If Australian rugby is to grow revenue and participation, beyond the resident New Zealanders, it must win the hearts and minds of 25 million Australians.
In order to do that, whether we like it or not, we must commit to developing national domestic rugby competitions, like Super Rugby AU.
If we want more of our fellow 25 million Australians following and playing rugby, and paying for Stan subscriptions, we must have a domestic rugby tournament to rival the NRL, AFL, and A-League – with internationals the icing on the cake.
Naturally, the players and coaches want to test themselves against the best international competition. That’s a valid argument why Super Rugby Trans-Tasman should continue in some form.
But this doesn’t need to be an either or argument, we should have both Super Rugby AU and Super Rugby Trans-Tasman, but in what ratios? That is the question.
I’m alarmed when I hear rugby’s stakeholders say we should play less Super Rugby AU in 2022, and more Super Rugby Trans-Tasman. I’m not sure how they arrived at this conclusion, which doesn’t follow logically from the evidence.
(Photo by Jono Searle/Getty Images)
The facts of the matter are Super Rugby AU was a huge success. Ratings were up, crowds were up. The negative Aussie rugby vibe turned suddenly positive simply because of the format: an Australian team wins every game, and wins the tournament.
Australian rugby was unexpectedly on the up because of Super Rugby AU, and this raised the real prospect for rugby growing into its domestic audience of 25 million. Isn’t it illogical to conclude we should play less Super Rugby AU in 2022?
On the other hand Super Rugby Trans-Tasman started with a high expectations, good crowds and TV audiences. But Australian teams have won only two and lost 18. All five Aussie franchises were out of final contention after Week 1.
The longer Super Rugby Trans-Tasman has gone on, interest has dwindled, TV audiences changed channels, and the media sentiment turned negative again.
Evidence would suggest if you are trying to continue revitalising Australian rugby by growing participation and revenue, you should increase the amount of Super Rugby AU in 2022, and reconsider the stated intention to double the amount of Super Rugby Trans-Tasman.
I’m not convinced that New Zealander Dave Rennie’s advocacy for week in, week out Super Rugby Trans-Tasman will deliver the right solution for Australian rugby’s woes. We effectively had that, from 1996-2019, and our game was dying because of it.
(Photo by Stu Forster/Getty Images)
Let’s not forget we tried week in week out Super Rugby already. It didn’t work.
However, from a high performance perspective we do need to find a higher level of competition, I understand the requirement.
In the long run though, wouldn’t it be great if that high level of competition could be achieved domestically, so there isn’t a huge mismatch when we start playing international competitions. Shouldn’t this be our goal?
So, where to for our domestic rugby?
At the beginning of 2020 RA had no intention of retaining Super Rugby AU beyond the pandemic. Now, the marketplace has spoken, and some format of Super Rugby AU will be retained long term. RA has got the message. Finally. And Brad Thorn is among those calling for a revival of NRC. I see merit in that too.
If we step back from the details of any domestic competition, we are probably all in agreement that Aussie rugby would benefit from strong domestic national rugby competitions at some level or other?
If so, RA could adopt some agile thinking, and make incremental changes each year to work towards getting the ideal national competitions set up, to strengthen our domestic play, whatever level these national competitions are played at: schools, clubs, NRC districts, or states and territories.
As an example of incremental improvement, in 2022, in line with the evidence of what works, RA could increase the amount of Super Rugby AU played by going up to six teams (adding Fijian Drua or Western Sydney or NSW Country or another team). That would deliver three games each weekend – great for TV. And if we introduce a four-team finals series, there will still be plenty of time for a high performance calibration, be it Super Rugby Trans-Tasman or a champions tournament.
Where to for Super Rugby Trans-Tasman?
Doubling the amount of Super Rugby Trans-Tasman games in 2022, and having only one final match again, is a mistake because we increase the risk our game will become demoralised by suffering defeats for months on end, and have no Aussie team play in the final, again.
As a result, it’s likely Aussie fans could opt to watch league or AFL to get their fill of Australian sporting victory, thus undermining RA’s long-term financial proposition. However, there are alternate tournament formats worth exploring.
Recently, on social media, several Aussie fans have started to suggest a pools format for Super Rugby Trans-Tasman 2022.
Pools offer a good compromise – a middle ground – that reduces the potential for Australian rugby’s positivity to be beaten down again.
Let’s say, with the addition of Drua and Moana Pasifika, there are 12 teams in next year’s Super Rugby Trans-Tasman. Consider the options of four pools of three, or two pools of six, with home-and-away played in each pool.
Pool play could keep every stakeholder reasonably happy in 2022, including the players and coaches who want more opportunities to calibrate their performances against New Zealand opposition, without committing to doubling the amount of games, and risking months of heartache for supporters and cancelled Stan subscriptions.
