Last weekend I finally got around to clearing my study of unwanted books, magazines not revisited in many years and reams of scrap paper with double-up scribblings.
Then I happened upon a large, thick magazine, which was a ten-year commemoration of Rugby Review and Australian Rugby Review best writing from 1992-2001.
Spiro Zavos was one of the excellent writers for these magazines, which also included John Blondin (editor-in-chief), Greg Thomas (consulting editor), Peter Jenkins, Greg Growden, Keith Quinn, Dan Retief, Gordon Bray, Mark Ella, Peter Fitzsimons, among many other fine writers.
The period covered is quite possibly the most significant and dramatic in both world and Australian rugby history.
The magazine began with two reviews – one of the recently concluded 1991 world Cup won by the Wallabies and the other a retelling of how the tournament came about in the 1980s.
In the course of the decade, we saw a returned Springboks win the World Cup on home soil in 1995 and the Wallabies triumph again in 1999.
But the most significant event was the transition from amateur to professional rugby in 1995-96.
Flicking through the years, my eyes settled on several very telling and informative articles from 1997, which just so happens to have been 20 years ago.
Reading this, I was reminded of the saying that the more things change, the more they stay the same. At least in some key respects.
For example, humanity has come a very long way since the caveman days, but we still wage war with each other and to date, there is no cure for the common cold.
Reading an interview by John Blondin with John O’Neill and then an article by Peter Jenkins, it occurred to me that the hopes and dreams of Australian rugby remain elusive. Some of these key hopes and dreams are no further advanced than they were in 1997.
Let’s begin with John Blondin, representing ARR, speaking with ARU chief executive John O’Neill, in his second year in the job of running Australian rugby. Note: the SWOT philosophy (strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, threats) philosophy was very popular in the late 1990s.
The following are edited highlights.
ARR: What are the current strengths of Australian rugby?
JON: Well organised, well structured, containable and well identified.
I would suggest that in 2017 this is no longer the case. It appears to me that the ARU has no long-term vision for the game, only a short-term holding pattern.
ARR: What are the weaknesses?
JON: Lack of player numbers in regard to international competitiveness. The hurdles are that in NSW and Queensland, AFL, ARL, super league and soccer are being played in our heartland. We are a fourth-fifth rated sport in a coded sense.
In rugby we are yet to jump the big hurdle to say we’re right up there with player and audience participation as experienced by AFL and NRL.
We’re kinda back where we started here in 2017. We’re still the fourth-ranked footy code despite reasonable improvements in player numbers. But the other codes have also improved significantly. Our national presence has gone from two provinces to three to five and now back to four. Disenfranchising an entire state is no way to expand the game successfully, and we still don’t have a significant national profile.
ARR: What are the opportunities?
JON: Enormous. Rugby league is in disarray. Fans, supporters, sponsors and broadcasters are disillusioned and disenchanted. This [Super Rugby] is as good as it gets for football [rugby] when compared to rugby league. It’s national, it’s global, it’s played across three continents.
Now in 2017 it is rugby fans that are disillusioned and disenfranchised, while rugby league has reinvigorated itself. Super Rugby was exhilarating back in 1997 but somewhere over the past 20 years it lost its way. One of its former strengths, being played across many countries is now a drawback. Fans don’t care about what’s happening offshore (by comparison), they want to see their best players on home soil.
ARR: And the threats?
JON: We don’t have a national presence. It’s played mainly in two states. Competition is all about survival. Many of the old school state that we should not forget the loyal states and we should not forget the heartland.
But if we are to grow the game as a national code beyond these limited horizons, it’s more than just a private school game.
There were changes in August 1995 and rugby is now a professional. Unless we’re truly competitive, we won’t survive as a popular sport.
Amen to all that. Our national presence is still far less than desirable. Even more so after the culling of the Western Force. We’re still too east coast-centric and too private school-orientated. We’re stuck in the 1997 time warp because we continue to do many of the same old things.
All up, many of John O’Neill’s answers were very sensible and his warnings were prescient. His initial tenure as Australian rugby supremo 1996-2003 was generally outstanding. His second tenure 2007-13 was less successful as I think by then he was a somewhat embittered man.
His second tenure lacked the energy, imagination and vibrancy of his first tenure. He basically balanced the books and not much else second time around.
Peter Jenkins then gave some wonderful insights in an article titled: ‘Money makes the game go around’. Some of the sentiments given back in 1997 continue to reverberate today in 2017.
The following are edited highlights.
Mobile phones, managers and mega-buck contracts. Show me a backline star and I’ll show you a BMW.
Ten years ago it was “For Love Not Money”, as penned by Simon Poidevin. But with the advent of professionalism, the game has changed.
