | 55% | 47% | 42% |
As the number of franchises has expanded, so the number of wins has decreased proportionally. Over the past two seasons, the win ratio has dropped even further, down to below 37 per cent in 2015 and 2016 combined.
In particular, how does Australia ‘develop’ as a rugby nation while steadily losing ground to its closest historical rival, New Zealand? In 2016, Australian Super Rugby sides only won three out of their 26 encounters with New Zealand opposition – now that record has already extended to three out of 29 into 2017.
The table describing Wallaby success against New Zealand mirrors the decline of their Super Rugby teams within the same timeframes.
| Wallabies against All Blacks | 1996-2005 | 2006-2010 | 2011-2016 |
| Average win percentage | 43.50% | 17.60% | 10.50% |
As the number of its Super Rugby franchises has expanded, Australia has become steadily less competitive at both regional and Test level, and especially against the All Blacks, where the win ratio has dropped by 33 per cent since the movement from three to five teams.
New Zealand has, in the meantime, retained the five regional sides with which it started Super Rugby back in 1996. The snowball of Kiwi success at both regional and Test level has been fuelled by consolidation, not expansion.
The concrete result is that the winning mentality and aura of self-belief which Australian sportsmen have always enjoyed has, at least in rugby terms, seriously diminished. Whether that change becomes permanent may be decided by the choices of the ARU and SANZAAR at the end of this week.
The game of the weekend – between the Highlanders and Crusaders in Dunedin – was a perfect example of an encounter between two teams who possess an inner core of self-belief, built up through structural stability and the experience of a number of winning seasons.
Both sides ‘played from the soles of their feet up through the top of their head’. The audience, both live at the ground and remotely on TV, responded to a game that was being fought out with every fibre of each player’s being.
Although the Crusaders won with a terrific fight-back in the second half, I suspect the Highlanders will also take a lot of positives out of the game.
You’ve got to be smart to be number one in any business, more importantly though, you’ve got to play with your heart. If you’re lucky enough to find a guy with a lot of head and a lot of heart, he’s never going to come off the field second.
The Highlanders did not come off the field second despite losing the match, and their three tries all demonstrated the highest levels of skill associated with true winners.
The quality of a team’s set-piece attack tends to illustrate their self-belief particularly well. The levels of skill required to bring to life a blackboard plan from the week’s preparation and break open an organised defence ‘in the moment’ are of the highest order, and the Highlanders did it on three occasions.
Lineout 26:25
Look at the amount of detail that went into the Highlanders planning at this attacking five-man lineout. Their target area is the zone around the tail of the lineout and the first requirement is to widen the space available there to the maximum.
First their halfback, Aaron Smith, sets up near the five-metre channel to pull away Crusaders defender Bryn Hall, then the lineout forwards shuffle down towards touch, before mounting a fake jump on #5 Tom Franklin. This keeps the Crusaders’ forwards away from the ‘hot zone’ – they cannot be running in defence when they are already committed to countering in the air.
The throw by hooker Liam Coltman is finely honed precision – flying 30 metres in the air, and straight down the middle of the virtual tunnel to Waisake Naholo. As soon as Naholo catches the ball, the Crusaders end-defender, hooker Codie Taylor, knows he is in big trouble.
Both he and #6 Jordan Taufua are in a mismatch in space with the All Blacks’ wingman, and the final nuance is the use of replacement Gareth Evans as the finisher. Evans is a back-rower who has also played wing, so the Highlanders would know he has the foot-speed to beat whatever remains of the cover defence.
Scrum 34:40
At this midfield scrum towards the end of the first half, the Highlanders had identified a weakness in the Crusaders’ set-piece defence. The Crusaders were defending with their #15 David Havili in the 10 channel and first five-eighth Mitch Hunt at fullback.
The fullback has to be a good reader of play and opposing intentions. He has some important decisions to make about which side of the backfield to cover, especially when the blind-side wing decides to press up on the line, rather than sit off on a 10-20m cushion and hedge his bets against both pass and kick.
Here, Seta Tamanivalu, who betrayed all the signs of a centre playing in an unfamiliar role on the outside, not only presses up on Naholo, he then turns the wrong way when the kick is put in behind him. The wing needs to turn out towards the sideline in order to either shadow Naholo, or at the very least force him to bend his running arc so that a straight line pursuit at full speed is not possible.
The kick itself is a very high-level skill by Smith. He has to take the ball from a scrum under pressure and run the long way around Taufua before he can even make it. The kick is top-spun while on the move – Smith gets his foot well above the ball to keep it galloping forward after contact with the grass, and it settles in the only five-square-metre patch of ground where Naholo can collect it and score without losing momentum.
Meanwhile, Hunt has fully committed to the far side of the scrum and cannot play a role in cover defence, which means a break turns quickly into a score.
