How to fix Australian rugby, Part 6: Fixing the game itself

I often prefer watching club rugby, particularly when the Waratahs are playing the super rugby match.

The Kids.. Look I think the schools are Lost. Except maybe for Joeys and other odd ones.. the private schools are mainly now soccer schools. As that generation send their kids to school their support and sponsorships will go to soccer, not Rugby. The kids and the parents look to the professional game. And the Professionals now are Enormously Big people in all positions.. The game is now structured plays like NFL with plenty of rests, which supports bigger bodies. The parents realise this and have steered their kids away from the game. They no longer Wanna Be a Wallaby.. If the game can find excess money, the best use is to reestablish in some public schools like the Sports high schools, and to take space away or become a second option for those kids attending to play League.

It won't work. Australia is the most advanced Football Spectator market, with our 4 professional Football codes. Our spectators know what they want and it ain't Rugby. All the plans you mention will help. but they all need massive amounts of money and that is all gone. the TV companies wont be paying much if anything at all. the game is boring.. just structured plays strung together like NFL. The only chance we have for the professional game is to find 8 Rich Passionate people willing to start an Australian Franchised professional competition and prepared to burn $M for 8 to 10 years. They are smart and will want a say on the rules and to restore the continuity and speed to our game we will need dozens of rules / interpretation changes. If we do that.. it may develop a following.. it may just also restore the skills to our players that will give them the X factor again, internationally.

Hi Peter, your comment "quite frankly I was bored for substantial periods" sums it up. I'm a league fan since birth but occasionally instruct my eyeballs to watch a game of Rugby (though they protest profusely...). In a nutshell, for a very busy football market like Australia, the game is not "eyeball friendly" for most Australians. The Rugby fanatics and fair weather fans will watch but the majority won't. Case in point > with few league and rugby mates a few weeks back we watched: Rooster v Storm and Reds v Waratahs and guess which game everybody enjoyed and was on the edge of their seat watching? The comparison, as a spectacle, was instructive of the main issue for Rugby IN AUSTRALIA . The Chooks v Storms game was a major cracker for 90 minutes and the Reds v Waratahs game was torture...even for my Rugby mates. Who would pay to watch that? The skills were low, speed slow, stoppages all night etc.... Note most people in Australia don't care what's happening or going well overseas for Rugby, they care about here. The arguement "Rugby is doing well everywhere but Australia" doesn't cut it in Australia. We don't give a toss. The game can be good and I only enjoy watching the odd school Rugby game. Everything else for me is torture for multiple reasons. I don't know what the answers are ( and I don't really care but I'm so sick of reading you guys that I feel sorry for you...) but well done to the author of these articles because you are on the right track. I have thoughts about what could turn it all around in Australia so we would dominate internationally but more than likely 99% of Rugby followers in Australia would not like it. HERE IS THE PROBLEM WITH RUGBY IN AUSTRALIA - THE GAME HAS ALWAYS BEEN CAPTURED AND CONTROLLED BY THE SQUATTOCRACY. Take it off them and share it around you'll get all Australians backing it and then you have a chance. Don't do that and it's game over...at some point. Good luck.

Could not agree more. When I was a junior, I played AFL. I was always a big kid, so the running, lean, run run run did not suit me. I stayed far too long in that sport. But when I turned 16, I finally went to union, because it was sold as a game for all sizes. And I bloody loved playing at prop (tighthead preferred). I was welcomed for my size, and had a clear role to play that was needed. THAT is the advantage rugby has over virtually every single other sport. There is a place for huge strong heffers in the front row. There is a place for tiny will-of-the-wisp runners out on the wing. There is a place for those who love inflicting pain as the breakaways. There is a place for those awkwardly tall people in the second row. There is a place for those who can kick and pass with skill. There are even places for those who don't yet have the high ball skills. There is a place for everyone. Unfortunately, I look at modern rugby in Australia, and everyone seems obsessed with making it faster all the time. That's been taking away rugby's unique footprint for everyone no matter their size. Killing it's own selling point. Thankfully, now in the Golden Oldies, it's back to a place for everyone, and all welcomed.

Depends who you ask...

Club rugby is great and it is certainty a far cheaper experience. That is because players don't get paid much if at all. Also everyone you see wearing a club shirt running around to make the day work don't get paid either. These are the people what keep your beer cold and stake burgers hot. In part 4 you proposed a bulked up club comp which leads into provisional team. I really like this model. If it is going to be successful then club players will have to paid some regular stipend at a minimum. The Pillar to Post podcast who covered this topic extensively this week. Their guest was premier rugby player (UQ). His main point was that for players who want to go to next steps and who aren't on full professional contract there is no real incentive for them. Not even petrol money to help with cost of travel. They're been asked to train like semi-pros but are not given any financial reward. Until club rugby can really commercialize its product then it is fantasy to say the current amateur model can transform into semi-professional model without some significant capital investment and the painful realization for some of the current premier club teams that they don't have the foundations to continue at that level nationally. I am speaking from Qld perspective but from what I read about the shut shield (despite what they say) they'll puff and no pastry as well.

Yeah, I’m with that. I thought we were probably on the same age. You seemed like a smart bloke ????

