The question all rugby tragics would like answered is; what is wrong with the rugby in Australia at the moment?
Much has been written and discussed about the plight of Australian rugby in recent times. Put simply, the Wallabies have forgotten how to win, while Super Rugby franchises are floundering under a shroud of uncertainty and appear to lack definitive leadership.
Although the Wallabies have won a Rugby World Cup or two and been in a couple of finals, of late, something has gone amiss.
The ARU is financially propping up struggling franchises, the Grim Reaper is one fell swoop away from wielding his scythe through either the Rebels or Force and threats of lawsuits hang over the Australian Rugby Union (ARU).
In the meantime, the ARU board drinks its woes away at expensive restaurants identifying fantasy Wallaby teams!
So, who has their hand on it, the tiller, to steer the boat?
Local rugby is struggling to preserve whatever vestige of decency and relevance in sport. It appears that to survive and remain relevant in the midst of professionalism, local rugby relies on chook raffles and canteen sales for those teams without generous benefactors.
Some clubs sold off assets in an attempt to be competitive in a semi-professional environment, yet continue to struggle to be competitive.
Where was the support to enable clubs an equal footing in their relevant competition, to be competitive and not have a rich club attract talent and the poor clubs fight for what is left? Limited pathway opportunities existed or were promoted.
That in itself is not healthy, as these teams now fight for relevancy because Super Rugby franchises and the ARU display indifference to supporting grass roots and assisting the development of professional coaches and talented players.
(Source: NSW Rugby Union).
Allocating a few ‘off-duty’ Super Rugby players across rugby clubs every now and then to strengthen the competition is not working.
What is essentially saving some clubs from folding is club culture, their history and a continuing desire to field teams. This is why we see these clubs continue to fight and struggle in an ‘amateur’ way against better-resourced operations.
Maybe the ARU has become increasingly more reliant on the traditional rugby nurseries to do the heavy lifting?
We are getting schoolboys fast-tracked into Super Rugby programs without having grazed their knees at club level, where a few hard heads sort the chaff from the hay. Sure, some make it through to be good second tier players, but that is where it stops – a glass ceiling of sorts.
From where and how do we develop these young and talented men? To whom do we entrust their development? A lot of theories abound and just as many are swatted away by the St Leonards bunker as irrelevant or unworkable.
We need to remember that we are not unique in Australia and rugby is not a unique sport here. If those who wear a GPS or Sydney Uni tie think that to be the case, then therein lies part of the problem with Australian rugby.
We have had sports administrators come and go – and come and go again – as the head of the ARU and the Super Rugby franchises. It would be fair to say that rugby in Australia is in a worse position both financially and professionally since its halcyon days.
An opportunity lost when, after the Rugby World Cup, the ARU had a healthy cash balance of $18m. Similar issues exist at one or two of the Super Rugby franchises, where healthy cash balances have apparently vanished, without benefiting grass roots rugby.
It appears that some sporting administrators are there for their own aggrandisement rather than identifying ways to develop the game.
Where is the leadership in Australian rugby?
(AP Photo/Rick Rycroft)
New South Wales and Queensland rugby is in the doldrums and ACT rugby is rebuilding itself after a shambolic relationship with sociopathic leadership and shady business deals. These traditional rugby nurseries are the backbone of Australian rugby. There are only so many players that can be developed in NSW, Queensland and ACT.
It may be because if schoolboys want to play a rugby code, they select league unless they are in a school system which promotes rugby or they follow their father’s desire to play rugby.
In comparison, the league nursery is full of talent – a regular junior competition supported by the NRL as well as schoolboy based tournaments. NRL talent scouts are out and about identifying talent, running coaching clinics and supporting local junior clubs.
The ARU response is an annual schoolboy carnival. That’s it!
‘Oh, but that has served us well in the past’, I hear the old boys’ tie brigade protest.
Well, this ain’t Kansas anymore. For all the business acumen and strategic talent which exists in rugby boardrooms across the nation, the administration is being outsmarted and out-manoeuvred by competing sporting codes.
The ARU was keen to increase the number of Super Rugby franchises to develop a deeper talent pool, but this has had mixed results.
More players became professional, but many of them are probably some way off being solid second-tier professionals. Franchises have had to look at imports to bolster their rosters and enable them to field a competitive team or replace talented players who retire or take up lucrative offers overseas.