The players might complain of exhaustion, of over-training, of the burn-out factor. But they have been caught in the wheels of change, one of the spokes that will just keep turning.
Since the game shed its amateur ethos in 1995, after more than a century of no pay for play, the off-field action has been every bit as intense and at times as exciting as the shop-front window, the actual matches in the stadiums.
Within Australia alone, the commercialisation of rugby has not been a slow and evolutionary process. It has blown like an active volcano.
We seem to be arguing or discussing many of the same issues in 2017 as in 1997. Player exhaustion? Player burnout? Then there’s the revealing paragraph about how the administrators quickly turned from lecturing us on retaining the ethos of rugby, to running headlong to get their snouts into the money trough.
Jenkins goes on to reveal how the world changed on the day before the 1995 World Cup began, when the following respective union chiefs Louis Luyt (SARU), Leo Williams (ARU), Richie Guy (NZRU) and David Moffett (SANZAR) announced they were receiving US$555 million from Rupert Murdoch’s News Corp over a decade to showcase all their major matches (international and national) on their programs.
Jenkins then provides a brief history of the early years of Super Rugby, especially the rapid rise of the ACT Brumbies.
Finally, Jenkins broached the issue of a change of Wallaby jersey, at the time a highly controversial decision.
There was a tidal wave reaction to the decision last year (1996) to change the Wallaby jumper.
The all-gold jersey was much loved, and while its origins dated back only three decades [it was actually first used in 1961], the tug of sentimentality was strong.
The debate raged for several weeks but the bottom line was that five letter word. Money.
The ARU was being paid $6 million over three years by Reebok for the Wallabies to wear a jumper designed by them.
Clearly, they wanted a different design to the old strip, for effect, for publicity, for a Reebok stamp of individuality.
The green, gold and white number finally agreed upon by the two parties was, says O’Neill, among the most conservative.
But tradition was being tampered with and the traditionalists were outraged. For the old all-gold to have stayed, it would have cost the ARU over $4 million in revenue.
That sort of money could pay the contracts of Australia’s top seven players for a year.
The moral of the story here is for sponsors to work with the sport’s history and traditions, not against them. The third year of the contract saw a redesigned jersey with green armbands and green southern cross, one which was much loved. Why didn’t they think of that in the first place?.
From 1998, there was another article worth sharing, as its contents continue to reverberate today. The article was headed, ‘Wanted: Australians only’.
The following are edited highlights.
The exodus of players from the southern hemisphere to cash-rich clubs in England, Italy and Japan has reached almost epidemic proportions in recent years.
The presence of so many foreign imports raises the question of what effect this is having on the development of local talent. It is a fear many critics believed is being realised in the UK. The shambling performance of the Home Nations surely reflect the damage it is doing.
In Australia, the three Super 12 sides all had “imports” in their squads in this year’s competition [one forward and one back per S12 franchise].
The number of players is relatively small, but the SARU, unlike administrators in the northern hemisphere, sees the use of these players as counter-productive.
The union quite rightly wants to ensure the development money pumped into the game in this country to expand the player base results in local talent coming to the fore.
ARU managing director John O’Neill is clear on this policy: “If you don’t nurture your own backyard, it is going to affect the quality of your national team”.
In May [1998] the ARU decided that from next year only players eligible to play for Australia will be allowed to play in the super 12, or in any of the national representative sides, and Super 12 teams tempted to look overseas to bolster their squads will be prevented from doing so.
I’ve long wondered why there was an “explosion” of Islander heritage players in Australian provincial and national teams in the mid-2000s. The answer is partly found here.
Seeking a professional rugby contract in Australia wasn’t enough. Players had to basically forego the Island nation of their birth or youth if they wanted to play professional rugby in Australia. A case of unintended consequences perhaps, which ultimately helps neither Australia nor the island nations.
Well, that’s it folks. I could have added so much more. But I wanted to give fellow Roarers a snapshot of the rugby sporting landscape as it was back in 1997, and how in the big issues of hopes and dreams, well, we’re still mostly hoping and dreaming.
Midfielder
Guest
Sheek Sorry I missed this article on the day and TBH look at the Rugby tab less as the years pass. What can I say other than I fully agree... Will be interesting to see if the new CEO steady the ship
Carlos the Argie
Roar Guru
So, basically, there has been marginal immigration to Argentina since the 50s. The one that has occurred is from neighboring countries like Bolivia, Paraguay, Uruguay and smaller numbers from other LA countries. But the size of Pumas players has shot up and is similar to other countries. Forwards, in particular, have the same weight and height as other teams. Where this interbreeding come form? I don't get it. I think it is a generalization.
Carlos the Argie
Roar Guru
Or Patricio Noriega and Topo Rodriguez. Poached too from another continent.
