This article is in response to the recent article by Brett McKay highlighting calls by various coaches and personalities to bring back the NRC.
Apart from the obvious fact Rugby Australia doesn’t have the money to reprise the NRC – or ARC, for that matter – I’ve always disputed its legitimacy on the grounds it duplicated unnecessary resources.
Southern hemisphere rugby, including Australian rugby, took a wrong turn back in 1995. Everything they’ve done since has created extra expenses, required extra funds, which in turn meant seeking out extra, impractical revenue streams that were unnecessary.
How for example, is it a victory for South African Super Rugby teams to move offshore to Europe, to be soon followed presumedly by the Springboks?
Back in 1995 the southern hemisphere had a structural set-up that was close to perfect. What it required was fleshing out and building upon the solid footings and foundations already long established, not displacing them, as occurred when the game went professional in 1996.
New Zealand had its NPC divided into several divisions. South Africa likewise had its Currie Cup divided into several divisions. Even the staunchly amateur Argentina had a similar set-up, with its 16 provinces divided into two divisions.
Australia of course was the weak link. It had only two provinces of note: New South Wales Queensland. But there was room for future growth with long-established minor provinces such as ACT, Victoria, Western Australia, South Australia, NSW Country and Queensland Country.
Down the track NSW Country could have been embedded in Newcastle and created the new province of Eastern Australia. Similarly, Queensland Country could have been embedded in Townsville to create North Queensland. In the embryonic years of the game, before the union-league split of 1907, these two regions produced plenty of Wallabies.
When professionalism came, each of the southern hemisphere nations – New Zealand, South Africa, Argentina and Australia – should have been encouraged to form an eight-team national competition.
The three first-named nations could have done this relatively quickly, with Australia perhaps starting with six teams and building towards eight teams. The Super 10 of 1993-95 was effectively a Champions Cup and should have remained so. In 1996 it could have been expanded to 12 teams, three per nation, and contested after the respective national tournaments.
The season would have unfolded as follows: an eight-team competition of home-and-away games totalling 14 matches plus a final four. This would have meant a season of 14 to 16 matches per team.
The top three teams from each country would then contest the Super 12 – four pools of three teams. This would be quickly over with each team playing two to four matches. Meanwhile, the remaining teams in the various national competitions could conduct a knockout style tournament involving no more than four matches for the finalists.
Consequently each team in each country would play between 16 and 20 matches, which is plenty for a first-class-style season. Add a preseason of three to four matches and combine that with ten to 12 Tests per nation, and the season is pretty much full.
Finally, the Rugby Championship was a great addition to the annual season.
I would have loved, for example, watching the Wallabies, All Blacks, Springboks and Pumas circa 1985 being guided around the park by their champion number-10s in Mark Ella (then Mike Lynagh), Wayne Smith (then Grant Fox), Naas Botha and Hugo Porta.
The various national competitions would have worked like the Sheffield Shield in its heyday, with established stars, young up-and-comers and still-performing veterans all in the same team, the experienced mentoring the newcomers and testing the same in the opposition.
In Australia the depth would have been initially weak, but as the national competition gained traction, hopefully this problem would have been rectified.
But sadly none of this happened. It is a little-known fact that in 1996 the working title for Super 12 was the IPC – International Provincial Championship. In other words, it was supposed to work exactly the same as the Super 10 of 1993-95.
The Kiwis were first to blink. Instead of staring down the minor provinces and stating that the top eight provinces should come from the eight biggest geographical regions, they rolled over and created five artificial franchises.
The Saffies held the line for several seasons, but by 1999 they also buckled and created four, then five and later six artificial franchises. However, unlike New Zealand, the South African franchises in most cases didn’t pretend to be very different from their major provinces.
(Photo by Kai Schwoerer/Getty Images)
Australia of course didn’t have to worry about these trivialities. It quite proudly created – or rebranded – the ACT, giving it three provinces. But eventually it had another problem. While New Zealand and South Africa had their national tournaments to fall back on as a mid-tier competition, Australia had no such thing.
While once upon a time the Sydney Shute Shield and Brisbane Hospital Cup might have done the job of producing future Wallabies, the caravan had moved on since leading players were almost never seen in district club rugby. So those players plying their trade in these competitions were not getting the development they needed.
Consequently, the then Rugby AU introduced the ARC in 2007 and the NRC in 2014-19. Both competitionss have struggled with poorly conceptualised teams, financial blowouts and a lack of support. Duplication of resources hasn’t helped the financial bottom line.
Over at SANZAAR, things just went from crazy to crazier. While introducing an Argentine team was absolutely necessary to complement the Pumas, the introduction of a Japanese team was pie-in-the-sky stuff. Meanwhile, the Saffies failed to stare down their government and advise them clearly there was no place for a sixth franchise.
Super Rugby never really gained traction once the initial novelty wore off. Playing offshore is the job of national teams, not domestic provincial teams. Playing in South Africa in the middle of the night put the game out of sight, out of mind.
If you really want a national competition, what you want is a version of the NRL or AFL. Fans want to see their best homegrown teams with their best homegrown talent playing on home grounds at home-friendly times.
