When Australian rugby entered into the professional era in 1996 the state of the game and its previous governance appeared reasonably healthy.
Despite being defeated in the quarter final stages of the 1995 Rugby World Cup, the Wallabies had enjoyed a period of sustained success since 1978 and it would have been a brave person to suggest that the Australians would not thrive in the professional era.
However despite early signs of brilliance, the sun stopped shining on Australian rugby some time ago. This is not because the sun is no longer there, it’s just the ARU pulled the blinds down not only over the development of the game but over their own eyes given the recent decision by the ARU to cut one of its five sides from the Super Rugby competition. So how has it come to this?
In looking back over the past 15 odd years the ARU in one form or another has ‘promised the world but delivered an atlas’. Despite losing the final of the 2003 Rugby World Cup to a wonderful English side, things in Australian rugby appeared reasonably healthy evidenced by sustained success over the All Blacks, a series win over the British and Irish Lions and money in the bank.
Yet by 2005 Wallaby coach Eddie Jones had been sacked as the Wallabies simply lost too many Tests and the forwards were demolished in the scrum, a legacy that still faintly lingers.
Furthermore large sums of cash was spent on rugby league players of which two later exited rugby in less than ideal circumstances. How had it come to pass that the Wallabies failed to develop a front row that could compete on the international stage and reliance on players from another code?
I would submit that the sacking of the National Coaching Committee in 1996 has a large part to play. Some may argue that whatever performance manager or unit employed post 1996 had its success. If so why has there been no sustained success since 2003?
Here is an inconvenient truth the ARU can’t hide from. Since 2003 it has failed to win a Bledisloe Cup. It has failed to win a World Cup.
It has failed to defeat the British and Irish Lions. It has failed to win an Under 20 World Championship, and has not played in a final since 2010. The Wallabies have seldom beaten New Zealand and were embarrassingly taken apart by England at home in 2016.
The ARU simply has no credible argument that its development methods are delivering success either at the development level or at international level.
It is no secret the ARU is at odds with its base, you just have to read the submissions of Brett Papworth and Bob Dwyer to understand the tension that exists. Nearly a year ago the ARU released their strategic plan that was ‘to inspire all Australians to enjoy our great global game.’ Well some Victorians or West Australians are about to have that inspiration ripped away from them with the recent announcement that either the Melbourne Rebels or Western Force will cease to exist in 2018.
The ARU stated it would ignite Australia’s passion for the game and build sustainable success in the professional era – the elite teams. Yet one could argue that the only thing ignited is a civil war between the grass roots and the ARU.
We are informed that sustainable success will be built, but we have not seen that for nearly fifteen years so why believe that now? Surely when this plan was written the plan was to have five Australian Rugby sides in the Super Rugby competition, yet within a year that plan can’t be realised. Is this not evidence the ARU has little idea of the market it operates in?
We are told that Australia does not have the playing depth to sustain five Super Rugby sides. I would agree that we don’t have the depth in skill but do in player volume. What is clear from the results is that the development of the game has not returned the investment sought. And who is responsible for that? The ARU itself.
What if the youth were developed as they once were under the old National Coaching Committee? What if our schools and club rugby, our nurseries had been properly funded and encouraged to churn out quality players? I would submit the development of our players would have delivered a better professional player that could have competed at the elite levels and thus want the Australian Sporting consumer to be attracted to rugby.
This current nonsense of blaming a lack of quality players is akin to a poor tradesmen blaming his tools for his sloppy work.
I submit that the ARU has lacked vision to truly understand emerging markets and opportunities in the rugby market. In 2010 I wrote an article for The Roar entitled ‘Super Rugby must look to Tokyo, not Melbourne‘.
I said “A Tokyo based Super Rugby team held under an ARU license in a joint venture with the Japanese rugby union, and perhaps the private sector, is the way forward in many ways. A team with two-thirds Australian players and one-third Japanese players ensures both Australian and Japanese players are getting the opportunity to play at Super level. A much larger market both in gate and television revenue awaits. No natural competitor in the marketplace like rugby league or AFL. It’s also an attractive option for European players and returning Australian’s from abroad.”