Lineout 45:40
The final example provides a nice illustration of one way to unlock a rush defence from first phase set-piece via the kicking game.
The chip in behind the line can typically only be covered by two defenders. The defensive #9 will normally drop into the shallow zone behind the front line and pick up these kicks in phase-play, but in the Crusaders’ system, he starts in the tram-lines and cannot cover the option from first phase lineout.
The other key defender is the defensive #13, another Crusaders rookie in the shape of 21-year-old Jack Goodhue.
He cannot commit until the ball has moved beyond the opposing first receiver, otherwise the chip becomes a ‘live’ option. Here, Lima Sopoaga spots Goodhue positioned too wide and caught in no man’s land as he receives the ball, and knows that he can hit his own centre Malakai Fekitoa on a line underneath him.
Once again Hunt is too far back to prevent either the catch by Fekiota, or the subsequent scoring offload by Fekitoa to Naholo.
Summary
“Knowing what is required to win” means the right combination of sharply honed skills and the composure to spot weaknesses, remember plans, and be able to execute, whatever the pressure. It means “playing from the soles of your feet through to the top of your head”. When you can repeat the process often enough, it hardens into a winning mentality, an inner self-belief.
New Zealand teams have a settled outlook and a settled structure within Super Rugby. With its five franchises and the bewitching thought of ‘expansion’ at the forefront of its mind. Australian rugby has lost the habit of winning – one which used to be natural to all its sportsmen.
This applies to both Super Rugby and the level above it, which is fed and nourished by what happens below.
At present, it is very hard to see how Australian rugby can break out of the loop of failure without a complete re-appraisal of its structure. This Friday, hard facts, not speculation, must govern the decisions made by the ARU and SANZAAR – even if it means going backwards to go forward again.
Nicholas Bishop
Expert
Thanks Fin - part of the natural curve I think. Andrew Ready had a solid season last year so it only makes sense to give him more game time, esp on the faster tracks!
ClarkeG
Guest
No Soapit I'm not about to dive into a lengthy research project. As an example you might consider the 3 players pursued by Canberra - they signed 2 and have not given up hope on the other. But I do take my lead on this issue from what I hear from people 'in the know' - people at the 'coal face' if you like.
Fin
Guest
Hi Nick, I thought you might be interested in this article. http://www.foxsports.com.au/rugby/reds-hooker-stephen-moore-to-be-benched-for-a-game-on-tour-of-south-africa-and-argentina/news-story/1ad4360d49c479a67e675f011b16ad01
Nicholas Bishop
Expert
Reds should have won easily and been out of sight by half-time Fin. No excuses.
Jibba Jabba
Roar Guru
What happened to Quade, he seemed to go to pieces around the 70 minute mark - is it a fitness thing? Whatever it was he seemed to lose his focus and or composure and made several unforced errors including a skip pass that passed everyone and ended up in touch when hot on a very promising attack - and from their the Crusaders regained field position - and evidently 100% possession according to live foxtel stats - for the next ten minutes.
Fin
Guest
Hi Nick, It seemed to me that the main reason the Reds lost that match was because they didn't score enough points. And they didnt score enough points because the last pass went to ground 5 or 6 times during promising attacking situations within the Crusaders 22. No point blaming Kerevi, Quade, the referee or anyone else. The Reds could have put the game out of reach by the 60 minute mark.
Nicholas Bishop
Expert
Hi Fin Yes as you know I suspected the odds were in favour of this occurring, and so it has come to pass. A good win for Cheika and Australian rugby in a week of soul-searching which has yet to conclude!
Fin
Guest
Hi Nick, Cheika's got him back. A lot of people seemed to doubt he would but for a number of reasons this is no surprise. “I signed a one-year deal from the outset to enable me to keep my options open. I came very close to agreeing a new contract with Wasps, but I believe to achieve my international rugby aspirations I need to be back home in Australia." In the face of mostly one-way player movement to the cashed-up European competitions, to convince Beale to return home - for less money than he’d get at Wasps - is a significant win for Cheika
Nicholas Bishop
Expert
With respect Nick I don’t think that those statistics demonstrate a casual relationship between the number of Super Rugby teams and Australian rugby success. There are other causes ofc, but it at the very least it is highly coincidental. And they are two more stats than anyone has offered in support of keeping the franchises! I would also point out that I don't have any agenda regarding the number of Australian teams, but my observations are based on a similar experience in Wales, who are still suffering from setting up too many franchises back in 2003. And I don't understand how the arguments for scaling down be painted as parochial, when the team to cut has not even be decided. The longer Australian rugby stays weak at SR level, the more players will emigrate to Europe in the hope of winning silverware and earning better money. Very few in my experience enjoy losing seasons in the (increasingly) short professional lifetime allotted to them. By maintaining the status quo you will ensure that haemorraging of talent continues, and that the current weakness accelerates. And we definitely shouldn’t be ditching an Aussie team because of it, if we start behaving in such a petulant manner I think that we have lost sight of what Rugby is all about – standing by your mates – and deserve to lose. The decision needs to based on hard-headed analysis, not 'petulance', and it has nothing to do with 'standing by your mates' whatsoever. If the ARU decides to keep five teams, they need to establish a time-frame in which both the Rebels and Force are required to have back-to-back winning seasons, and/or reach the knockout stages of the tournament. That is the reality of sport/business today and you cannot get around it. Whatever you claim to have developed or grown is ultimately measured by your results on the field, there is no other standard. The Force have been going for ten years now, the Rebels for five and both still have it all to prove. The natural number of teams in SR as a whole is shown by the number of winning seasons enjoyed in each of the main three countries. You have to prove you can win or compete in the latter stages of any tournament, and all but the Cheetahs, Kings, Force and Rebels have proven they can do that - so those teams are at risk as a result.
