How a new NRC could help save rugby in Australia and what it could look like

JD Kiwi, TWAS is quite correct, content is king. TV rights is king. To get the big TV revenue you need to offer content - which means plenty of teams, players & damn it, money. You need money in order to get more money. Oz rugby stuffed. I don't know how they're ever going to come back. And fiddling around the edges won't produce better results. RA needs to pull the entire edifice down & start from scratch. They need to go to the high schools & primary schools & tell them: You need to trust us to rebuild the game from the ground up. Primary schools will be aligned with districts or zones, not their schools. As for high schools, all the GPS, CAS, AIS, etc needs to be dismantled & all schools (private & public) divided into suburban & regional zones. Private school home grounds will probably dominate as venues in the early years. A comp like the Waratah Shield should be resurrected. Forget all this stuff about creating a 3rd tier. Oz rugby's history & tradition is provincial. The national comp needs to be provincial, starting with 5 provinces & eventually expanding to 8 or 9. Beneath that, develop the district premier rugby comps. Club rugby has never evolved over 130 plus years. It will never be like the AFL or NRL clubs. Stop re-inventing the wheel. Work with what we have. Australian cricket, which has a true national footprint, has seen its Sheffield Shield teams double from 3 to 6 in 85 years (1892-1977) & no more since then. It could if it wanted to, create 3 more - ACT, EA (NNSW) & NQ. But cricket has its own problems, with red ball cricket (tests & 1st class) likely to disappear in the next 20 years. Of course I'm just dreaming. None of this will ever happen. Rugby union is destined for a boutique sport. Finally, keeping players in Oz & stopping them for deserting overseas is a horse already bolted. The game will have to live with that as soccer does, & find ways to survive as a consequence.

TWAS, I didn't comment on this article when it originally came out because I thought there was nothing to contribute. Just want to say I agree with just about everything you've said here. It's okay, I'm quite alright, I've been infected by a very healthy disease called Matilda-itis.

Sorry, I may have missed it somewhere along the way amongst all the other comments, but who's funding this competition? Without adequate funding, the best ideas will never get off the ground.

Yea pot meet kettle

What a load of condescending misrepresentation. I've had enough.

The roar isn’t ‘Australian after Australian’. I’ve built my perspective on this beyond more than a computer screen and again, I assure you that there is no shortage of people who are exposed to or embedded within our system who have a similar viewpoint. I haven’t ‘brushed aside the situation of Ireland in the URC’. You keep ignoring the point of the NHL comparison and it had nothing to do with player selections. Again (I’ve lost count how many times I’ve needed to refer back to this), it was to say that the locations of professional sporting teams around the globe doesn’t explicitly reflect where the supply of talent comes from. Do you understand that? But as you’re making it about international player selections, I’m well-aware of Ireland’s situation in the URC and I get that they share a similar approach to NZ. I’ve not questioned that or said anything to the contrary. It’s interesting you haven’t referred to one of the other URC partners like Wales who have also taken a very similar approach until recently. Or South Africa who are the current world champions and had 7 of the 23 on the podium in Tokyo who were plying their trade outside the republic. Or Argentina who’s strongest teams have been those with players spread around Europe including a famous win over the AB’s last year which came 2 years after their squad was effectively confined to the Jaguares. What you don’t seem to be grasping is that I understand rugby’s different and that some countries need to be. Yet again (another one I’ve lost count of how many times I’ve needed to say), I’m not advocating for unrestricted movement which is effectively the case for most professional leagues in most sports (not all) around the globe. I’m actually against our Giteau law because I want our stars playing in and adding value and interest to the league that we’re apart of to ensure that it’s as engaging as possible. But I’m not against our players playing in NZ if it’s reciprocated. While I wouldn’t take the more common (across professional sport) and globalised approach of countries like SA and Argentina, they show you can still achieve success in rugby with players playing outside of your system. What I find strange is you commenting on where I do and don’t comment. I’ve made time to engage with you here to attempt to get my point across and iron out some of your imaginative inferencing and misconceptions along the way (which still continue unfortunately). Reality is it’s taken more than enough of my time (as I’m sure would be your conclusion on reflection) and I don’t have a burning desire to dedicate additional time on the subject elsewhere. And on that point of overextended time and as we enter the weird territory of passing judgement on the articles people do and don’t comment on, this will actually be it for me. This is getting a tad repetitive and there’s only so many ways I can repackage points of argument for them to be understood. Thanks for a lively exchange of opinions and all the best.

