Brumbies' record can't mask Aussie strife

The Irish coverage of Rugby is excellent too. So many various podcasts, radio shows and they have ties to the newspapers. The Roar is a great site but gee get rid of the geo blocking. All other Rugby sites I visit from various countries post videos from all other countries and you can view them regardless of where you are from

And we won the World Cup beating New Zealand and England back to back when we were amateur. Does that mean we should revert to that? The world moves on. Everyone is improving and growing, we are going backward. Maybe it is because we seem to spend all our time looking backward, instead of planning forward. Because that is the problem for mine - there has simply not been the planning and investment in systems to support the talent they have. And even now, rather than correct that the silver bullet is to reduce teams and that will somehow make everything good again and put us on the path to growth. It won't...it is getting rid of the spare tire on your mis-firing car. It certainly won't fix the problem, it just increases the risk you'll end up with two problems instead of one and doubly stuffed. And I would have thought the truth of that was rather self-evident, but as a mental experiment try this. Take the Wallabies and All Blacks teams and mix them together to make two equal teams. Now, with the Australian half supported by any four of the Australian SR teams operating as they do now, how long do you think they will maintain that improvement? The flip side is that if they actually address the real issues at the root of the problem, the number of teams is irrelevant. But if we go down the path of cutting teams, you can bet the earth will be pretty much barren next time around. There was an article on Australian growth projections over the next 40 years just recently, with some interesting points on where and how that growth will occur (http://www.smh.com.au/national/australian-population-to-exceed-40-million-by-2060-20131126-2y7w0.html). It was looking 40 years ahead, which sounds like a long time. But the NRL had a crack at expansion into WA and then pulled out, and 20 years later and counting they still haven't been able to return. So I would really hope that the ARU has some kind of actual concrete planning rather than wishy-washy visions, because the decisions made now will determine what sports all those people will be watching in years to come. Oh, and yes, the talent available has increased. But if it hasn't, it must be because the amount coming out of the "heartlands" must be declining quicker than the new areas have added to it. So that would equally beg the question why you would be putting all eggs into the shrinking heartland basket for the future...?

cs, to my knowledge this has been the only time that the aru was so flush with cash in history. True? The mistake was to assume the cash would keep flowing, or that the grassroots would benefit from the 'trickle down' success of the wallabies? Or some other now obvious delusion. The 45million was spent in a mistaken direction. Some sensed it was a mistake at the time. Now no one could argue that it wasn't a mistake. It was a big mistake that we are still paying for. As recently as last weekend.

In Brief, I agree with you. The reason we dont rate is a lack of a fair share of oxygen in the media. The commentators of one code in particular go out of their way to either put rugby down or pretend that it doesn't exist.

I read your comment and thus my reply to my wife... she got the 'passing' bit but was a little concerned as to your comment about 'his tackle needs work,... '. Like wtf she asked!?! :)

Fantastic news piru... congrats to Mum and, of course, yourself. My wish is also that the Force is still around for that all important purpose of sharing a game together. Likewise a trip home for a 'Saders game sometime. Truely chuffed about your news... these are special events, reflective events, changing events :)

Yes its the talent from 5 condesed to 1. It will be the talent from 5 condensed to 4. But you say that the talent has increased in Aus since Australias golden era? So with 5 teams the Wallabies have improved? Really? Why do you think that? The truth is, which you dance around, is that the amount of talent has NOT GROWN with more teams in Aus. Some would argue its dropped. I guess thats the point isnt it Andy, they DONT have enough talent for 5 teams. They have enough for 3 or 4. This talk of the Wallabies not having as much talent to pick is not backed up in reality. Maybe some talent will fall through the gaps. Maybe. But dont forget, the Wallabies were the best in the world with 3 teams, never with 4 and never with 5. So wheres the evidence for your theory?

Hi Chook, yes! He arrived on the 4th March (which is why I've been away a bit). 8.4lbs and 53cm, he and mum are doing fine, his passing is a bit rubbish thus far and his tackling needs work, but we'll get there Currently hoping the Force will still be around for us to go watch together in a year or so