A Super Rugby Trans-Tasman pools format is more likely to keep the ratings up and the broadcasters happy.
(Photo by Dave Rowland/Getty Images)
If the format is successful, in subsequent years, you could increase to 16 teams with the addition of Japanese clubs, or others, and options for four pools of four, or two pools of eight.
Either way, I advocate for an eight-team Super Rugby Trans-Tasman finals series next year rather than a two-team final like we have this year. Why?
It’s important for Aussie fans and players to experience the intensity of sudden death rugby as we build towards the World Cup. Having a one-game final in Super Rugby Trans-Tasman is not good. It doesn’t deliver Australian rugby players the exposure they need to sudden death footy.
The New Zealanders don’t like scheduling finals for some unknown reason. What is wrong with them?
In the first year of Super Rugby Aotearoa, 2020, they didn’t even have a final, whereas Super Rugby AU has had two finals matches. NZ reluctantly added one final to Super Rugby Aotearoa this year, and there’s only one final in Super Rugby Trans-Tasman.
Let’s not kowtow to the New Zealanders’ desires. Let’s control what we can by increasing to a four-team finals series for Super Rugby AU and pressure the New Zealanders to increase the number of finals matches played in Super Rugby Trans-Tasman 2022 to include eight teams.
It will keep Australian interest in the tournament alive longer too.
If you haven’t noticed already, the pools and eight-team finals series idea is a mini-World Cup format.
The enormous success of the Rugby World Cup delivers us a proven tournament format, which we could replicate, if we want to. No one is stopping us.
If I am a broadcaster, I want a high ratio of sudden death finals games to round robin too, like the World Cup, because knock-out finals make great TV viewing.
And in terms of high-performance, what better way to prepare our players for the World Cup than by replicating the tournament format in our regional competitions?
How about it?
twodogs
Roar Rookie
Good attempt to try and use ad hominem to support your argument, its always a sign of those who have good intentions. Your argument is so simplistic even a child can see through it, because it goes against the very nature of having ranking systems and different grades within sport. If someone was dumb enough to think you are right they would believe the 4th grade team would overall improve by being dropped in the first grade competition. Fortunately reality, and your perception of it, are two different things us.
twodogs
Roar Rookie
I played Colts rugby for Melbourne Uni. I was a bench warmer for the backline and played as 15/10 for our Reserves team. As we had the only reserves team in the league, we played our Reserves alongside the main Colts team. So week in, week out, we got battered, bruised & dominated. I would then play off the bench for the firsts team. That was a difficult season and by the end of it I had had enough, I was tired of going into every game knowing the result. And the wins we did get, incredibly rare, came at a huge cost physically and mentally. Also, your inability to look at the performance indicators and data from the last 4 years of SR from Australian teams isn't my problem, because you obviously haven't or are intentionally ignoring my point. Anyone who looks at those results and sees "gradual improvement" has a few roo's loose in the top paddock. So mate, I have both personal experience playing a grade up and I have the data from SR to back up my argument. You have nothing but wax between your ears.
Waxhead
Roar Rookie
@twodogs What evidence do you have that they didn't. The last time Aust only played NZ in Tests was back in the 1980s and we were ranked out of top 10 in world then. Tonga even beat WB's in those days. And I repeat.... If you had any sporting career yourself you should have learned that the best and fastest way to improve in any sport is to compete against those better than yourself. It's only people that never had any significant sporting career themselves who are suggesting the isolation policy now. The rest of us learnt the lesson very early in our careers :thumbup:
Micko
Roar Rookie
Don't you mean like the AFL Piru? :silly:
Micko
Roar Rookie
twodogs Australia will have to build a proper pro comp on it's own. NZR will rather cut off it's nose to spite it's own face rather than show some pragmatism. They will never accept an actual pro comp where teams can recruit anyone they want. This current format was always a dead end, but one that was useful to get the ball rolling for professionalism. It was always going to reach a use by date, which for me was after a dozen years or so (so late 2000's). Migrants from NZ (like the ones you've spoken to) have a vested interest in the current protectionist format, as it means they get to see rugby players and sides from NZ in Australia frequently. This is good for them, but will never be the right situation for Australia, unless a fully open comp is agreed to.
Micko
Roar Rookie
You're welcome.
piru
Roar Rookie
Great contribution, thanks
Loosehead Greg
Roar Rookie
Yeah. Usually, the person who resorts to name calling - playing the man instead of the ball - does so because they are losing the argument. And that is the case here.