None taken at all Max and no need to apologise whatsoever. No real opinion about the number of sides NZ puts forward. 5 is probably right for them given their small population and the need to be somewhat financially competitive at a global level (for player salaries). I think 5 for each is achievable financially (especially given it would be a more engaging/time zone friendly format) while allowing each market to be effectively covered with ample opportunities to encourage promising young talent to sign a professional contract to stay in the game and in the country. Obviously the only sticking point is the fact that NZ will be able to field more competitive sides if we’re matching their number and limiting the selection of talent to what’s available within our respective borders. There are solutions to troubleshoot this, hopefully we’re working with a partner that’s willing to explore these (although some don’t necessarily involve them either).

Twiggy is paying schools big money to play rugby.

I like it.

Sorry mate. I didn’t mean to rude or cause offence. I think we are closer to agreement than what we sound; especially if you think RA’s marketing is a disgrace. Re: the 5 NZ sides is a good fit - it all depends on what the objective is. If it’s to keep the National side strong as possible in the short term, than it likely is the optimal for NZ. But if the objective is to sustain a pro competition with the best players in NZ, then I believe that 5 sides is unlikely to be optimal or a good fit. This is why I always want to know the highest priority or objective - otherwise we won’t know what choice to make when we have to make a trade-off

Max, I’m not saying we need to ‘win the play ground’. Just make a bit more noise and getting on the radar would be a nice start. So you think that being able to play a sport in an ‘unorganised’ format is what’s required to get kids to buy in? To be honest, you won’t see many ‘scratch’ games of rugby league in schools these days but you will see plenty of kids playing touch. Of course this is more aligned to League, but I’m sure you can appreciate that there are plenty of skills that are transferable to rugby as well. If you think what I’ve put forward is kids needing to watch and like rugby on TV for them to start playing it, you’ve misinterpreted me. Being ‘visible’ is key (as quoted above)- but TV is only one small part of that complex equation. I’m not sure what I’ve elevated as fact for you, Max? It’s an opinion site and that’s what I’ve giving you, supported by experiences. Nowhere have I passed anything off as fact. I said 5 Super teams is a ‘good fit’ (not optimal). Of course that can be debated and I have on this site countless time. But that’s my opinion- nothing more, nothing less.

Have it at the start of the year before the 15s season. But I'm thinking it's the long haul. Get into schools multiple times a year for a few years and it'll start to be remembered and kids will look forward to it

I think this is a great idea - the great benefit of 7’s is that it is easy and cheap to establish. It need not be run over a season - a tournament can happen in a day, and it’s a great way to identify talent. A school needs 10 players instead of 30, and doesn’t need loads of equipment or even a strong technical capability to understand and execute set piece. But, there must be also means to convert the opportunities; otherwise kids will finish the game and just get on with their lives. Brisbane high schools had 7’s as a summer sport in 1990, and i don’t recall anyone kicking on to further rugby because of it.

I’m not saying it’s a strategy, I just questioned if winning the playground was necessary. Can rugby even be played in the playground? Keen to hear how - rugby (not league) played at my school and in the army, and I’ve never seen a scratch game. I also just pointed out that people have never taken up rugby because they liked it on tv - we all played because of our parents or mates. We also watched other sports more than rugby as kids. Whilst the landscape is more competitive now, Australia has changed too, with a big influx of kiwis, saffers, poms and PI’s all bringing their love of rugby, so maybe there are new advantages as well. My point is that we shouldn’t make presumptions and elevate them as ‘facts’ in the absence of data. For example, the ‘5 kiwi SR teams is optimal’ is a presumption that can be tested. Everything can and should be tested.

‘Do we need interest in the playground?’ As a fan of the game who wants to see it reach its full potential, I certainly think it helps. Hoping that ‘kids play what their dad played’ isn’t a strategy for growing or retaining junior numbers anymore. The landscape has changed and it’s far more competitive. A mate who I used to play with has two primary aged boys who are AFL nuts. Every time I see the boys they’re wearing Suns guernseys and much to my mates chagrin, their weekends are spent at oval shaped grounds with 4 posts at either end. 5 Super teams with NZ (and assistance on a few fronts) is a good fit and provides the foundations to turn the game around and start building again. But accepting anything that shrinks that reach is to damage our prospects for growth and it’s at this point that other models (not this one) need to be explored.

Do we need interest in the playground? We have arguably never had it in the past, so why is it an issue now? Rugby simply isn’t a game that can be played in the park. Although rugby competes with AFL and league for sponsor dollars, attention, etc., I don’t believe it is necessarily a direct competitor. Most kids that play rugby likely don’t watch it. League and afl don’t have national competition, so the Wallabies can be the national sporting team. Re: Super Rugby, the 5 teams we have are all in massive markets that allow them to do well if they can engage with community. I believe the engagement method needs to be updated - hopefully someone soon will have a tech platform that enables this ????

Autocorrect on this phone is not good for grammar... I look like idiots

What any fan needs is HOPE. That keeps them watching. Hope that their team wins the comp. Or that the Waratahs win Super Rugby. Or that Australia one day gets the Bledisloe back. Just one of these is all it needs. When you've got nothing for years on end, it sort of stretches the rubber band and the fair weather sailors find the swans, Sydney FC, or even Easts. One might argue that we don't want the fair weather sailors, but in actuality these swinging voters control the purse strings because there's so many of them. The author has a point. There needs to be a connection for the punter to tune-in in the first place. And participation is the best means to achieve this, but by no means they only means! One exciting match can turn the novice for good. At the end of the day it does come down to the quality of the game, and some degree of equity in results, which leads to hope.