Wow mate, I thought we'd finished... One point that I obviously didn't make clearly enough is that nobody (as far as I know) disrespects the excellent work that many people are putting in. Nobody is saying that "there is no form of structure and co-ordination." But when Australian after Australian is saying with a passion that overall the system isn't working I listen to them. This isn't a case of "kiwis blindly jamming their approach upon our landscape" this is Australian after Australian saying it. And it's not just a kiwi approach, it's what's working in Ireland now and it worked in Australia at a time when so many of your best players were defecting to league. I see now that Russ Tulloch has just joined in the chorus of passionate, knowledgeable Aussies either in or agreeing with Geoff's article and I find it strange that you spend so much time in our semi private discussion when all the action on the same subject is on other threads. Make your point to all those Australians, not just me. And finally in what I sincerely hope will be my last contribution to this discussion, you really do have a brass neck to claim that the NHL comparison is "apt" for New Zealand when you've brushed aside the situation of Ireland in the URC which is far more similar to New Zealand's. (Actually every 6N/SANZAAR rugby playing country with more than two clubs in the big four leagues either doesn't select from overseas or didn't until they felt they had to because of their players who were overseas.) And when you keep on saying how unique Australia's landscape is.

I meant that they prepared professionally and at the time they drew on a lot of the league structures that were in place so we got the jump on everyone at the start of the pro era this quickly dissipated when the rest of the world caught up on us and we stayed stagnant because of a lack of leadership and governance from the likes of O’Neill and his cohort, bankers don’t make good builders and neither do marketing men like our new guy Hame who just want the next sugar hit.

‘I wish you’d made these points earlier on!’ Just a reminder, this thread was sparked by an apt comparison with the NHL. Just to clarify also; I’m not talking to or working alongside ‘grassroots volunteers’. They’re paid professionals that work across a number of different platforms of the game here (clubs, schools, state and national). To say there is no form of structure or coordination between these stakeholders isn’t accurate in my experience and from my understanding. For instance I have a friend who is the DoR at one of Queensland’s Premier Rugby clubs which is a paid position as most are these days. I know how much time he and his counterparts have spent with Queensland Rugby and how frequent the contact is with its high performance unit. I see first hand the work that Paul Carozza and his team is doing with the Academies and the level of contact they have with schools that represent our rugby nurseries and other school-based talent identification pathways. This includes the QRU working closely with and upskilling school coaches (including funding accreditation courses for teachers). Again, it’s not perfect and there are challenges associated with this part of the game, but I can assure you that there is structured and coordinated strategy underneath what is observed at the face of the game and it involves pushing the pool of talent up by supporting coaches and establishing lines of collaboration between them. Finally, there is no expectation for NZ to do anything. NZR is it’s own independent union and in control of their own destiny- they can and should do what is best for their own interests just as we should. Not taking that approach has cost us dearly in the past. But because our interests are somewhat intertwined there has to be a dialogue and it’s being a bit precious to infer that Australia has no right to put forward what it would like from its partner and work towards a position that benefits both stakeholders. The idea of more free player movement (not completely unrestricted) seems to be gaining at least some traction in some factions across the ditch as a result. On reflection I hope you understand why Aussies might get a bit riled up by Kiwis blindly jamming their approach upon our landscape that could not be more foreign to their own. We know your approach has produced some outstanding outcomes for your game but we have complexities on our landscape that don’t apply on yours. I apologise again, I’ve done as I said I wouldn’t and take this to the length of a test.