Micko
Roar Rookie
Only kiwis say this nonsense of "hiding". Kiwi migrants don't want what's best for rugby union in Australia, they want what's best for themselves!
piru
Roar Rookie
I've always liked the idea of treating super rugby as one big comp with a draft a'la the NFL , but it would mean RA and NZRFU getting along and working together, whether that's feasible I don't know. Players retain national eligibility as long as they are playing within the ANZAC (for lack of a better word) comp.
twodogs
Roar Rookie
To be honest Piru I’m not 100% sure yet. I would personally love an open competition and draft that mixed kiwi and Aussie players. I don’t believe it’s possible but it would be a great product to watch. I think the current split, or something along the lines of 70% domestic and 30% TT is good. Except we should send our top 3 teams to play their top 3 and our bottom 2 play their bottom 2. However, once again, I’m not saying a pure TT competition couldn’t work and I’d be happy to be proved wrong on this one. I just don’t think we have the ability to compete effectively week in week out against the Kiwis, and believe it’s trying to run before we can walk to a certain extent. Edit: or maybe 60% domestic 40% TT
piru
Roar Rookie
So what do you reckon is the answer? Not play NZ super teams at all, play them less or play them only at certain times, for example?
twodogs
Roar Rookie
Yes I am saying we didn’t get better, results were poor and the data shows no statistical improvement in both performance and revenue. Once again, to repeat, I am not arguing to “shield” rather that I don’t understand how we can expect to see different results by doing more of the same, particularly when we have all this evidence to point too. Correlation is not causation, but following that model we saw a distinct correlation in diminishing returns.
piru
Roar Rookie
"please explain to me why didn’t we get better from SR in 2015-2019? Results just don’t stack up with your argument" Are you saying we didn't get better, or didn't get better results? There's a difference. If Australia had been shielded from competition with the NZ teams over this period of time, would they have stayed competitive at national level or completely fallen away? I'm not making an argument, I simply stated my opinion, you don't have to agree.
twodogs
Roar Rookie
Where did I say that we shouldn’t play the Kiwis at all and “hide” from them? What I am asking for is balance. Something that has been sorely missed. Based on your contention, please explain to me why didn’t we get better from SR in 2015-2019? Results just don’t stack up with your argument.
Wokester
Guest
What Australia should do is create their own league of union and just buy in the Kiwi, Pacific or Argentine talent to pad out the teams. I would just get the most followed club teams, maybe invite old disgruntled NRL clubs to 'rejoin' the fold. Wouldn't it be something to see Newtown, North Sydney Bears, and have them playing some well followed clubs from the other parts of Sydney. Then add a few Brisbane clubs, and Canberra, Melbourne and I suppose Perth(while they have that rich joker supporting them.)
piru
Roar Rookie
Those who honestly believed we would be able to compete with NZ and win 50% of games after our domestic comp must have a very, very short memory. These issues existed before the domestic comp, they didn’t come about because of it. Not arguing with that at all, but you don't get better hiding from superior competition
twodogs
Roar Rookie
Piru, we lost to Kiwi and Saffa teams for 5 years straight and knew exactly where we were. I noticed a very small improvement before Couf hit, but we should be under no illusions as to where Australian Rugby is. Those who honestly believed we would be able to compete with NZ and win 50% of games after our domestic comp must have a very, very short memory. These issues existed before the domestic comp, they didn't come about because of it.
twodogs
Roar Rookie
" Aussie may have more people but it really doesnt have more Rugby Fans. " I never said it did. I said there is much more potential for growth in the Aussie Market than the Kiwi Market. " SRAus may have been a “success” for one year, but that was more due to novelty factor" - that's a big statement to make with little to no extrapolation as to why you believe that to be the case. "It is clearly has less entertainment factor than the NRL and AFL. And will soon be seen for the third rate comp it is" Is that why for the first time in 5 years Rugby Union in Aus had relative commercial success, put bums on seats and actually improved interest in Union within the domestic sporting market? The numbers speak for themselves mate, just because you fail to do your research doesn't mean my point is invalid. As to every single other question you listed below - such as this gem "Then what happens when RA cant compete with overseas money for their best players? " - And this little beauty "Internationals will have to be played exclusively with overseas talent" (get out from whatever rock you are hiding under, this is already happening and being debated hotly at the moment regarding Giteau's law and SA overseas players selection) All of your hypotheticals are ALREADY happening under this system. You just listed off every single negative outcome that we saw due to the failed previous competition that was Super Rugby and then attributed it to a future competition with little to no evidence, data or even argument to back up your claims. Also, listing rhetorical questions one after another is not an effective way to have a good faith debate about a particular topic. I suggest researching the Socratic method for next time. Appreciate your input.
It cant pay for anything in Aus Micko but NZ and SA have managed to keep their equivilent going under the same revenue streams... Yes it needs some significant investment but its crucial to a better quality top 150 players for the 5 SR teams. Ra needs it done.