Andy Marionos of SANZAAR appears to agree “Commercially it’s an untapped market, and there’s a lot of players that are migrating to play in that area as well as the fact that they’re going to be hosting a world cup pretty shortly,” he said.
“We believe in long term there’s a lot more growth to come out of that market.”
A rugby opportunity and rugby paradise lost.
Bram Hall
Guest
Arguably the Wallabies are the only Australian National sporting team with a world wide brand. Given the expansion of professional rugby into Asia & America they would be mad not to want to get in on the action. You look at Man City who are looking to grow their brand by investing in New York City & even Melbourne City. There's talk the owner of Toulon wants to get into America. Why do you think the All Blacks played Ireland in Chicago, to grow their appeal. The Wallabies have a lot of respect outside of Australia where they are guaranteed to play in front of full stadiums. Unfortunately they don't enjoy the same appeal at home with the "I only watch when we are winning" supporters. If Australian Rugby is going to survive it has to think outside the box otherwise it will be left behind.
Stu B
Guest
Pretty much on the money Nick,can see NZ playing another charity test for the ARU to stave of the banks(and then we can kick them in the teeth and pinch another world cup and spend up big on useless league players with the profits) Another suggestion is,as we can bring in overseas players and coaches,how about we import a Kiwi CEO and full board to right our wobbly ship,just sayin like!
piru
Roar Rookie
In effect, rather than maintain the skills requirement and expand the pool of players, the ARU chose to limit themselves to the same pool of players which meant the skills standard had to be dropped in order to get the additional players. And trying to find money to correct that fundamental miscalculation on the part of the ARU is one of the reasons the expansion teams have run into financial issues…they are having to self-fund their grassroots while the foundation teams get a free ride. Well said Andy, this is the most important statement on this page imo
Mikey
Guest
I suggest you watch the stormers v chiefs game, blows anything that league has out the park with skill and entertainment Glenn!
Val
Guest
The point made in the article about the 'development program' not delivering skilled players is true. It is compounded if you have Foxtel and are a rugby nut like me who watches both French Top 14 and the Aviva Premiership. The difference in the basic skills alone is frightening. Equally puzzling is how Australian players go overseas and most improve - two examples are James Horwill and Luke Jones at opposite ends of their carers. The other thought about cutting one team is - how good would a team be combined from the current Rebels and Force players? Would it be better and more successful? Maybe but maybe not! Hope they can sort it out soon!
Tigranes
Guest
Why do so many junior rugby players from NZ get scouted by NRL clubs then if they haven't got skills?
Nick Turnbull
Roar Guru
Deano, If timed correctly Australia would have the license and players. Japan did entertain a Super Rugby license. No it's not pie in the sky, SANZAAR and IRB have invested in Japan and would no doubt seen the ROI that potentially awaits. Japan would have benefited from getting their top players experiencing Super Rugby playing alongside others, learning how Australians think about the game and visa versa. There is no future in such a JV now as the opportunity was 7 years ago. Could not agree more with you on building from the ground up.
Deano
Guest
Nick What value would Australia have brought to the table in this mythical joint venture with Japan...let's imagine for a second that Japan would even have even entertained such a thing? Would it be Australia's superior record in nurturing grass roots rugby and growing the game? Nope. The ability to live within its means? Nope. What? It was just another pie in the sky dream where Australia would the beneficiary. Manna from heaven. And contrary to what you may believe, the competition for rugby in Japan is fierce: football. They held a world cup there not so long ago. The Japanese support for a rugby team where two-thirds of the players are Australian would have been marginal. The question I posed was about the here and now: the torrent of ventures and alternative tournaments and formats coming from Australians relating to Super rugby. All seem to be designed to avoid facing up to the reality: the affordability of having five professional rugby teams in Australia. John O'Neil's complacency, arrogance and scant regard for the tiers below elite level, put Australian rugby in the position it now finds itself in. And there are idiots out there like Phil Kearns who want still MORE bravado and arrogance from the ARU. Maybe the current crisis will make them realise that first and foremost the sport needs to be rebuilt from the ground up.
