Just over ten weeks ago I penned an article in defence of the rugby club that I grew up supporting and to criticise the ARU’s strategy for the future of Super Rugby.
This was amid the first confirmed reports that the ARU had decided to dump an Australian Super Rugby franchise and continue with four teams henceforth.
Since then, the ARU have confirmed that the decision to axe a team will affect one of the Melbourne Rebels or the Western Force with the Brumbies being excluded from consideration.
I’ll admit, when I heard the Brumbies were safe I was relieved.
But that does not mean that I support the decision to go ahead and cut one of the other Australian Super Rugby teams.
(AP Photo/Rick Rycroft)
And it certainly does not excuse the ARU for the dreadful way in which they have handled the issue; from the original leak of the story, to the dithering over whether to comment on the matter while rumours ran wild, to suddenly announcing that a decision could be made in two or three days before realising, whoops, actually, it turns out that giving a professional sports club and all their players and staff the axe is a bit more complicated than you’d think – who’d have thought?
The saga has been embarrassing. It seems to be becoming clearer every day that whenever it was that the ARU made up its mind to take this course of action to SANZAAR and lock it in for the future, none of the fine detail had been sorted through.
They didn’t know which club they were going to sack. They didn’t have a timetable in place for informing the club and for arranging for the players of the unfortunate franchise to have time to make plans for their futures. They didn’t have a plan for making sure that those players had an incentive to stay in Australia.
Instead, things are being made up as they go along and where decisions aren’t being made circumstances are being allowed to get out of hand.
It’s really no surprise to read stories like these that make it evident that players at not one, but both of the clubs put under the pump of the ARU’s indecisiveness are making arrangements to ply their trades overseas.
These people are professionals. They have livelihoods to think about. It certainly doesn’t strike me as being unreasonable that they should put what’s best for their families over the Machiavellian interests of Australian rugby, especially when the ARU refuse to give them any certainty.
Nobody likes uncertainty. And what makes things worse is that it’s not unlikely that this could have flow on effects for the clubs that are ‘safe’. After all, if this is how the ARU goes about ‘strengthening’ rugby in this country, players across the country watching this trainwreck play out will have good reason to reconsider their futures in Australia.
For mine, the most exasperating thing about the whole fiasco is that it has never been clearly explained what the cut is supposed to achieve anyway.
Even if we imagine an alternate universe where the ARU had been decisive and on-the-ball from day one, it is hard to believe that all of the players affected would end up signing for the other Australian clubs – particularly with lucrative contract offers from abroad coming in.
Would the other clubs be strengthened? Perhaps marginally. But given the abominable combined inter-conference results the Australian clubs have come out with this season, Blind Freddy could see that it wouldn’t be enough to make any difference.
A better argument could be made that the perennial underperformance of the two clubs was detracting from the prestige of Super Rugby, but this could not explain the refusal to also consider axing the Sunwolves.
(AP Photo/Koji Sasahara)
It would also not explain why similar questions were not asked about, for instance, the Queensland Reds’ involvement in the competition in 2009 when they finished within a stone’s throw of the bottom of the ladder for the sixth year in a row.
Or how about the Lions, formally known as the Cats, who have finished as one of the three lowest placed teams in 15 out of their 20 previous years of participation in modern Super Rugby, and who won only 23 of 130 matches in the decade before they finally did get punted from the comp for one year in 2013 before being readmitted at the expense of the similarly dire Southern Kings?
The Lions and Reds aren’t on the chopping block this time around and I am not of the opinion that they should have been previously. As history shows, both clubs were able to turn their fortunes around and – at least in Queensland’s case – win their first title in the professional era. The Lions’ first title could conceivably come later this year.
But the point that needs to be made is if the prestige of Super Rugby has been diminished, it’s unfair to take it out on the newcomers when some of the longstanding teams have been similarly guilty of underperformance. Whichever of the two teams that gets axed will be well entitled to wonder what they did to deserve such shoddy treatment.
So where does that leave us? A malaise hanging over the sport in this country, two clubs bleeding players to overseas, a national body that veers between the extremes of impulsive capriciousness and fretful prevarication, no real plan for how to bring credibility back to Australian rugby, and a few dozen players, coaches, and other professionals who will be uprooted and moved elsewhere come the end of the year – and not necessarily to other parts of Australia.
What a mess.
