Everywhere I look in Australian sports media is negative rhetoric surrounding the state of our great, diverse, globally prevalent and – most importantly – rapidly growing game of rugby.
Discussed to death have been the reasons for this decline in national interest, including the misallocation of limited resources, the top management level, a neglect of the game at a grassroots level, and the decrease in the on-field success of our professional teams.
It is easy to see how these factors are both intertwined and have compounded as a result of each other.
Unfortunately, even our best efforts will only slowly reverse these cycles and ameliorate the public image of rugby in Australia.
More importantly, the constant comparisons between rugby union and rugby league, and our apparent desire to model our game on that of our cross-code rivals, only further impedes the former’s repair.
League provides a blueprint for many ways to improve, not only in fixtures and competition structure, but also in marketing and management. However, an obsession with replicating the most appealing facets of league will only lead to the further downfall of Australian rugby and a neglect of our natural strengths.
The most prominent of these attempts is the proposal by Hamish McLennan and Rob Clarke of a rugby State of Origin.
A ‘State of Union’ fixture would underwhelm and distract us from the more important aspects of the domestic game. Instead of innovating our own competitions, it appears McLennan and Clarke wish to latch onto the popularity of the league equivalent, where they will inevitably reside second best.
State of Union will fail. State versus state fixtures are already built into the fabric of the game, as NSW and Queensland – not to mention the ACT, Victoria and Western Australia – contest each other in home-and-away Super Rugby fixtures.
Particularly for NSW and Queensland, players largely play for their home states. Australian derbies have delivered us some classic matches over the decades, but recently they have also delivered us some slow-paced slug fests, which have been a good excuse for any casual fan to change the channel at halftime.
State of Origin works for rugby league by nature. The NRL is contested by village teams from suburban Sydney and Brisbane, plus a smattering of others. It pits local towns against each other, naturally drawing the buzz word ‘tribalism’. It is only for three games a year that the fans’ favourite stars unite to represent the Maroons and Blues for the prestigious Origin fixture.
(Photo by Mark Kolbe/Getty Images)
In rugby, each of our five states play each other twice per year. There would be nothing special about an Origin concept implemented in rugby, at least in its current structure, because it wouldn’t be much different from our day-to-day.
In the NRL, there is little correlation between geographic borders and team representation, with players from all backgrounds making up each of the teams. The complete opposite situation is seen in rugby’s premier club competitions and in Super Rugby.
Even in the expansion sides of ACT, WA and Victoria, the fruits of the establishment of professional teams have been profound, with the pathways generating larger and stronger locally bred playing bases.
Despite this, there would be no sensible and fair way to include all five of our states without either merging the expansion states into a meaningless ‘Barbarians’ side or leaving NSW and Queensland with clear advantages in depth. Fundamentally we cannot facilitate a genuine State of Origin fixture that will be beneficial to growing our game.
State of Union is a flawed concept proposed purely to leverage the interest surrounding rugby league’s version and would not benefit Australian rugby.
McLennan and Clarke’s desire to ride league’s gravy train by implementing a half-hearted knock off would be another blocked-out period on the busy rugby calendar – an obstacle that prevents them from redesigning the national rugby picture and professional competitions effectively.
It is a short-sighted and uncreative idea that will not help junior clubs grow, nor assist the Wallabies win. It will simply be another victory for league.
With the coronavirus knocking the planned fixtures out of the park and new broadcast deals emerging, management have a clean slate to work with to implement new competition timings and structures. These changes will hopefully present a more appealing product to entice more fans to the game, but will also ideally be strategic, long-term investments that will strengthen our Super and Wallabies sides for decades to come.
MickDonovan
Roar Rookie
Because no one understands the comp, NSW country are in then we are out same with West Sydney hard to buy into something when there is no continuation.
Twatto
Roar Rookie
Quality teams
piru
Roar Rookie
Mate we were packing the hills for years before the Force were axed, that's not why the Spirit drew a crowd. It's because the community recognised the comp for what it was and supported it. Fair enough re the Sydney clubs, but why then was there not more support in the regions? I would have thought a chance to play and watch rugby at the next level would have been welcomed by club players and supporters outside of the major centres.
MickDonovan
Roar Rookie
Mate I live in Bathurst not East Sydney do those NSW clubs you talk about do not represent me or my people. And while the comp might have been well supported by Western Australians missing the Force but the reality is hardly anyone was watching the competition, it didn’t engage the wider public at all. Where as Origin even sells out giant stadiums in Perth, thousands of miles from its heartland. Why shouldn’t Rugby aim for a spectacle like that? especially with the amount of Indigenous representation it encourages.