How so? Most players (save for a few like Campo) were working day jobs while still playing. How do you quantify it otherwise when no one was professionally contracted till end of 95?

Could it be that the Wallabies were the most professional team in the Amateur era ( thinking 1980 - 95 ) then slowly descended to the most Amateurish since Rugby became Professional? I reckon that’s a thing ?

Forget the Murdoch press Ken that gate is closed probably forever. Who cares anyway it’s just back up sh1t paper . I’m also concerned about your requirement for tribalism in a new National competition, it’s gonna be extremely difficult as all that exists in the local Suburban clubs . Why not have an Australian Club championship with the best placed clubs who are able to recruit a fixed amount of players say 4 of 5 to augment their teams ( maybe a caveat on these players in terms of eligibility- age , geography etc ) Not sure how to work the non City regions in , our Rugby ‘geography’ is way different/problematic to say NZ or Ireland.

I wish you'd made these points earlier on! I agree that we have talked for long enough so I won't debate any of that post, just make a couple of clarifications. The people I'm talking about don't blame individual coaches, whether Rennie, Coleman or some grassroots volunteer working his heart out. Especially not the latter. And finally I hope that on reflection you can understand why Kiwis might get testy when we are being expected to give up control of the players that we rely on and invested heavily in to develop. All to rectify problems that we don't think we caused, and most of the Aussies we respect and talk to believe were self inflicted.

I’m directly exposed to the pathway through an element of my work and I work alongside people that are embedded in it through the work that the state and national bodies do. I can assure you that for every person you can find that believes a lack of coaching structure is the principle issue facing Australian Rugby, I can find you someone that says it’s issues around junior retention and engagement that has got the game where it is here. When results aren’t going the way you’d hope it’s always the coaches fault and results haven’t been going our way for a while now. I’m not saying there’s not improvements to be made (that applies to every facet of the game here) but blaming our woes on coaches and the structures that surround them is an easy way to attribute our problems to something tangible. Anyway, we’re at the end of day 4- I’m happy to park it there. Apologies for some edgy replies.

You can be as condescending as you like towards me (borderline comical, pixie dust etc) but my opinions are based on what people involved in Australia have said. My own mates who are involved in Aussie rugby, all the people MDiddy spoke to for his documentary and podcasts, Ben Darwin who has played for the Wallabies and done a ton of research and analysis, Steve Anderson the Aussie who masterminded the Irish structures, all the people Geoff spoke to for his article today, all the Aussie Roarers commenting on Geoff's article. They all make clear that Australia doesn't have anything like the quality of development for players and coaches as it did thirty years ago. But what do all those people know?

Again, you’re inferencing and putting words into my mouth. Where am I advocating for a ‘2nd rate club comp’? You’re also not listening because I’ve actually been advocating for policy that increases the quality of the product. Im sorry but you clearly have no understanding of the Australian landscape. Your example is from a by-gone era and a vastly different landscape where although rugby was still entrenched in amateurish, the AFL/VFL and NRL/NSWRL might as well have been. The only reason they technically weren’t was because their club pokies (NSWRL) generated some revenue to pay players a few peanuts. They were absolute shadows of the beasts that they now are. The same rugby pathway structures still effectively exist today, it’s just that they’ve gone from being exclusive nurseries for rugby talent to being raided by league to now things are so dire, league clubs will actively put kids into traditional rugby schools (forget scholarships, they will pay their school fees) because they recognise the value of the pathway and then pluck them out when they’ve finished year 12. While the All Blacks capture the imagination of most young Kiwis, the Wallabies do not while they are competing with the NRL (and AFL) behemoths that soak up the majority of the public attention and youth admiration. Even if that dynamic was in play (and it probably could have been to some degree when the true impact of professional sporting products was yet to be uncovered), it does not provide a foundation to build a sustainable model from. It’s reliant on the Wallabies being consistently successful for maximum effectiveness and that’s against a backdrop of growing international competitiveness. It will be interesting to see how that environment challenges rugby’s standing in NZ in the future. There’s a narrative out there that suggests some cracks have already appeared. That said, they’ve just come off 2 decades of consistent success so any real impacts won’t be felt for some time and it’s the national sport of choice so it’s already well out in front and soaking up most of the national attention that ensures the overwhelming majority of kids with some athletic prowess are guided towards the code. Rugby in Australia has nothing like these conditions and it’s borderline comical hearing from a kiwi demonstrating zero understanding of our structures and landscape telling us what we need to do.