From this perspective, a five franchise structure has not been the success that had been envisaged in developing a deeper player pool.
A look at the current Wallaby squad and the backup players available will illustrate this supposition. One only needs to watch Super Rugby games to realise that, as a rugby playing nation, the talent is thin and skillset rudimentary.
There was a sniff of a National Rugby Championship (NRC) some time back, with the sole intention of providing talented players with the opportunity to be exposed to a professional environment and play in a stronger competition – further developing key skills, speed and game psychology.
But that wafted away quickly. Admittedly, the ARU was bleeding financially and the cumulative loss of the NRC was approximately $5 million over two years.
Any business minded organisation would soon realise that this was fiscally irresponsible and unsustainable in the modern professional era, but this decision left a third tier competition floundering for years.
Would rugby in Australia be better today had the original competition been maintained and given adequate funding and sponsorship?
The NRC didn’t last long. (Photo Karen Watson)
We also need to remember that the ARU paid ABC to broadcast the competition. This would suggest the NRC was a thought bubble, quickly promulgated into a competition without adequate due diligence and clear financial governance considerations.
Today, as a result of poor decision making and the fact Australian franchises did not, or were unable to, support the NRC to the extent needed, players did not have the exposure to a third tier competition with the sole purpose of being further developed.
We were therefore reliant on local rugby competitions and schoolboy championships in bringing forward the next crop of Super Rugby representatives.
Why is it that our promising players seem to be happy to strive towards mediocrity? Interviews with potential Super Rugby players revolve around hoping to get a Brumbies or Waratahs or Reds contract.
Humble? Possibly. Confident? Not that I can tell.
What should an up and coming player strive for? Setting goals is important, but should those goals be offers of a contract or making a final series or should it be to reduce errors, improve on their weaknesses and strive to be the best positional player in the competition?
Tick those boxes, change the mindset and the rest looks after itself. Self-belief is paramount to success. Do the current crop of Super Rugby or representative players strive to improve skill levels or are they more interested in meeting KPIs and resting on laurels once they reach their goal of a Super Rugby contract or a Wallaby jumper?
Our performance tells the story.
To address skillset issues, we need to invest in strong and influential coaches who are good managers and above all, sound leaders. This needs to be consistent across all franchises and developed from the grass roots.
To the ARU’s credit, they have developed a national coaching panel, with the intention to support the development of coaches across all levels of the game. For example, Steven Larkham will be based in Canberra when not on national duty and will support the Brumbies coaching staff.
But more importantly, this support must translate to coaches identifying talent, better managing player development and players becoming technically adept in their roles – and this support needs to trickle down to clubs and schools.
It’s time that our provincial and national rugby representatives showed leadership, set aside their parochial state-based differences and worked collegially to fix our game’s malaise.
The rugby states need to build relationships between themselves and the ARU. These relationships need to be strong so that each state can challenge the paradigm and work together to resolve conflict because, at the end of the day, we all want the same thing.
We, the rugby community, want Australian rugby to be the powerhouse in world rugby that it deserves to be and can be.
But until the ARU makes the decision to reduce the number of Australian teams to four, proposed lawsuits are thrown out the door and the board rooms move on from this turmoil, this may be a bridge too far.
The reverberation of a reduced Australian rugby landscape will be felt for some time to come unless state peak bodies show unity and solidarity.
Justin Mahon
Guest
"Then you have soccer grabbing the impressionable". What does that even mean? Putting aside that football is growing fast FROM already being for some time the largest participation team sport in Australia for males (and since 2015, females) - you need to understand who your competition are honestly before you can begin to do anything about it. I put it to you that given the existential crisis in rugby is an intergenerational one, the AFL is the least of your worries and you don't even know it yet. Since rugby banked $18m and pated itself on the back, football has deigned, found revenues and sponsorship for and implemented the following: - a national men's league, - a national women's league, - a nation men's open Cup competition, - an integrated national/State league season for men's youth teams, - participation in the AFC's pan-Asian men's cup coopetition, - a federated national play off model for the 2nd tier semi-professional men's leagues, and - regular appearances in the largest and most competitive sporting competition on the planet (and its female counterpart) . It has done this with despite massive financial, political and cultural headwinds and own goals from touring international clubs, the World Cup bid and the current a huge push from it's grass roots from constitutional (FFA Congress) and competitions (2nd division / Promotion/Regulation) reform. The Head Office has also had to take a hair cut recently to manage costs associated with administration and several of it's lower profile national teams - although fortunately a commercial model has been found for the Paralympic team Throw in all of the work underway through a national curriculum, coaching and refereeing development, quality licensing programs and the establishment of national programs/pathways (MiniRoos, SAP, NTC, national schoolboy/girl/indigenous tournaments, A-League and Tier 2 academies) and you can see the game has been completely revolutionised. So think about that for a moment - while rugby has thrown away its many cultural and political advantages and its bank balance up the wall, football has done all of the above. While there are many things the FFA can improve on, and some of the work underway outlined above has a way to go, the single biggest constraint on football's growth with now is access to football pitches. That's right. Football biggest capacity constraint is a lack of grass. So, far from football simply, somehow mysteriously "grabbing the impressionable" - football success is the result of it working flat out redeveloping and reimagining itself. You need to know your competition better before you can begin to respond to your current existential crisis.