Hoy
Roar Guru
Over the years there have been many. I thought Mooney was unlucky to be shifted on... but its' too late for him now. When both Force and Reds were seeking, as well as the Rebels around the same time there was about three good Aussie coaches plying their trade offshore... all at top level, all with good results. I am sorry, I can't remember their names now, but it just seemed they were overlooked for Graham, and Foley to rotate back through... Hell, the reds had two world wide searches, and hired the same bloke they had in house both times. It's a joke. I hope Stiles does well, and after two NRC titles, he deserves a crack. But honestly, two world wide searches and they say with a straight face, the bloke they had was the best there was?
Fin
Guest
Nick, John Eales has said that the 1999 World Cup winning Wallabies were not the fastest, biggest, most physical, most athletic or the most skilful team in the tournament. But they were the smartest. That was their point of difference, their edge. Today the smartest team are the all blacks and they have been for quite some time.
Rhys Bosley
Guest
With respect Nick I don't think that those statistics demonstrate a casual relationship between the number of Super Rugby teams and Australian rugby success. Firstly to the stats on Super Rugby success, of course new teams that win less often are going to drag down the overall stats, but did they harm the prospects of the existing teams? Surely that is the measure of their impact, whether or not they degraded the performance of what we already had, instead of adding to it. Some might say yes initially with the Reds, who lost a lot of players to the Force and had a poor number of years, but then both the Reds and the Waratahs have won Super Rugby titles in the post three team era and the Brumbies made a final. The key factors in all three instances were the identification of new talent, probably facilitated by some older players moving to teams like the Force and Rebels, together with good coaching staff. Last year and the first two games of this year aside the three older teams haven't actually done that badly in Super Rugby, it just requires people to not be panic artists and remember what actually happened. Secondly, there are several far more likely reasons for the Wallabies abysmal win/loss ratio against New Zealand in recent years than the number of Super Rugby teams. The main one is that New Zealand have improved to the point where they are well ahead of the pack, not just the Wallabies, but the Wallabies play them more often than anybody else and consequently get made to look bad. In my opinion New Zealand has done so well because they have adapted more successfully to the professional era than any other country, with centralised administration that has the power to makes decisions in the interests of the national game being a key factor. You just don't hear the bitching about selections based on franchise, the moaning from entitled interest groups like certain first grade competitions over here, let alone the hounding out of coaches over player discipline issues, the Kiwis work in unison while Australian rugby is factionalised. Robbie Deans said it, until Australia sorts out the state rivalries it will always be a step behind New Zealand. These arguments about ditching an Australian team have that smell about them, a preparedness to throw the interests of other Australian rugby supporters under a bus, which we just haven't seen in New Zealand, even when teams like the Highlanders and the Blues have sucked for long periods of time. It is also a fact that every few decades you get lucky with an outstanding cohort of players, like Australia did in the 90s. We just haven't had a John Eales as captain since he retired, or a Larkham, or a Gregan, the list goes on. New Zealand got lucky to unearth Richie McCaw, Dan Carter and Ma'a Nonu as well as others, but they have greater depth than us so they seem to be able to sustain those sorts of winning runs for longer. Good for them, they have worked hard to get where they are. However, Wallabies supporters would do well to remember that our team actually doesn't do that badly. We have the most competitive football market in the World, a relatively small number of players yet we usually sit at second or third best team in the World next to South Africa who by the numbers should leave us for dust. And England, it is about time they started to show some class, they invented the game and have a huge player base so why has it taken them this long and an Australian coach to start winning? Articles like yours have a bit of the sense of a funeral procession to them which, if you look at the relativities, just isn't justified. And we definitely shouldn't be ditching an Aussie team because of it, if we start behaving in such a petulant manner I think that we have lost sight of what Rugby is all about - standing by your mates - and deserve to lose.