Nick Turnbull
Roar Guru
G'day Deano, Firstly it's Turnbull, not Turnball. As written in 2010 the ARU had a 5th license and the natural choice was Melbourne. I argued against that as essentially we would realise some of the issues that are present today. As it was quite clear Asia was going to be a development frontier of rugby why not use that license to our advantage and, like in many commercial ventures seek a partner who brings value to the table. Japan was the obvious choice. In 2010 Japan had no Super Rugby license, but under a JV with ARU could have had the opportunity to be in the Super Rugby arena much sooner. The benefit for both would be a bigger merchandising and broadcasting market, no competitor codes like Melbourne has. SANZAAR get it, as does the IRB, that's why there in a RWC there in 2019. My proposal was the ARU could have established a player development path and a revenue stream instead of pouring millions into a smaller market with significant competition as Melbourne has proven to be. It would be a bad idea now as the opportunity is past, some time ago and the value could not be realised from an ARU perspective. Your bit about Australians planing ventures etc. Deano, Kerry Packer and Rupert Murdoch are both Australians and they brought rugby into the professional era proper with their ventures. I might also add Australia had a significant role to play in initiating the World Cup concept.
Deano
Guest
@ Nick Turnball "A Tokyo based Super Rugby team held under an ARU license in a joint venture with the Japanese rugby union, and perhaps the private sector, is the way forward in many ways. " A dumb idea then; a dumb idea now. Why would the Japanese tolerate, for even a second, such patronising nonsense as a "joint Venture under an ARU license"? Andy Marinos was referring to the growing support for rugby in Japan--and that is based on Japan's own recent successes. How you can construe that to mean there is a growing support for Australian joint ventures is beyond me. Why do so many Australians keep proposing "ventures" and tournaments (Trans Tasman) as though the view of the more significant other party can be ignored? Get you own house in order.
Train Without A Station
Roar Guru
You mean Gibson who was an Assistant at the Crusaders before getting hired as an Assistant at the Waratahs?
Uncle Eric
Guest
'Kicking the ball – this completely baffles me – why give the ball back to the opposition? Firstly, you can not score a try without the ball'. Really Glenn, you clearly haven't watched many NZ teams, particularly the Highlanders. Sorry mate, but stick to watching league, you obviously don't understand Rugby!!
killaku
Guest
Man you guys live on past glories rather than concentrating on what you have now and working with your grassroots and take your losses till you get it right.Nrc is where your coaches and players will come from and cut the dead weight that is holding you back.Larkham and Gibson are mud coaches and wouldn't get a look in at 2nd division ITM.Stay away from Leaguies,They are mud too..Good luck Aussies
Lostintokyo
Guest
Agree Sheek, the tap has been dripping or dry. If we had a crystal ball back in 2007 we would have been so depressed to see what has transpired over the last ten years. Not sure we really want to see the next ten either.
Shop
Guest
TWAS isn't the ARU roarer, that'd be "hello everyone"
ClarkeG
Guest
Not at the semi final stage in the Aviva Prem yet Jerry. 3 Rounds to go. Those 2 games you refer were Rnd 19 matches at Twickenham and Wembley. \
SAVAGE
Guest
Agreed. Good article.
Bakkies
Guest
'As a RL fan rather than rugby I sometimes watch rugby games and am amazed at the lack skills in the players. Especially when compared with the RL skills on display. The disparity is alarming and perhaps why RL players were encouraged to switch to rugby. That needs to be addressed urgently.' Far easier to execute skills in League with no contest at the tackle and the defence back 10 metres (if the ref adheres to it properly). Throw in the ref counting the number of phases so you know what to do with the ball. '* Kicking the ball – this completely baffles me – why give the ball back to the opposition?' League you have to do that anyway and the kickers kick it straight down the middle to the full back
Hugo
Guest
Real low brow comments...
sheek
Roar Guru
Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha - make that 22!