Brett McKay’s article this week reminded me of a First World War general rallying the troops to make one final charge up the hill.
Of course, after the speech was over, the next step was a discussion of strategy and tactics; the question of how exactly the men were supposed to knock out the fortified machine gun nest blocking their path.
Unfortunately, the men in question have been repeatedly beaten back already, and their morale is low. The soldiers are of low quality compared with the enemy. No amount of strategies and tactics, and certainly no rousing speeches, will help.
But this is an alternative history. In this version, the higher-ups make an uncharacteristically wise decision: they consolidate the best soldiers from each of the units, and attack a narrower stretch of enemy trenches. A proven winning strategy, and not only this, a way for a smaller army to beat a larger one.
The soldiers of the disbanded divisions are unhappy, but when the new, smaller army started to chalk up victories, the memory of what was lost quickly fades.
It should be clear by now that the five Australian franchises have neither the morale nor the player quality to be consistently successful in Super Rugby. Much can be made of the player development opportunities within the squads, and of the work being done by the organisations, especially by the Force and Rebels, to grow the game outside of traditional heartlands.
But I pose a simple question: what kind of development is constantly losing?
I recently read Peter FitzSimon’s book about the disastrous battles of Fromelles (in case this isn’t obvious). One general remarked of the decimated Australian fifth division in the aftermath of the battle – one that had literally killed half of them – that the fighting had done them “a great deal of good” or something to that effect.
In other words, the thinking was that the survivors were better for the experience of fighting, even if it had come at a terrible cost, in an unwinnable situation. Of course the truth was far different. It could be said that the fifth division never recovered.
Losing in the way Australian Super Rugby franchises have been losing is terrible for the team, player, coaching, and supporters. Without morale, can we even hope to win?
There are players who can shine and develop confidence in a losing environment, but they are far outnumbered by those being stifled by the constant sapping of their confidence.
The National Rugby Championship was in many ways designed to increase the quantity of Super Rugby-quality players available to the five franchises. I would argue that the establishment of the NRC is an enabling factor for dropping a franchise, not keeping all five.
It means that more players can not only experience professional rugby, but experience winning and successful rugby. The cream of this crop could then advance to Super Rugby and have a better chance of building confidence.
Brett McKay argued that the loss of 30 Super Rugby professionals – if you will, the disbanding of a division – will be detrimental in the long run. But I draw your attention back to morale and the army analogy. Which side would you favour to win a battle, the side with five low-morale and lower-quality divisions, or the side with four or even three quality, divisions with plenty of belief?
Of course you would favour the army with fewer, superior troops. The idea that the larger army, by blooding more solders, would win the war sounds a bit like Frommelles, doesn’t it?
A counter argument to my claims is that the Waratahs and Reds’ Super Rugby victories in 2014 and 2011 did not lead to Wallaby glory, an absolutely critical component in the overall health of the sport in the country.
Arguing the counter-factual is always hard, but in this case there is evidence.
As frustrating as the Wallabies of 2011 and 2014 were, they exceeded what we put out in years when the Super Rugby sides did worse. Furthermore, having one winning side is not what I’m talking about. It is a matter of enabling all our franchises to have the kind of environment where players can develop confidence (as well as skills of course) and sample a winning environment.
It is not good to have one good division, and four poor divisions; it is better to have four solid divisions, all – or at least most –with a realistic prospect of victory.
Rugby in Australia is a boutique sport at the elite level (as distinct from the grassroots). But boutique also infers quality. We can of course be concerned that a boutique sport cannot be competitive at a global level, particularly as the game expands, but surely there is a middle ground?
Four teams instead of five and the continued investment in the National Rugby Championship as a development pathway is that middle ground. It’s one of more wins and more confidence.
Or should we send the men up the hill again without changing anything?
bigbaz
Roar Guru
yes, it was good, but wasnt it Aussie leadership that broke the trench warfare and the mindless slaughter of soldiers.
Bman
Guest
the AB's can bugger off. Aus Rugby was king in the 90's (most of it anyway) and it was not because we had the best players. We had the best leaders and a captains such as Nick Far Jone and John Eales. Once we can get that true leader in front of the team, the players will follow. Squeek has had his day and there is not a sole to step up and LEAD. And we all know that Hooper is next and that will be an absolute disaster. Someone needs to come out of the blue ( not the bloody Tahs) and lead from the front like the legends of the past. Then and only then will the wallabies challenge the AB's
moaman
Guest
The Romans used to decimate units of their own army that had transgressed badly ( usually in battle) by culling every tenth man---which is what 'decimate' literally means.
Coaster49
Guest
I do understand the frustration. Consider this however; in terms of player development a squad learns from its star players. Everyone lifts to try and match the quality they play alongside. The Blues have failed for many years given their access to a third of NZs players to chose from. From a New Zealand perspective they have performed well below expectations over the last few years but are now starting to look as if they are capable of playing to their full potential. The exposure of the Rebels and Force squads to international rugby and for many the opportunity to play alongside international quality players is invaluable. Given time that environment will produce quality international players. I do remember the Force beating the Crusaders in Perth a couple of times when it was against expectations. What I would be looking for from the Rebels is not to win but rather to be competitive for 80 minutes and I accept that is not happening yet. But holding the Zephyrs for 20 minutes is a good start.
Lukas
Roar Pro
And btw, I love that people got into the history analogy! :-).