Jimbo
Guest
I have been a Rugby Union follower for about 70 years and have played, coached and refereed in both Melbourne and Sydney. The Laws have adapted over the years but have retained the essential elements of Union (which League has not done). Rugby Union has to be seen as a game of chess. I don’t think trying to look different will increase the following. The game is growing all around the world and only soccer has a greater number of countries playing the game. What we need to look to the other football codes in Australia is their marketing strategies. Having lived in both Sydney and Melbourne over the past ten years and having the time to talk to a lot of people, I have found a common thread. People say, “Who the hell are The Lions, Kings etc. etc.” They know most of the teams in the NRL, A League and even the AFL and support is strong for a particular team. I am a member of The Rebels, The Harlequin Rugby Club (which has just on 200 juniors this year), but also follow Melbourne Victory and The Storm (Hard for a boy who grew up in Parramatta). With Rugby Union I have to think twice before I recognise other teams, particularly the South African, but know the other NRL and A League teams. The ARU has to think laterally and see the Australian market as quite different to South Africa and New Zealand. A National Rugby Championship starting the eight or ten teams (Soccer started with eight) would create an Australia-wide interest. Also, particularly in Sydney, give a chance to promote the game in the West of the City (Where half the population live). Conduct of survey of all members of the ARU and see what the people want – not just the Shute Shield teams.
Jimbo
Guest
I have been a Rugby Union follower for about 70 years and have played, coached and refereed in both Melbourne and Sydney. The Laws have adapted over the years but have retained the essential elements of Union (which League has not done). Rugby Union has to be seen as a game of chess. I don't think trying to look different will increase the following. The game is growing all around the world and only soccer has a greater number of countries playing the game. What we need to look to the other football codes in Australia is their marketing strategies. Having lived in both Sydney and Melbourne over the past ten years and having the time to talk to a lot of people, I have found a common thread. People say, "Who the hell are The Lions, Kings etc. etc." They know most of the teams in the NRL, A League and even the AFL and support is strong for a particular team. I am a member of The Rebels, The Harlequin Rugby Club (which has just on 200 juniors this year), but also follow Melbourne Victory and The Storm (Hard for a boy who grew up in Parramatta). With Rugby Union I have to think twice before I recognise other teams, particularly the South African, but know the other NRL and A League teams. The ARU has to think laterally and see the Australian market as quite different to South Africa and New Zealand. A National Rugby Championship starting the eight or ten teams (Soccer started with eight) would create an Australia-wide interest. Also, particularly in Sydney, give a chance to promote the game in the West of the City (Where half the population live). Conduct of survey of all members of the ARU and see what the people want - not just the Shute Shield teams.
Hannes
Guest
I have the same sentiments. If the axe the Force after the turn-around of the franchise in the past 6 months, I will not only unfair but rugby and Foxtel will loose me as a supporter.
Jimbo
Guest
A few years back the South African Rugby Union was talking about quitting Super Rugby and joining in the European Competitions. Now they have decided they run Super Rugby and will kick out a few teams. Is Super Rugby the best format to grow rugby union domestically in Australia? We are competing against THREE other football codes, all of which as based on a strong national competition. Soccer has grown in its number of A League teams and crowds are growing - particularly as they established a team in the Western Suburbs of Sydney - so has Australian Rules. What has the ARU done about that nothing. Most people who I speak to in Melbourne and Sydney have no idea of the format of Super Rugby - they want a local team they feel is "their team" competing against teams around the country. In other words a beefed up National Rugby Championship starting with 8 or 10 teams around the country (Adelaide may take a few years to establish) - the local Shute, Dewer etc competitions would continue - the same as local soccer competitions feed players to the A League clubs. A national competition would reduce travel costs and times and other expenses. The participation level in Victoria has grown rapidly since the Rebels where established - but that growth would have happened if they were competing in a National competition. Maybe the ARU and NZRU could consider a competition like the European League Championship for soccer and have the top three teams from Australia and NZ plus perhaps Japan and soon China could be conducted outside the International Window. I know a lot of New Zealanders would prefer to be playing just in a competition across "The Ditch".
Ken Catchpole's Other Leg
Guest
Three 6 team conferences is the obvious best option till the new SAANZAR deal kicks in. Cutting teams mid contract is messy (as we see).
Bitter
Guest
Axing the Force will (almost) be the final nail for me. I'm quite ready to relegate the green & gold to the back of the wardrobe and throw my distant support behind Canada. I'll get my fix from Top 14, the Premiership, Pro 12 and simply avoid anything tainted by the stench of the ARU and its cronies. I'll of course pop my head up when the Spirit run around, but unfortunately the ARU has seen fit to foist a 6,385 km road trip upon them with this hasty Fijian expansion into a national club competition still in its infancy, created with the intent to improve domestic rugby, which is currently at its lowest ebb. And no doubt with all signs pointing to the ARU looking to discard the Force, the Spirit will be gutted for talent, between the poachings and lack of incentive to stick around. The development of the game by Rugby WA is starting to bear fruit, a committed effort to develop local talent to fend off the constant bleeding of quality players the club has faced throughout its tenure. Development that has progressed while Andrew Cox has been crying to be allowed more foreign imports. Development that will now be served up to the NRL on a silver platter by the ARU.