Derek Murray
Roar Rookie
I agree. That's not what I'm saying though. If this is the pinnacle of the game, like it is in RL, it hardly seems reasonable that a huge percentage of players simply don't have a way to play in it. I simply don't see how this adds anything to an already competitive provincial competition - and apparently, 9 agreed if they didn't option it
piru
Roar Rookie
The NRC was an epic failure, I live in Country NSW and no one even knew it was on. It was basically a very expensive training exercise I'll take "NSW issues being confused for Australia wide ones for $10 Alex" Spirit (and then Force) regularly packed the hill at UWA, NSW clubs should be ashamed of the way they white anted the comp
MickDonovan
Roar Rookie
I live in Bathurst and there is a local team here that has a good amount of playing stock but unfortunately there is hardly any Indigenous players and that really upsets me. My son was the only Aboriginal player in his team in 2019, he got suck of being the only one so now he just plays League.
The Ferret
Roar Rookie
I don’t think there is a depth issue at all. Any player who comes from the bush (regardless of where they went to school or play club rugby) and any product of Melbourne, WA, ACT and potentially international make up the Country. Plenty of depth. In fact, I’d have my money on country going in as the favorites. City will consist of kids raised in the big rugby nurseries of Brissy and Sydney. So players like Tomoua will still represent city and Hannigan, Simmons and McDermot would all be country eligible. If it is a one off game or best of Three keep the games at non traditional rugby grounds - Newcastle, North QLD, Gold Coast, woolongong, Adelaide for example to build support in new regions. The big cites get the super rugby and this can a nice way to bring quality rugby to the regions.
Micko
Roar Rookie
Scrap super rugby & NRC and start again. Force & rebels can join the new comp.
Jake Tafau
Roar Rookie
You need to look at the game as a spectacle not as a pathway to a Wallabies shirt though.
piru
Roar Rookie
Any suggestions on how to improve their public image and rhetoric? Well I'm glad you asked! The biggest point imo is to start marketing the game based on it's own uniqueness. - there's not a sport on earth that has anything like a scrum, ruck or maul, instead of acting like these things are somehow 'barriers' to rugby, the narrative should be that these ARE rugby. The barely controlled chaos of the breakdown is the beating heart of our game, and it should be celebrated. Ads from the ARU (when they can be bothered with one) seem to focus on either running the ball (fine, but it's another case of league does it better, because it's designed to) or vague references to 'family' or 'being a part of something' which could equally be applied to any other sport. That approach may be copied from NZ ideas, but the thing is the All Blacks are already the number 1 sporting entity there. There's no need to advertise what rugby is to New Zealanders because they already know - in a country where a large percentage doesn't know the sport from league, a different approach is needed. Brings me to my second point, advertising. Where is it? This last campaign that everyone fell all over themselves to praise was self indulgent rubbish. Sorry I know that's not a popular opinion, but do you really think the average non rugby fan cares about footage of Wallabies from 20 years ago or that Wallabies feel like they are part of a family. Literally every sport can say this, why waste money advertising that rugby, too has a culture?
Ball Handling 101
Roar Rookie
you definitely raise a few important issues around the financing of SR
Ball Handling 101
Roar Rookie
The NRC is essentially the five Super Rugby sides plus NSW and QLD country. The original NRC had this plus another two Sydney Sides. Feel like we could be spreading ourselves too thin with this on top of super rugby.
Ball Handling 101
Roar Rookie
Agreed. However as long as Super Rugby is our premier competition the point still stands. If the NRC however was to emerge as our premier competition...
Ball Handling 101
Roar Rookie
I love it and totally agree. Perhaps we need a tiered system allowing the emerging states the opportunity to progress into genuine rugby strongholds.
Ball Handling 101
Roar Rookie
Heartland vs Expansion? NSW+QLD vs the rest? :thumbdown: We may not be ready for it just yet. Perhaps to be revisited in a decade or two after further growth by the expansion states.
Ball Handling 101
Roar Rookie
You've taken the words out of my mouth mate. City vs Country is literally my next article, so stay tuned. For me it's our natural alternative to the SoO and would really reflect the background of many of our players. Biggest issues for me are the depth of the country side. Have really battled putting a team list together that shapes up as competitive to the City side, particularly with players like the Arnolds overseas and now Ned Hanigan leaving also. City vs country fixtures are already somewhat of a thing however have evolved in dribs and drabs over time.
Ball Handling 101
Roar Rookie
Definitely some identity issues in the game. The hot potato between management and wallabies coaches certainly hasn't helped or allowed us to build any continuity in the 21st century. Any suggestions on how to improve their public image and rhetoric?
Ball Handling 101
Roar Rookie
Cheers for the feedback Mike. Which parts were too emotional for you? I focused on providing context in the beginning and linking my reasoning together logically. No one is saying that the idea is bad because it's Rugby League's idea. In fact I even mention that "League provides a blueprint for ways to improve". The point is that because of the reasons the article lists a Rugby Union version would definitely come of second best to the league alternative and would quickly lose its shine once the fans actually get to see the product that gets dished up. Therefore I believe would be a poor concept and a waste of time.
Ball Handling 101
Roar Rookie
Yeah nah. I definitely don't think it's intended as the new NRC. More of a cash grab gimmick than anything