sheek
Roar Guru
Hi Greg, The ordered world & status quo don't bother me. Every few weeks or months we wake up to a story & wonder to ourselves, "how on earth did that ever happen"? Most of humanity is unfortunately stupid, or at least apathetic. We progress piggyback off the few who are really smart, the true geniuses. Who would have thought the leading cricketers & CA would fail to find a resolution? Wayne Smith in The Australian wonders if Australian rugby could go the same route. Anything's possible in this unstable climate. Humanity is always a few steps from disaster or inspiration. The way rugby professionalism is currently structured isn't set in stone. It can be turned on its head any day, or week, or month.
Greg
Guest
Sheek... thanks for the encouraging words Reading your post, I am neither in agreement nor disagreement with your proposition. I can see where you are coming from and my memory and experience definitely goes back as far as the blue and red clashes to decide a wallaby jumper (heck even recall the probable and possible challenges!). It did work then... pre professional era. Unfortunately, as we have entered into a professional era and the revenue sharing arrangements from broadcasters has created a product that the Southern Hemisphere is locked into, I cannot see your dream being realised any time soon. Hence... my comment about kahunas and making a decision about the future of super rugby and the structures to adequately support game AND player development going forward. But before we embark on a dramatic shake-up of the tiered structures, let's see if investment in development can reap some rewards. I think we are stuck with the current super arrangements til 2020 so let's work with what we have. Everyone of us need to be onboard with whatever decision is mage. And utopia is the suburb next to mine...
sheek
Roar Guru
Greg, Good first-up effort. Where I disagree with a lot of my fellow Australian rugby fans is this need for both super rugby provinces & NRC teams. You don't see this representative system replicated in the northern hemisphere. Let's go back briefly to 1995. You had Super 10, which was divided into two pools. Everyone played 4 pool games, with the two pool leaders meeting in a final. It was over very quickly. NZ & SA teams went back to their magnificent domestic comps while NSW & Qld played each other twice before Wallabies selection. Everyone was reasonably happy. But professionalism saw the Super 12 thrust onto the southern hemisphere, & while it was initially beneficial, especially for Australia, it has become too unwieldy & unworkable. We are stuck with a structure that is no longer maximising benefit to southern hemisphere teams, except maybe the Kiwis. Get back to 1995. Or mimic northern hemisphere structures. Have enclosed domestic comps in each of Australia, NZ, SA & Argentina. The Champion's Cup would see the top two from each country progress, & like the S10 of 1995, would be completed relatively quickly. Three pool games, a crossover semi-final & final. Five games max for the two finalists. That is how it should be done. Australian rugby should strive to develop an 8 team national comp, with each provincial capital city underpinned by a vibrant district club comp (premier rugby). This is how both NZ & SA rugby worked so successfully throughout the 20th century. Also Australian & English cricket. Everything else from grassroots up would feed into district clubs, provinces & then Wallabies.You can't be a Wallaby unless you shine with a province. And you can't play for a province without signing for a district club. Having both super rugby provinces & NRC teams is an unnecessary duplication of resources. I am totally opposed to this structure. If the national comp is doing its job, then it becomes the finishing school to fine-tune current & future Wallabies. That's how its worked in the best domestic comps around the world in a variety of sports. The other thing about a national comp, is it is for the fans. Not the broadcasters, not the sponsors, not the administrators & their cronies, but first & last, the fans. They, & the players, are the lifeblood of any sport. Unfortunately, this mash-mash, muddled thinking of unproductive structures exists right through Australian rugby. It requires a total clean-out.