Unanimous
Guest
Good article. Well written.
Republican
Guest
.........the code has been played in the Catholic private schools here in Canberra for decades however not in the Grammar system until a few years ago. Canberra Grammar is now well represented through all age groups and is proving very competitive.
sheek
Roar Guru
Rob, What is happening in Australian rugby at present, is not an embarrassment, it is a disgrace. I am appalled at the treatment by ARU to the two clubs concerned, the players, coaches, support staff & their families, all being left in limbo while the ARU twiddles its thumbs. I am further appalled that John Eales, Australian rugby's greatest Wallaby & Wallaby captain, is part of this. And Paul McLean, another player I had a lot of time for. Maybe they oppose what is happening but are outvoted. Nevertheless, their name is attached to this shameless episode, as board members, either willingly or unwillingly. While I would still have Eales in my all-time Wallaby XV, I will no longer consider him as captain. He's lost that right, that privilege, until at least the full disclosure of this ugly episode is exposed. I refuse to watch super rugby. No doubt others who place being entertained before principle, will continue to do so. But for me, this is a disgusting stain on Australian rugby that will take a long time to heal.
Jock Cornet
Guest
The ARU are an elitist entity. What a waste of money on Folau , the amigos etc. the players come from clubs as Cato states. Until they consider the grassroots the game will die
Perthstayer
Roar Rookie
Rock......... "2nd best Aussies team" is very relevant. WF are being cut due to terrible W/L ratio. What a beaut vs the Reds. With Ruru the WF have yet another player plucked from local product (at Nedlands last 4 years)
Timbo (L)
Roar Guru
Nice article but I think you may have missed a couple of key points. 1. The ARU effectively Owns the Force's Franchise and It's Voting Rights 2. The RUWA were the only member to vote against the axing of a team. It was clear as day that the plan was to axe the Force, and without reading the fine print, this looked like a smart choice - the path of least resistance, hit a soft target! But contracts have fine print and the Force have a large number of belligerent supporters and sponsors and are backed by a government agency. Poor Planning Produces Piss Poor Performance! If the ARU had done it's due diligence on the Force and then the Rebels as an alternative target, it would never have gone to a vote and SANZAAR would have needed to find another way, at least for the near future anyway. Alternatively I have got it wrong and the conspiracy theorists are right - It is just a ploy by a greedy bunch of bastards wanting all the cash for the Poop Chute Shield clubs.
Sydneysider
Guest
http://websites.sportstg.com/assoc_page.cgi?client=0-10806-0-413568-0&sID=386329&&news_task=DETAIL&articleID=48398701 More competition at the private schools with AFL now an option as a winter sport. Old mate Bill Pulver must be really upset that his old school Shore now has AFL as a sporting option....
Mike from tari
Guest
With the base of players coming from Qld & NSW & with Rugby League & AFL recruiting from schools & clubs & with AFL & soccer getting into Private schools that base has been diminishing so there are not enough talented players for 5 teams. As well Sydney & Brisbane clubs are not being assisted with enough funds to help develop their juniors, these clubs should have been the start of a national competition way back when the ARU had money, they should have stayed out of Sanzar.
Cole
Guest
Nice article Rob. "What a mess" sums it up nicely. No matter what your opinion of the whole matter regarding which team or how many teams Aus should have in SR next year (personally, I think there should still be 5) you have to just shake your head and wonder at the ARU... Even if all 5 teams were magically retained for next year you would have to think the exodus of Aus players and support staff has already started and the flow on of that will take years to come back from.