Andy Marinos, the former chief executive of SANZAAR, now finds himself leading Australian rugby. It’s beyond my comprehension that there were no suitable alternatives found – Marinos is quoted in McKay’s article as one of those lamenting the loss of the NRC.
But Marinos is just one in a very long line of administrators who have continually got it more wrong than right since 1996. Funny – the suits back then were warning us that professionalism would destroy the very ethos of rugby.
Yet many of those same suits couldn’t get their snouts in the money trough quickly enough. They eyed more broadcast money than they had ever seen before, and they completely lost their heads. Led by the pied pipers at News – who had their own, different agenda – they took the game down the wrong path.
And now, a quarter of a century later, southern hemisphere rugby is effectively stuffed.
Emery Ambrose
Roar Rookie
I think it would be a lot different if it was still super12. The expansion killed it. It was an amazing competition and if we were at 25 years of super 12 now ,the following, tv rights, sponsorship would have been huge. we probably would have stopped the players leaving for the NH and would have a second tier of B teams to accommodate players.
Yandao Angmoh
Guest
So moving from a model of only having locked in behind a paywall to partly behind a paywall with one FTA game per week is a backward step on availability? And the new young blood that came from Aust Schoolboys and didnt go to league - that is also Raylene. But lets blame her for everything bad that has happened over decades and credit the good to some bloke in a suit
gatesy
Roar Guru
Wow, Sheek, what a great stream of consciousness post that was. I can't decide whether it should not have been termed "through the looking glass, darkly" or "the demise of the rose coloured glasses", but it was written largely, I suspect with the benefit of hindsight and a fair degree of wistfulness. As they say, "hindsight is 20-20 vision". You are probably right on the money, in retrospect, but who could have picked it at the time? One of the wonderful and, at the same time, bewildering thing about our beautiful game is the Guiness Book of Records staggering number of "stakeholders" that our game has and the number of opinions that are aired daily. I haven't seen you on here, much, lately, so this must have ignited, either your passion or your frustration. Anyway, years ago, we agreed that we needed to meet up for a drink and we still haven't.
NH Fan
Guest
Not asking you to aim low just to let your enemy develop. If Oz teams can play by themselves and NZ play by themselves there will be things they focus on and become good at. When the teams meet in a couple of games a year they will then be forced to improve in those areas. Europe has three leagues. The French are physical monsters, the English are set piece focused and the Pro14 is breakdown. In the early days you could be really good at one and win. In the last 10 years you have had to be good at all three to win the Champions Cup as each of the top teams have had to improve in the other areas. This in turn has forced the leagues to improve to keep up to the top teams in the domestic leagues who became more rounded. Japan had no oil so were always on the back foot to the US. If there is a TT and not a Champions Cup then you won't be able to bring the best parts of the Oz, NZ and Japan games together. Problem with Super Rugby was it was a morph of SA, NZ and Oz but didn't allow them to keep their strengths but all moved closer to each other, SA ran more NZ and Oz more phyisical. Bulls carried on the standards of Cheetahs and Kings where the Pro12 teams were stronger and better defenders but SA teams better runners (though that's debatable as the cheetahs moved the Pro12 teams to deal better with runners and Benetton themselves ran well) TT is not going to fix the problems but just make both countries less defensively minded.
Chris
Guest
Within reasonable parameters that could have worked, but the problem is that "maximum profits" look different is SA than it does in Aus. Long term SA can't have a system with only 4 or five pro teams in the big centre's (both from a rugby and financial point of view), but the total market is large enough to support more teams at Super Rugby standard. To balance those needs we need Currie Cup level competition, but as there are only so many weeks in a season that limits how many weeks can go into a Super Rugby competition. Due to population distribution and tradition Aus is also limited in how many teams it can support at super rugby level, but without a Currie Cup, they need to run Super Rugby longer. And though I really don't want criticise the Aus position, but something to keep in mind as they negotiate trans tasman - it is a basic issue with a longer competition in rugby is that it is not a sport that really lends itself to upsets and changes in form over a season; the better team will almost always win in rugby (unlike say soccer). So 8 games into a 18 game season it is already clear which team are fighting to win the comp and who are only looking to survive. I don't know enough (anything about NRL to know how they deal with.
Pickett
Roar Rookie
Personally, I prefer the geographical names - Wellington, Otago, Transvaal, Natal...maybe I’m just an old f*rt.
ScottD
Roar Guru
No problem
LBJ
Roar Rookie
Apologies - i didnt intend to offend. Cheers.
Ken Catchpole's Other Leg
Roar Guru
Wal, I’ve even heard of subbies clubs paying players.
Danny McGowan
Roar Rookie
Yep I know that, but then I not really too dumb, and anyone who struggles to work out where Hurricanes etc come from, oerhaps not the brightest sparks in the world.