Jock Cornet
Guest
TWAS how pathetic has your ridiculous academies been. The NRC is based on the clubs and will be pulled as no one cares about it and sponsors are leaving . It has no bearing in the state of improving rugby. It is a meaningless comp
Jock Cornet
Guest
What body would not contribute to the clubs. The ARU spent ore on qc than the whole Brissy and Sydney comp. What a disgrace. Can you gained the league not spending a cent on their clubs.
Jock Cornet
Guest
Peter K and TWAS have no idea . They are keyboard warriors who don't have an idea on the traditions and the strength that clubs in the shite shield bring to the wallabies. Get some Melbourne players or wa players ffs . The rebels and force have contributed nothing to the wallabies compared to the shite shield clubs which produce about 60% of wallabiea
Greg
Guest
Dear concerned, I think it is encumbent for the ARU to lead the charge in improving rugby across all jurisdictions in Australia. The debate and discussion has diverged from the tenet of the article. Rugby is a great sport and I can categorically say that it is a far better game to play than to watch. I doubt that I will have too many detractors to that statement. League on the other hand is a great spectacle to watch and I enjoy a good game of league. On occasion I am left in awe with the athleticism displayed by some of these athletes. Rugby is unfortunately in the 'hurt locker' at the moment and many of us fans are crying out for some sort of circuit breaker. Maybe it will be the Brumbies winning their home final, or the wallabies actually being competitive in the rugby championships rather than making it a nice foursome. Or maybe the game's peak body gets on the front foot and outlines, to its great number of supporters, what it has planned to make rugby the fourth alternative sport in Australia. We will not win against AFL, league or football, not with what those sports are investing in the development of the game across administration, coaching, talent identification and supporting all tiers of the game. Nor with the generous financial backing of some of the wealthiest companies and individuals in Australia. So fundamental to this is, with the limited resources available, how is the ARU going to grow the game. For starters, unity needs to be front and centre and parochialism must be left at the glass doors into the St Leonards bunker. Furthermore the ARU needs to grow some kahunas and make a decision about the future of super rugby. Investing in one competition or another is not the answer. You can create as many bloody tiers as you want but without quality performance management and coaching and a reasonable talent pool to develop athletes, you are blowing smoke up the proverbial. The ARU should grow the game through strategic partnerships between state and territory rugby boards and their affiliates. Pathways and tiers of competition are part of the solution not THE solution. Having states take leadership in development of rugby in their regions needs to be reinvigorated. I have lost count how many times I have heard from a work colleague how her husband, a junior NRL engaged development officer, has been run off his feet conducting coaching clinics at schools in our city? And this is because schools want support and have said to the development officer that the local rugby franchise did not have the resources, kids are screaming out to be involved in ball sports and NRL is responding. My article stated that rugby is being out manoeuvred...case in point right there. Any one of us can regurgitate statistics and KPIs til the cows come home, if one has the time or inclination. With that data, you can mount whatever argument you want or point you want to make. But fundamentally it is how the human capital is being managed, have we targeted the right development areas and are we getting value from our investments. The ARU is head office and it needs to act like it is a head office, not a privileged club. The Greeks have a saying that the fish always rots from the head. Time to stop the rot.
concerned supporter
Guest
Peter K, You just said,"Not expecting handouts from above anymore", now you are in denial. We all know that the Shute Shield refers to First Grade, but it refers to the 12 clubs involved, including the Colts competition. In the 1980's there was promotion & relegation in Sydney.I can remember that at some stage Easts, Norths & Sydney University were in second division.It was found to be unworkable and only lasted a few years.
concerned supporter
Guest
TWAS, When is a prepaid lease NOT a prepaid lease?
Train Without A Station
Guest
I think you'll find it has not been stated anywhere that they have prepaid 30 Years. They have a prepaid lease. The lease is 30 years but none of the numbers (supposed cost per year vs payment made) actually add up.
PeterK
Roar Guru
First of all I DID NOT call them handouts. Tom Carter did in the quote you provided!!!!!!!! I put it in italics if you didn't notice. yes the ARU are custodians of all rugby in aust. However funding a sydney comp is an issue for NSWRU not the ARU. NSWRU decides how the money is split in NSW. Remember subbies is the real grassroots not shute shield. They need the money more. Shute shield is struggling because it is living beyond its means. Subbies are the true grassroots shute should clubs are not 8 subbies has 55 so shute should just get 1/63rd share of what is given to clubs. There are around 7500 players and 55 clubs competing across 6 divisions,[1] making "Subbies" the largest centrally administered rugby competition in the world. NSWSRU is truly the grassroots of rugby in Sydney.