Nicholas Bishop
Expert
Interesting comparison Andy... As an outsider I've always tended to see Australia as innovators in the game - they used their talent for new invention to balance the reality that rugby is not the #1 winter sport in the country, or even close to it. Will they have the courage to keep innovating now? What form will that innovation take?
Nicholas Bishop
Expert
Thanks, great analogue Fin! Once you've felt the real dedication and tightness of a team on a mission (and there can be only one real mission) it is impossible to forget. That is why Australia has to 'remember' at SR level and not be satisfied with substitutes like 'development'.
Jibba Jabba
Roar Guru
Sorry Digger but with Big Brodie, bigger Big Bird now Dominating Dominic Bird, Sammy Cane, Liams Messam, Hika the hooker Reid, Damo McKenzie, Cruds Cruden, Jimmy bye bye Lowe, Lienert Brownie, Ham Hames, Manu Manu, Tera Away Kerr Barlow, Laulalalala, Boshier, Karpik, Leitchy -San, Marty McKenzie ? - Sandy Sanders, Timmy Naenae nite Williams and Faaauli and Fiishyahi and a few others I cant spell PLUS Rockin Dave Rennie - sorry canes...
Joe King
Guest
"Australian Footy athletes are not a compatible fit for the rugby codes and visa versa" That's only because they didn't grow up playing rugby. The AFL contains many of Australia's top athletes who would never have even considered rugby, no matter how much rugby potential they had. In other words, the reason they play AFL is not because they couldn't make it in rugby, but because they never had the thought of playing. If all the AFL players played rugby as kids, there would be literally hundreds more good rugby players coming through every year. I'll get the next round ;-)
Fin
Guest
Hi Nick, The Reverend Willie 'O' would like you to add his Church congregation (see below video link) to your list of institutions mentioned in this article (repeated below). https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=NN08aJd13-4 Running a football team is no different than running any other kind of organisation – an army, a political party or a business. The principles are the same. The object is to win – to beat the other guy.”
Joe King
Guest
Ha. You are probably right BBA. But it's a fair argument. Imagine if rugby league was the national sport in NZ, and rugby was only as big as league is now. And imagine if almost all the rugby players in NZ grew up playing league instead of union. The Kiwi league team would be far better than they are now, right?
Joe King
Guest
I don’t think the size of Australia’s population makes much difference to the point I’m making, Jeffrey. I agree that player development and inferior structures in Oz are a big reason why the *current* crop of Wallabies are not as good as the AB’s. But that still doesn’t negate the point I’m making. Imagine if rugby league was the national sport in NZ, and rugby was only as big as league is now. And imagine if almost all the rugby players in NZ grew up playing league instead of union. The Kiwi league team would be far better than they are now, right? Or imagine if American football and even basket ball wasn’t very popular in the USA, and instead, rugby was the national sport and the majority of kids grew up playing rugby. The American rugby team would be far, far superior to what they are now. There is no doubt in my mind that if rugby was the national sport in Australia and AFL didn’t exist, and league had less appeal, the Wallabies would be far, far better than they are now. Australia might have more rugby players than NZ. But the best athletes in Oz (and the best potential rugby players) don’t really play rugby. So it’s not really a like for like comparison. If I were a good athlete as a kid in NZ, and had any potential rugby ability, there is a very good chance I would play the game at some stage. This is because rugby has great appeal to kids in NZ. It’s the national and dominant sport in NZ. It captures the hearts and minds of so many people in NZ. Parents are favourable towards it. There is such opportunity to play it anywhere in NZ, with competitions linked to every area. But if I were a good athlete as a kid in Oz, and had any potential rugby ability, there is far less chance that I would play the game at some stage. It probably wouldn’t even come up on the radar. It is a niche sport in Oz and is totally dominated by several other codes of sport, which are far better placed to capture the hearts and minds of kids (and their parents). Rugby barely ever comes up in the sport section of the newspaper in WA, Vic, SA, Tas or NT. And it’s not the dominant code in NSW or Qld. Rugby has hardly any appeal to kids in Oz. It’s not really on TV (most people don’t have pay TV). Parents are not interested. And there really isn’t a great opportunity to try it. I accept that the ABs might be better if they didn’t lose any players to league. But their improvement would be far less significant compared to the improvement in the Wallabies if rugby was in the same position as it is in NZ compared to league. Imagine how much better the Wallabies would be if the majority of league players grew up playing union instead! All this is NOT to say that the Wallabies would always win against NZ. But only that the Wallabies would be far, far better and more consistent than they are now. I hope this makes sense. It’s not an excuse. It’s just the reality of the situation in Oz. And I mean no disrespect to the mighty ABs.
Jibba Jabba
Roar Guru
And while on the back of that envelope minus the 17% the nz population who have zero interest in rugby being the relatively new chinese kiwis...