Carlos the Argie
Roar Guru
Wait a minute!! What does Messi have to do with anything rugby? Almost the ENTIRE Argentine soccer team plays abroad. It is usually seen as a curiosity if more than one or two "local" players make it to the National team. Messi has expressed from the beginning that he always wanted to play for Argentina. It is some Argentine fans who claim he has no "heart" to play in the team ("pecho frio, is the term used). The comment bringing Messi up is incomprehensible.
The Neutral View From Sweden
Roar Guru
I would love if you could do a little investigation into this Digger. I think you sort of hit the nail on head in your answer, most of the guys you mention did not start to play for a PI nation until after they left SR. NZR don't want too many foreign players in their SR teams, hence it is their breeding ground for the AB's. And as said before, I understand that in many ways, but it is not 100 percent straightforward hence the PI culture, rugby and genetics et al, is so integrated into NZ. In one way NZ is Samoan and Tongan rugby best friend, hence a lot of their players are born and raised in NZ. On the other hand, the top boys from Samoa and Tonga many times end up playing for the AB's. Neither situation is optimal I say. But it is what it is. The big question for me, is it a way forward where are all parties can benefit from each other in a better way? Maybe, but it is very complex and one has to zoom out big time and try to see the big picture. For me, it seems kind of obvious that Oceania rugby would get stronger if NZR and RA took the three PI nations under their wings a little more. If those three teams were strong and had a potent and visible footmark in SR and TRC, I think the overall value of the product would increase and the competition would be stronger, have more flavors and more intriguing stories. At the bone, I know you and a lot of Kiwi rugby lovers adores a good contest and massive challenges. And there is a possibility to get that right next door. A Pacific five nations (six with Japan), could be an amazing spectacle if it was allowed to bet that. The potential is most def there.
Bakkies
Guest
'I stopped reading halfway through tbh.' As I expected from a paid employee.
sheek
Guest
Rhys, I have nothing further to say to you. You know nothing about me & you don't speak for me. Certainly don't assume to know what I think or feel.
Rhys Bosley
Guest
Just a correction on Kepu, he was born in Oz so lets say Quade Cooper.
Rhys Bosley
Guest
Yeah, we made it hard for David Pocock to play for Zimbabwe, Dane-Haylett Petty to play for South Africa and Sekope Kepu to play for New Zealand too. A quarter of all Australians are born overseas and we must have had overseas born Wallabies numbering in the hundreds, but we only ever adopt this patronising suggestion that "we are stealing their players" when it comes to the Pacific Island teams. Guess what though, the Pacific Island players are individuals and if they are good enough and qualify for selection, they can play for whatever country they want to! So instead of writing tortured passages about how we discharge the white man's burden, and make sure the PI players can play for their countries of origin, how about more people try minding their own business?
Rhys Bosley
Guest
Sheek, Rakavi's point about your use of the word native is highlights the points we have raised with your article and many other articles and comments like it. It is entirely possible to live amongst a group of people and still hold feelings of superiority and/or prejudice towards them, and that word was commonly used by many white people in places like the Pacific Islands who did just that. If anything it indicates to me that you have made prejudices so deeply rooted, that you genuinely don't believe that you hold them. Whether or not you want to do anything about that by reflecting on your beliefs is up to you. However, it would be courteous to the many Pacific Island people who read this site, is just to accept that whether or not you intend your behaviour to be offensive, they consider it to be so. Seriously, I have read these comments from you dozens of times in the last two years that I have been on this site, so it is quite clear what your position is to any regular user. You have made your point, so why do you need to keep shoving it down other people's throats?
Diggercane
Guest
Thank you. I am aware of the International rule per se, but I did not think it applied to PI players specifically. It was not that long ago from memory that Lam, Levave, Motu’u, Leuia, Lee-Lo and Pisi were in the Hurricanes squad, and pretty sure more or less at the same time, though perhaps some were picked after Super involvement, must investigate, cheers.
The Neutral View From Sweden
Roar Guru
Hello Digger Me knowingly it has been in play for some time. I believe that NZ SR teams are allowed to sign one player that plays for an overseas Test team, and if that player is NOT playing for a PI test team, they can sign another foreign Test player if he plays for a PI Test team. So I guess the quota rule could be called 1+1. In extreme cases, with overlapping contracts or a Kiwi-born player that is told he is not at all in the AB's picture and get NZR's blessing to play for a PI Test team, there has been NZ SR Teams with two PI Test players in their squad.I am sure there a couple of other exceptions to the quota in extreme cases, but the directive from NZR is 1+1. Pretty sure the setup in OZ looks almost the same. Obviously, NZR and RA focus on breeding players that get selected for the Test teams, and that is all fine with me. And it is not NZR or RA job to develop Test players for other unions per se, but this where it gets tricky. Should the PI be a little exception? These nations are so engraved in both NZ and OZ, and a fair few rugby people in both countries think NZR and RA should try to help a little bit more,
Diggercane
Guest
Hi Viking, I must say, I am unaware of this quota you mention. When did it come into play?