PeterK
Roar Guru
typical reasoning and examples from you, no effort whatsoever of understanding what was actually proposed. wow talk about out of context. The context was the shute shield clubs get folded back into subbies , as they ORIGINALLY WERE, so the clubs would still exist , so 100 years of tradition would be kept. Just the shute shield as an elite closed system would not. The top division of subbies would now be called shute and not kentwell (which would be div 2). This means you get an open system of promotion and relegation. The first Sydney club competition was in 1874, contested by Balmain, Newington College, Sydney University Football Club and The King's School. The Shute Shield is seen as the traditional successor. The University club had the shield made following his death and donated it in 1923 to the NSWRU to be used as a perpetual trophy for the Sydney first grade competition.[3] Shute shield was just the sydney first grade comp NOT a comp on it's own.
concerned supporter
Guest
PeterK, You and I know most Shute Shield Clubs are struggling financially. Their main sources of Income are Sponsorships and Players Subscriptions. Yes, players pay a sh--load to play.Same with most Subbies & Junior clubs. Peter, they are not effing handouts as you put it, it is necessary funds to protect clubs from being insolvent.And also, as per the Constitution of the ARU says, the ARU are the custodians of Rugby (meaning ALL RUGBY) in Australia not only the Wallabies & Super Rugby Clubs. Hope you don't disagree with that.
concerned supporter
Guest
Peter K, didn't you say a year or so ago, " If by some reason the Shute Shield did not exist, it would make no difference to Rugby in Sydney. Players, supporters would automatically gravitate to Subbies." Yeah, Peter more than 100 years of tradition, culture down the toilet.
PeterK
Roar Guru
These quotes are a classic though “At grassroots it’s thriving. You only have to look at the Shute Shield this year and the growth at strong clubs. There is some great stuff going on.” Shute shield is NOT grassroots. It is an elite club comp. It is not open, it is a closed comp. Juniors and suburban clubs are true grassroots. “This year’s Shute Shield competition is clearly bucking the trend of rugby’s overall decline. Sponsorships are up, crowds have increased and TV ratings are healthy in a competition built on the pillars of tribalism created by clubs who do not expect handouts from above anymore. Finally some of the entitlement attitude has gone has it. Not expecting handouts from above anymore, well about time they live within their means.
PeterK
Roar Guru
exactly. I have no issue with shute shield per sae i.e it is a vital 4th level in the pathway behind wallabies, super rugby and NRC. The issue is a lot of shute shield clubs find it hard to accept they have been pushed back from being 3rd. The agenda of some of them is to white ant the NRC and surplant that with a club comp between some of the sydney and brisbane clubs. Shute shield clubs also want a share of funds ahead of true grassroots like juniors and suburban clubs. The shute shield loses money, it blew a lot on a tv deal which the aru had to bale them out of.
concerned supporter
Guest
Hey TWAS, remember on 17 April 2017,this good one? "Train Without A Station said | April 17th 2017 @ 1:09pm | ! Report They haven’t prepaid 30 years Reply concerned supporter said | April 17th 2017 @ 1:19pm | ! Report I think that you are wrong TWAS. Reply Train Without A Station said | April 17th 2017 @ 1:54pm | ! Report If you disagree that only makes me more confident in my view. Roar Guru Mark Richmond said | April 17th 2017 @ 3:16pm | ! Report I trust Chris Dutton’s info over yours, on this one I’m afraid TWAS. http://www.smh.com.au/rugby-union/brumbies/canberra-rugby-fears-trickledown-effect-if-act-brumbies-are-axed-from-super-rugby-20170317-gv0d95.html?deviceType=text Reply
concerned supporter
Guest
TWAS. Misleading & Deceptive Statement,as per usual from you. Do you know of any? Again, can you or can you not explain your statement? "volunteers because they were interested in doing what was the best for the club, and likely were going to result in losing players.” Waiting.
Train Without A Station
Guest
Hey concerned supporter, remember when you tried to tell us that the ARF was a fund to take money away from the grassroots and spend on the professional game? That was a good one!