Retract or expand: Where to for rugby in Australia?

Yeah it was Micko Realised how little we could trust those d^&s in the East to do the right thing.

Why couldn't the local competition be played before (maybe some during) the Super Rugby and then have those teams to pick players for the 3 sides to participate in the Super Rugby competition. From someone looking from the outside, wouldn't this help improve the Wallabies? For example Queensland teams in the NRC used to pick the Reds, NSW shute shield for the Waratahs, the rest for the Brumbies? Competition for places above would help drive the improvement, wouldn't it?

I agree that there are multiple factors at play, however I think some are more influential than others. Certainly the 70s saw things like the NCC instituted and alignment with the AIS which gave promising juniors scholarships. But go and look at the number of games QLD played every year from about 1974 onwards. They even toured to Europe which was rarely done by provincial teams back then.

I reckon Newcastle and the Gold Coast should be the next two. Big population centres outside of capital cities.

Decreasing teams is the worst thing that could happen, a major backwards step. Expansion is the only way. We need to develop more players and develop more interest in rugby through our own national comp to stop the NRL poaching our talent.

Ok, fair enough. I think the Wales example is good although they made more than just this change. Argentina went from a top 20 team with flashes of brilliance to a top 10 team due to the Jaguars I agree. But the main thing was that all of their best players were overseas and they struggled to get them together for proper test preparation previously and at least now they have a core of professionals at home playing together. I think the big thing is that in the 6 nations their players may be playing for foreign clubs but they are often in the same competition which means they play the same style etc. I think the big issue for Australia is that the players would be in a different hemisphere, competition etc and would be playing a different style. They may also not be made available by their clubs so an added complexity. I don't think having less professional teams in Aus really ties into the argument that doing way with the Giteau rule and having overseas players in the Wallabies necessarily ties directly into the "less is more" argument although there could be some linkages.

Let me lay down my marker, & I don't care what some bloke's or some company's data says, I use my practical common sense - we have 5 national provinces & we hang onto them for dear life. If that's 5 guys bobbing up & down in the ocean after being thrown off their yacht in a violent storm, they either survive together or die together. That's the covenant. That's the deal. We don't contract. We don't diminish. We hold at 5 & hopefully expand at some time in the future. The problem(s) is what is happening beneath the surface, below the 5 provinces. It is here a united effort is required. Again, it's not rocket science. It's called putting the national interest before any individual interest. If you're not going to part of the solution, then p*ss off!

Which is why he drove constitutional change when he came back from soccer, might even have been a condition. However the changes only acted to centralise complete power within the board. It is virtually unaccountable to anyone, with McLennan's comments on constitutional changes required designed to make that 100% control and ZERO accountability to anybody. Of course JON also drove the fiction that the need for independent directors in listed companies meant that RA board should have independent director, without rugby ties. By dumbing down the Board he would increase the influence and power of a knowledgeable rugby executive group. Of course Hawker outmanoeuvred him and we were able to eventually have both executive and board with little rugby acumen.

I don't think you have nailed the cause and effects. The problem is in administration and the lack of investment in coaching and development. That was the big change in the 70s, I don't remember anything about longer seasons.

I disagree Micko, I think it is a very important development comp. Sorry, should be. If rugby is serious about maintaining the status of the Wallabies as a top 10 team then we do need a 2nd and 3rd tier above the Sydney and Brisbane competitions. Expanding SR AU to say 8 teams, along the lines of many suggestions, merely dilutes the level of quality and drops it closer to club rugby, while widening the already significant gap with test rugby. How it was done is nuts. Is/was? I have no doubt that any NRC would be done exactly the same way again. Who knows whether it is viable commercially, but establishing and promoting the way they did was never going to get bums on seats or any meaningful revenue in the till.

Australian rugby got better when Queensland and NSW started to play longer seasons in the 1970s and became more competitive. Wallabies were at their peak when they had two teams, were able to hold their position when they had a third and then got progressively worse by the expansion to four and then five teams. On the flip side, a country like Wales went the other way and struggled for a long time, especially at the start of professionalism before they switched from 9 to 4 teams in 2004. Wales then wins a Grand Slam and have been competitive ever since. Not World Champions but far more competitive than they used to be. England have players split between up to 13 clubs but still get beaten by Ireland who have players from 4. Argentina had many players in Europe before they created the Jaguares and were able to build the combinations that would then transfer up into the Pumas. Check the makeup of the team that beat the All Blacks last year. Soccer has other examples, especially with the Germans. Not saying that a reduction in teams won't upset many but you will see an increase in performance at the top level.

Ofc shrinking to success is a way to go..

Agree. The Darwin cohesion argument does not suit Italy's context, for example. Two fully professional teams , Zebre and Bennetton/Treviso, puling the best players from the 10 (I think) competition below. Plenty of 'cohesion' in Italian side with virtually all players from 2 teams but without talent, not successful.

There is a lot of evidence across rugby union and other sports that contradict you. And what evidence might that be? Care to share?

“poaching”? </strong Gus and others has just been making up his complaints of teams abandoning development in favor of poaching, obviously cheaper and easier? strive to be open and even Is that the story of Melbourne Storm or is it one of salary breaches and implications of a corrupt league putting economic development/return ahead of honesty and legitimacy.

Yep, a pointless development comp with no meaning except to just exist, is never going to win hearts & minds. The ARC should've been the replacement for the super rugby comp, which was always going to lose popularity after the novelty value wore off, and the ridiculous geography and timezones wore thin.

Rugby union isn't really that prominent internationally. Only England, France & Japan have high level club pro comps. Australia, NZ & South Africa made a unified top down comp which was always going to lose it's novelty value and popularity. The other miscellaneous Six Nations participants had to unite with a top down comp just to maintain a pro comp. Argentina needed to be in Sanzar to get a pro franchise based there. So hardly a doyen of international sport!

The answer is pretty straight forward - it’s time for aus rugby to grow up. A 7 or 8 team comp might be hard to finance but it is without a shadow of a doubt the way to go in terms of growing the game in aus. The reality is that it would hurt the standard of aus rugby at least for the first few years. Make them club teams rather than theoretical state sides - set a salary cap and have maybe 30/45 marquee and development players from around the world and focus on building local community connections, making the match days fan friendly with a focus on community and recognise and feed the grass roots. The key is that it has be a competition that talks to Aussies outside of rugby’s heartlands - you have to open the doors and welcome people the family. That’s really the only true way forward.

The NRL has it’s faults (like most comps) but is generally a great competition. And “poaching”? It’s an open comp with a salary cap. The AFL & NRL are successful not only because of history and tribalism, but because they strive to be open and even. In a decade you’ll get a wide variety of clubs competing at the top. And the next decade you’ll see new clubs emerge to push for glory. Melbourne is currently on top of the AFL Ladder, and haven’t finished minor premiers, or won a premiership since 1964! :shocked: It’s been over 20 years since they’ve even contested a GF! And Melbourne have turned things around after being a basketcase from the mid 2000’s till the late 2010’s, when they weren’t even making the Finals!

I've always liked most sports and been a sucker for tribalism and history. So actually watching a historic comp with the tribalism attached was more interesting to me. I always make sure to find out who wins the Shute Shield each year too. I've actually been pretty consistent in this attitude, and expressing it.