sheek
Guest
Thanks Harry, i understand what you're saying & can agree with most of it. I still wonder that the "explosion" of PI players in Australian rep teams (both union & league) wasn't due to natural progression entirely & may have been boosted also by the attraction of professionalism (& super league). Of course, there is always such a thing as coincidence. How & why it has happened I guess it no longer matters. What I really like is people watching & nothing makes me happier than to see Chinese, or Indians, or islanders, or whoever, talking to each other in an Australian twang, & generally exhibiting their "Australian-ness". Being Australian is not about how you look, but continuing to hold dear the values that got us this far - things like democracy, freedom, tolerance, equality, mateship, fair go, etc. Those values that continue to attract people to this country. What I do appreciate most is your calm & reasoned response. Thanks again.
Drongo
Guest
Islanders are good at it. Australia is a country of immigrants. Put those two facators together and you have the explanation for the ‘explosion’. From my experience most, almost all, express genuinely how proud they are of representing Australia and their cultural heritage. They don’t have their fingers crossed when they recite the oath of allegiance. What could be better than that? That is the essence of Australian non-indigenous culture, since the first fleet. I would also like to see a lot more indigenous Australians playing the game, but the competition is beating rugby there.
Harry Jones
Expert
No problem, Sheek. I'm jealous of Australia's ability to draw and retain talented migration.
HookerHarry
Roar Rookie
Sheek its a shame the whole article was largely ignored apart from your final comments - interesting read. I will try to address your juicy claim as factually as i can anyways:). Irregardless of the professional era, Australian diversity is constantly changing.. To say that we are 'poaching' may be partly explained by changes in our population dynamics. From the 1920's until 1965s, Australia's population born overseas slowly increased from 10% to 15% In the next 55 or so years 1965 - , this percentage grew to just below 30%. We can expect more overseas born players to represent Australia - Polynesian or not - in the future. More specifically, if we look at the population pyramid of the Polynesian population, it looks like that of a developing country (widest at the younger ages) whereas the majority of the Australian population is shown to be that of a developed country - (wider around the 30s-50s). This means a larger proportion of Polynesians will be playing in their peak age (or starting to enter) in comparison to their general population representation in Australia. Combining the increase in overseas born Australians along with the age demographics of the Polynesians in Australia, we can only expect to see a greater representation of Polynesian Wallabies into the future - born in Australia or not. Speculation Below: The ratio of Polynesians representing the Wallabies may also have to do with the ratio of these people now playing union and league in grassroots. This may of increased in the past 40 years (i'm not old enough to know). It would be interesting to compare junior rep teams (eg U14,15,16 rep teams or 1st XV teams or colts teams) from 5,10,20,30 years ago to now, and compare the amount of Polynesians selected. Junior players do not move in the hopes of professional contract at this age. (Im sure there are exceptions is some colts/1st XV players).Thousands of these players would never have become professional but it gives us a very basic overview of representation of Polynesians at a grassroots rep level before financial motives become more relevant. In a very generalised way, we may be able to gain an insight to the change in grassroots junior rep level demographics over the years. This information may explain the SOME (not all) of the changes in Wallaby representation in the professional era. If anyone wants to research it, be my guest.
rebel
Guest
You mean like providing born and bred players to their national team, like educating them, conducting clinics, having them in the NRC. How's Georgia's entry into the 6 nations going. As to your last question, no. In fact more than one is eligible. Also many more at other levels including NPC and club are eligible. NZ is losing IP more than most countries why are they also expected to prop others up as well.
Bakkies
Guest
A lot of countries have moved to smaller pitches up to the age of 12. If they are struggling to make their tackles on a smaller pitch it will go on to the full pitch where it is magnified. The more time you spend on tackling at 13 they are missing out on the other aspects of the game that their opposition are already working on.
rebel
Guest
Sgsin you focus on PI. It excludes all nations as they want to develop test quality players. Similar to other nations like SA, Aus, Arg, Ireland and Scotland because they are losing talent and IP at an alarming rate. Nsme one Irish province with several PI players. I don't proclaim to know everything about World rugby, hense I don't go around saying how things are done in England or Japan. However there are plenty who want to tell us how things are in our neck of the woods. We then get accusations thrown at us when ee correct them. Go figure. As for Messi, yes he comes from Arg, but no one is blaming Args neighbours for him playing in Europe and wanting them to take in players so he can stay in the area. He followed the money and his neigbours don't have it.