Wal
Roar Guru
+1 Massive missed opportunity in 1996 could have been leaving the City comps (Shute Shield etc) amateur and creating a professional national competition above it. Rugby would still have Western Sydney/Brisbane/Gold Coast clubs that could partner with local schools that tap into the expat/2nd generation Polynesian community. Feeding into then outer suburb professional NRC teams Players like Viliame Kikau, Akuila Uate, Marika Koroibete, all had Rugby Union backgrounds in Fiji before emigrating to Australia, but naturally gravitated to league to due lack Union being imbedded in the clubs and schools in the outer suburbs they moved to
stillmissit
Roar Guru
Pete, that is pretty much what the clubs have been pushing for recently, having lost the argument against SR years ago. It would clear the runway into SR and I understand that part of the plan is to abandon the academies.
stillmissit
Roar Guru
NH, I disagree, rugby is a substitute war and if you are only fighting your neighbours and a US warship turns up, then those battles with your neighbour will offer you zero protection, just ask the Japanese from the 1800s. You have to aim high and your suggestion is that we aim low. No Thanks!
NH Fan
Guest
If Super Rugby had been the cream of the crop from the 3 Nations a couple of things would have happened. NZ The rich Unions based around the larger urban areas. They would have formed a smaller top level domestic and provided opportunities to stay home at home instead of only having 4-5 teams and everyone else having to hit up one 60 clubs in Europe. Oz Like Ireland they would have started off with Regional teams and then improved their domestic setup. SA Once they scraped the top of the Currie Cup going into Super Rugby there just wasn't enough places in the 4 squads even though they had the money so players went North. SR all started falling apart when the 3 Unions discovered they needed more teams to keep hold of players and had the money. Each team resulted in the alliance breaking bit by bit. URC was just formed, the English and French don't care the league gets 8 spots for the Champions Cup. England is going to 14 teams, the other leagues don't care they still only get 8 spots.
NH Fan
Guest
While NZ is currently leading the TT they are still benefiting from having their own structures and then also playing the Oz teams. You can be sure if they had their own leagues the the Oz teams would work on things (like fitness as they seemed to tire) and come up with their own things to make the gap smaller, you would also find there would be things that the Oz teams would do better. If they go with a TT SR all in then the 5 Oz teams turn their focus to not losing and so they never get a chance to develop away from the media and will not improve as quickly as they would being to be able to try things. Another issue for Oz (Not so much NZ) is adding in new teams. SR failed for many reasons and one was the animosity each Union had for teams added by other Unions and that extra team was used as a club with which to beat said unions. If Oz wanted to add in 1-3 weaker teams into their league there would be no issue. Those teams could be rubbish and develop over time. The current 5 teams would play B teams against them and young players wanting game time would move there. With TT that will never happen as NZ isn't going to allow Oz have more teams than them and they would be battered by NZ teams just to prove how rubbish they are. NZ rugby teams will only be as strong as the competitions they play. The Pro12 improved physically against the bigger English and French teams by learning to develop gameplans to negate the bigger teams. If TT has 12 teams who only play fast running rugby where will the players learn gameplans to tackle bigger teams at international (One of the problems NZ coaches have in NH with weaker teams). NZ and OZ leagues would naturally develop different styles, the TT will not. It's why a Bulls team got beat by Benetton because the SA SR teams learned to run more but didn't improve their physicality as they will playing French Packs (like all their Euro based players). NZ players learning to be referred by Oz refs that are a little different is also a benefit.
AndyS
Guest
TBH, organic in Australian rugby has usually meant no assistance to grow other that a liberal application of s^&*. :silly:
NH Fan
Guest
In part yes in part no. Teams Like Exeter and Leicester are self funded and the Irish and Scots are union funded like SH. If a SR team plays 8 home game and a NH team plays 13-16 of course they can afford better players. Add in most NH teams own their stadium so bring in other income. 15k fans at €20 is 300k extra per match.
NH Fan
Guest
Before yes, not so much now. Who was the last SH coach to make it big in the North. Back 10 years a getting a SH coach or star player was massive. Now they don't seem to make much difference at the top end. Leinster, Sarries and Exeter don't exactly have any great SH players. Leinster and Sarries have Irish Coaches. Exeter has an English Coach. Most of the French are French. Add in coaches like Lam who failed in SH and came to the NH and got given a chance with Connacht and now building on it in Bristol, not sure how much SH rugby helped him as his style didn't work down south. Joe Smyth made his breakthrough in the NH. Take Dave Rennie who was great for about 17 games with Glasgow his first season and then collapsed because his players were tired and he forgot to use his squad. There is a reason SA and Oz have gone for coaches with NH experince as NZ did with their WC winners.
Ken Catchpole's Other Leg
Roar Guru
“ Super AU while not of the standard of Super Aotearoa had crowds and viewing audience on an upward trend for the first time in a decade. We’ve got to give the people what they want and it will grow organically.” Organic is the word, Jez, yes. But it has a few definitions. For some it means grassroots, which = Shute. For others it means amateur, which = oblivion. And for others it means finding the tribal flows in our code, and feeding them proactively.
Wayne
Roar Rookie
I hear you Chris. Maybe SANZAAR should be run by independent persons and strictly on a commercial basis that maximizes revenues. This way you take out everybody's personal preferences etc., and just run it for the most amount of money possible. The NFL in the USA is run on a for profit basis (and to hell with whatever peoples preferences are) and they make billions of $ with a much smaller supporter base than rugby has.