So you think that some second rate club comp will change all that when you're competing with two massive world leading club comps? Sorry mate, the Wallabies are your trump card and always have been. If you've got your structures right you'll produce plenty of players (& more importantly coaches and managers) and enough players will stay around to turn things round because they're in the right environment. In the mid 70s rugby was broke and didn't pay players anything, but they focused on what mattered. That Ella schoolboys team was the first fruit. The professional code took Wally Lewis, then the first five who won the Bledisloe Cup aged 19, then the prop who beat us 26-10 a year later to retain the trophy. And a bunch of others. Yet that was the start of your golden era, because the quality of your structures and remaining players were first class. That wasn't pixie dust, that was sound high performance principles and their obstacles then as amateurs battling a pro game were massive. BTW if the reason for the new pro structure is to keep all your players you won't need ours will you?

True. If RA and state RU allowed the SRP teams to become independent and develop as a shop window, with a proper draft system, like the IPL. This would give RA and states more money to spend on this tier of competition, which would become the main development pathway. Playing this in 2nd half of season would give it own space to become successful and also improve the quality as non wallabies could play. Contracts would be with state or district with a top up for players in SRP.

Australia’s issues at the grassroots aren’t solved with some sort of pixie dust that NZ has and Ireland now has the recipe for. The biggest issue facing our pathway is a competing league that dominates our winter landscape for 31 weeks a year with a broadcast deal that runs into the billions which helps support the biggest budget for playing talent of any rugby competition anywhere in the world. That’s something unique to Australia that isn’t replicated in any other country so anyone else’s book of tricks is useless in our context. What we need is visibility. Not to try and go toe to toe with the NRL (or AFL for that matter) but there needs to be some sort of product that kids aspire to and it has to be something more than just the sway of a Wallaby jersey. While the lure of test caps adds weight, a handful of meaningful games each year and a RWC every 4 is nowhere near enough on its own- we know this much. We’re up against 8 games a weekend, 3 of which are on prime time network TV and everyone from the playground to the living room to your cat and dog has skin in the game. Every workplace has a tipping competition, there’s mid season buzz around origin and it peaks through September before culminating in one of the most watched tv programs of the year on the last Sunday of the season. It is consuming and most kids with a bit of football talent want to be apart of it and there is very little about rugby’s presence in Australia that gets in the way of those aspirations and captures their interest. We are fishing in the same pond as the NRL and while there are some juicy worms on the end of their hook, there’s been a tin can on the end of RA’s which comes back to the product we offer to the public and the subsequent dreams we sell to our kids.

Come on Rob, the examples I gave were Wales or Scotland demanding players from Ireland. That's a million miles from A League v Premier League. The URC is the only comparable league in the world and Ireland the most similar nation. Nobody expects Ireland to relax their eligibility requirements even though the results of the Welsh, Scottish and Italian clubs are so inferior. The Irish know that test rugby is the cash cow and there's no way that they'll jeopardise that for the sake of a subsidiary product. We'd be stupid to as well. I'm happy with our surplus players filling out your squads but this "free market" you suggest is a step too far. We've already seen that Aussie rugby likes to spend big on headline players and you can just see some rich Sydney businesses trying to entice the next Carter away from a kiwi franchise where he's being properly developed. And crowing about it afterwards. They won't be wanting to spend big money on pensioners, they could have done this with Mo'unga already. If Australia wants to spend money it needs to do what Ireland did. Improve the grassroots and pathways. That's the only route to sustainable success.