It is a dire situation that AUS Rugby presently finds itself in only 14 years from hosting the 2003 World Cup on home soil. While all of Cricket, AFL, NRL, A-League, NBL and Netball focused on sorting out domestic leagues with local derbies (in the case of AFL and NRL derbies - decades of history behind them) the ARU wanted the easy option, which was continuing to use Super Rugby as their national competition. While all of the aforementioned sports have faced various challenges of finance at different times in their development cycles (particularly the A-League and NBL coming back from basically defunct leagues) they are now forging ahead, although a various speeds and at different points in time. Where rugby finds itself now compared against the AFL, NRL and A-League is outright 4th of the football codes. Nothing that Super Rugby offers on the field is going to produce the media attention, crowd numbers, TV numbers or social media engagement that some of the biggest games in those codes offers on a regular basis during their seasons. What Super Rugby fixture is going to compete with size and scope of a Broncos v Cowboys at Suncorp Stadium, Sydney FC v Western Sydney Wanderers at ANZ Stadium, Collingwood v Essendon on ANZAC Day at the MCG (to name only 3 out of a multitude of fixtures) in 2017? The answer is none, not a single one. It is not worth mentioning the NRC as it is more comparable to the VFL, Queensland Cup or NPL fixtures. Comparing TV Revenue is an apples and oranges comparison. The AFL has been handed $2.5B for 6 years, the NRL $1.8B for 5 years and the A-League $346M for 6 years which puts the ARU in the shade and on the back foot immediately. It is a fierce sports market. Cricket Australia now has the cash cow of the Big Bash League, which continues to set records each summer and they have the benefit of an Ashes Series in the summer of 2017/2018. What do the ARU do in the face of the above onslaught of those sports with domestic leagues and development pathways and money that the ARU can only dream of? Tough decisions need to be made and the A-League is arguably the most instructive on what happened when the NSL collapsed in Australia some 13-14 years ago. Does the ARU have the appetite to commit to this type of ground-up rebuild of the domestic structure in Australia? Does anyone think that NZ and SA will keep Super Rugby going with the insane issues of travel and TV viewing hours if Australia drops out entirely? A more pertinent question is – Does Australia have the population and money to be able to keep afloat this number of professional sports leagues on a yearly basis?

Any news on the birth of your new 'franchise' player piru? :)

Another point here is that the NRL has been snooping around Perth for years now. They already have teams in ACT and Melbourne, Perth is the only place in the country that Rugby is ahead of League

You seem to have this bad habit of assuming whatever your opinion is, that it's common sense and anyone who hasn't come to the same conclusion must be stupid. The Wallabies are not a super team - Andy has already explained it better than I can.

Absolutely BB.

It is time for SARU to stand up and tell Government if they want to dictate terms they actually have to be involved in funding and developing sport.

Believe SA would say OK & then go into the foetal position thinking of the political ramifications. NZ would ask SANZAAR to chose the NZ team without a title to their name to drop.

No, they are not. The Wallabies are one team selected from five, with those five still existing. If you selected the Wallabies and then eliminated the other four teams, then yes the Wallabies would very quickly be no better than a SR team (if that). Eliminating a team may result in a brief improvement as four teams are selected from five, but they will very rapidly go back to what they are now. It isn't a sustainable improvement, unless the same process is continually applied. SR players are made, and the strength of the teams reflects their systems. Culling a team won't change those systems.

Yes the system is broken. They need to adapt, consolidate and when the time is right, expand. Central contracting and the distribution of talent is not the issue in Aus this year. Imo the talent is quite evenly spread. Perhaps QLD and NSW are still ahead but all the teams are pretty even in comparrison to previous years. Get 4 teams up and strong, winning and playing exciting rugby. Bring in new fans, new sponsors. Then expand and repeat. To expand from a fairly weak position in hope that it will solve your problems...well it didnt work.

You know what the Wallabies are? Super Rugbys 5 teams condensed down to 1. But according to the logic that condensing talent down doesnt make a team better, the Wallabies are not any better than the Force. Its an absolutely absurd suggestion.

I dont what? Please dont blatently put absurd words in my mouth. I understand people are angry but blatently making up things and saying they are my opinion is outrageous. Heres the facts. Stronger squads and player talent matters. To say that adding player depth and talent to the teams that remain wont make a positive difference is absurd. It does, thats a massive factor in what makes a team better. Are we seriously going to argue that condensing teams down so the quality is higher doesnt make any difference? Talk about clutching at straws. Whats next, saying the world is flat.

Piru. You consolidate and then move on. Honestly, does it seriously make sense to just create more teams to you? If it was everyone would do it. But you cant improve by just creating more and more teams and acting as if thats the solution. That somehow improving your rugby is as simple as speading too thin and hoping the whole thing doesnt collapse before eventually the poor performing financially unstable teams you have will one day be OK. Thats not the solution. The solution is expanding when you can, not before you can. You strengthen, then expand when you can. You dont expand when you cant and expect everything else to catch up....eventually....you hope....one day. With all due respect, I shouldnt have to explain this, its pretty basic stuff.