Lukas
Roar Pro
There are plenty of good arguments for keeping five sides, and many of them have been made on this thread. But some of the worst arguments I think are: 1. We don't have to measure ourselves against NZ teams. This to me is crazy, and misses the point of my article. We are PLAYING NZ. Our morale as a rugby nation DEPENDS on beating them. We're not England for example. They can lose to NZ every now and then, but if they win the 6 nations.... We absolutely MUST find a way to beat their sides regularly. If it is matter of patience for the current course paying off, fine, but I won't accept "we don't need to be as good as NZ". As long as we are playing them so often, we do. 2. The other SR sides won't necessarily benefit from the increased player depth It is certainly valid to argue that Australian rugby as a whole, especially the Wallabies, will lose out from having less overall SR players. I am of course arguing that this is not the case, but it is certainly a reasonable position. But to say that in the short term the remaining SUPER RUGBY sides wouldn't be strengthened doesn't make much sense. I'm sure that some players would do better overseas (Brock James is always my archetype on this front), but money would be found (perhaps even MORE money, considering the loss making status of the SR clubs, thus the saving from cutting one), to incorporate your Wallaby and Wallaby fringe players. 3. How do I know the morale is low? Of course I don't know this for sure. But is it not a reasonable supposition. And perhaps it is about the fans more than the players, but this is hugely important. And frankly. players whose moral doesn't suffer when they lose or play badly are not the kind of players we need. Yes, this is largely the result of New Zealand, but see point 1 above!
Lukas
Roar Pro
Well, again, tough to argue the counter factual, but imagine how good those players would be if they were also playing winning rugby, week in, week out. Or even MORE winning rugby.
Lukas
Roar Pro
The Rebels need to be beating potential finalists to be a successful Super Rugby team do they not? We make way to many excuses for these team's mediocrity, and have been for a long time. Neither the Force, nor Rebels are bad rugby teams, they are all (and you could argue all of the teams in Australia can be described this way) they are just a few key players from being a top side. It is simple argument to say that spreading the talent of one of the sides across the other four would create four stronger rugby teams, but is it a bad argument? Consider a Force/Rebels joint venture. They would have less weaknesses, particularly in terms of squad depth, and quite simply win more rugby games.
AndyS
Guest
Only if they displace someone on the same money...the teams will still be subject to the same salary cap. Whoever they replace would also have to be off contract, so if they planned to do it quick they might also have to play fast and loose with player contracts. And once you are moving, especially if it is just a lot of disruption for no more money and potentially less game time; well, those other offers might just look like a whole lot less aggravation...
Luke Ringland
Guest
It's hard to imagine the Wallabies and near Wallabies wouldn't be snapped up by the other franchises. For sure some decent players would leave Australia, but that already happens.
Luke Ringland
Guest
For me it's simple. If we are going to play NZ all the time we have to find a way to win more or morale will suffer. They are how our teams are measured like it or not.
Luke Ringland
Guest
Uh, hopefully the point is not to go home! I think the point is to win more Super Rugby matches with fewer, stronger teams.
Hello Everybody.
Guest
I think thats a little simplistic about the French surrender. And losing half your numbers is decimation. Aus has 5 teams. Aus has no teams as good as any NZ teams. Thats because Aus doesnt have the talent pool to put together 5 Super Rugby strength teams. Creating 5 teams before you have the talent to fill them could and (imo) will backfire. You will have 5 teams that no sponsor really wants to support. 5 teams that players dont want to play for. 5 teams that fans dont want to watch. 5 teams that start struggling. 5 teams that ultimately face the axe. No money, no players, no teams, no Super Rugby. I think Aus has put the cart before the horse and the chickens are coming home to roost. Aus will chop a team. They must.
Bakkies
Guest
Scotland didn't cull teams they merged Caledonia and Borders in to the two existing teams.
Zero Gain
Guest
You said the Australian teams were like 'stunned mullets in the headlights'. Now they have a good mental attitude? Make your mind up mate.
Perthstayer
Roar Rookie
Luke, Scotland culled to just two teams in 2006, due to financial reasons, but then SR teams are broke. Scotland has never won 6N and mostly been whipping boys. They have finally come good but 10 years is too long a gestation period. Many Roarers say Oz Super coaches are crap, to which I agree. Scotland's resurgence has mirrored that of it's only 2 teams. Their success has been driven by fantastic coaches. Moral of this story is keep five teams but get better coaches.
Mark
Guest
Need to cut two
Peter Hughes
Guest
I agree with Luke :) The 5 super team (large army) strategy has been given a good long trial and failed. Only fools continue to make the same mistakes. The Force must go imo. I was looking at Force last weekend thinking how the other Aussie teams would benefit from their squad members. There's only a few Force players who would make the run on team for the other 4 but most of the Force squad would sure up squad depth of the others considerably. Kyle Godwin is a classic example of Luke's theory imo. He's a decent journeyman player of limited ability who's come from 5 years of continual defeat at the Force. Brumbies bought him in a very poor & desperate recruitment decision and he's been accepting defeat there the past 2 weeks with the same mild acceptance and lack of fight he did at the Force for 5 years. Guys like him are the antithesis of a winning culture. If you aspire to be the best you must be hard but fair. 4 teams for me - the Force must go :)
Redsfan1
Guest
We don't need more from South Africa. The format was setup to serve South African interests not Australia's.
Redsfan1
Guest
Those arguing that we need 5 teams because of "development" and "pathways" have been saying the same thing since the Force came in 12 years ago. The facts don't support their blind faith of always arguing about a brighter future. Australian rugby has gone backwards in supporter base, performance and results. Reality knocks.