wag
Guest
Good observations by all contributors. Just referring again to the Force ....... despite one hell of an injury toll (something that the underperforming Reds & Waratahs don't have this year), FIVE of the Force's losses were by 9 points or less. The only teams to put double-digit wins against them were the undefeated Crusaders, the Sharks (both away games for the Force), and the best-forgotten loss to the Highlanders (after their huge travel load)
Cato
Guest
It is far too easy to blame the current poor performances from Aussie sides on how our Super Rugby sides perform and how they just do not seem to be able to compete. Cutting SR teams like the Force and Rebels is just a knee jerk reaction to a wider problem. If you are not good enough, then you are just not good enough.Great players come from Club Rugby and gradually work their way up to representative honours. That is the way it has always been. So the arm chair experts scream to the heavens that the solution must be to reduce teams have got it wrong. Whatsmore cutting the newest teams. based on recent performances is silly. Some people have very, very short memories as was highlighted in your very good article. If these same people screamed at the ARU to increase funding for grass roots Rugby we may be closer to the real solution. The ARU are obsessed with profits and claim that they cannot provide more money to member unions. They point out that they increased this amount by $4.1M in 2016 but ignore the fact that they chewed up $1.8M just to administrate it leaving only an extra $2.3M to spread amongst every rugby club in Australia. The 2016 Financial Report then states that it cost the ARU an additional $4.5M on increased travel costs because of the additional 2 new teams.(Japan and Argentina) So the ARU are happy to fork out millions on additional travel costs for a small group of elite players, whilst at the same time playing Scrooge with our local completion. The reason Australian teams are not performing has nothing to do with the number of teams and anyone who believes this is lying to themselves.
Hannes
Guest
P2R2, the Force play well if the stick to their guns and play within their limitation. I do not think there is a Superugby team that would have beaten the Landers in the conditions that night after they lost two 10s, two players to yellow cards and gave away two intercept tries? Remember that the Force was competitive in the first 40 minutes but had ambition to win the game and was playing catch-up rugby in the second half. This was when Wessels made chances to the game plan. He asked his team to play the wet rainy conditions. As he had a Prior at #10 with Grant off with an injury, he asked his substitute #9, Ruru, to use a kick and chase strategy. Initially this tactic paid dividends as the Landers wings struggled to catch the wet ball in the windy conditions. This tactics however became to predictable and the execution became poor; e.g. the forwards failed to protect Ruru, a box kick was blocked that lead to a try. As fatigue set in (caused by 35,000 km travel with 4 games in 16 days, lots of tackles that had to be made and two yellow cards) the kicks were too deep or the chase was poor. This meant that the Force gave the Landers the ball to run at tem and the result was on the scoreboard. Their normal ball in hand strategy did not work in the first half as the players were just that little bit too slow and the conditions favoured the visitors. Wessel's acknowledge later that he made a mistake when he changed the game plan too much for a young team to cope with, but at least he had the ambition to win the game instead of keeping the score low. He learned from the experienced, so I will not read too much in that performance and is sure the Force will show up against the Canes and this would be a better reflection of where they are at.
wag
Guest
G'day Joe King, Great suggestions --- to make Super Rugby simple -- and fairer. Very few (if any) of the most ardent Rugby fans can understand the current format, so we are no hope retaining many supporters, ---- let alone recruiting non-Rugby persons Why can't Sanzaar implement something like what you suggest.?? !! Can you put your suggestions to the ARU promptly in the hope that they can get Sanzaar to see reason?
Joe King
Guest
Two things to keep in mind: 1. We will never get back to the point where we have a simple round robin like the Super 12. SA will never accept the unfair travel. 2. Imagine a NZ team was going to be cut. Many fans from that whole catchment region wouldn't just start following another team. Many of them would be lost to SR. Even more so for Oz fans from the state that is cut. So rather than cut a team and kill off a whole sector of rugby in Oz, change the structure and concept of SR to make it better. 3x6 conferences. Play home and away against everyone in your own conference (10 games each). Top two from each conference qualify for the finals to be played over 3 weeks. Top two teams overall from any conference get a rest week for the first week of the finals. Pure local derbies for the regular season - statistically the games that create the most interest and get the most viewers in Oz, SA and NZ (even though some people don't like them). I know some NZ players have sometimes said that they would rather have less of them, but I actually think it works out better for the AB's. Every conference would be vibrant and evenly matched. Australia's lack of competitiveness compared to the NZ teams would be masked. The international component for the finals becomes highly anticipated as only the best from each conference play the each other. People would definitely get up at 1am to watch them! Mystique would return to the game and drive interest upwards! SR finishes before the June internationals, so no more ridiculous break in SR. When they change to become the July internationals after 2020, play a pre-season knock out comp in March (as part of the trials) to increase the international component. Travel is completely fair for the SA teams. Although NZ and SA have a viable domestic comps already, the difference is twofold: SR would have an international component for the finals system, and secondly, SR would have the 30 best players involved, who are always missing from the domestic comps because of test rugby. The decrease in the length of season would be compensated by a significant reduction in travel costs, and much higher fan engagement, especially in Australia. Really simple. But so much better.