Throughout broadcasts, print media, and public discussion the representative rugby side of New South Wales is often not referred to as such, rather most commonly being called ‘the Waratahs’, ‘the Tahs’, or sparingly ‘the NSW Waratahs’. Seldom, if ever, is the team simply regarded as being the ‘New South Wales’ side.
Whilst it can be conceded that this convention is appropriate to identify the side within non-rugby specific contexts, all too often the practice is continued within rugby contexts where the original impetus for a secondary name does not exist.
In rugby terms there is only one team for New South Wales, so why don’t we call things as they are?
Of course, in the past we did. Or rather there was a sense of equity about the component nature of the name, that which has since been whittled away throughout the professional era.
The motive being to broaden the supporter base by removing the geographical barrier to fandom, but, as we look at the game now, has this really had the desired effect?
If anything, support has dwindled, as within the endlessly competitive Sydney-NSW sporting landscape the side has begun to be perceived as absent to its state-representative nature. The very feature that is such a key emboldening drawcard for fans.
Waratahs coach Darren Coleman. (Photo by Phil Walter/Getty Images)
Rather, and most markedly, being inordinately equated as comparable to NRL and AFL club franchises in terms of sporting eminence.
For example, the commonality amongst the names of ‘Waratahs’, ‘Sea Eagles, and ‘Swans’ reasonably supposes a commonality and likeness in the minds of fans. As opposed to the alternative ‘New South Wales Waratahs’, ‘Manly Sea Eagles’, and ‘Sydney Swans’, where, through the superior representation, the side is elevated toward a higher grandeur.
I’m certainly not proposing that we abandon the ‘Waratahs’ moniker, but rather that we return to a more equitable employment of the composite parts of the name. That, in the instance of a try, a caller could say “New South Wales cross over for a try” and within the same passage of commentary, “scored by the Waratah winger…”. As opposed to using “Waratah(s)” for both.
The viability of this sort of subtle change in rhetoric, with regard to helping re-connect and resume fans’ enamourment with the side, can be observed from Brad Thorn’s tenure coaching the Queensland Reds.
Where the coach spearheaded a re-emphasis on the ‘Queensland’ nature of the name; moving away from the Brisbane and South-East Queensland reckoning of the side and re-emphasising the state-wide representative nature of the team. Oftentimes referring to the side without the ‘Reds’ moniker and just as ‘Queensland’, renewing the support of fans in the process.
This shift in nomenclature and reckoning facilitated further boon directives such as the ‘Reds to Regions’ program and the re-development of the historical Ballymore precinct.
It’s reasonable to think that a similar shift to re-emphasise ‘New South Wales’, whilst emboldening fans, could also potentially spur similar initiatives to renew support in regional areas.
And, if you aren’t convinced, this sort of adjustment doesn’t really have any profound downside, so why don’t we try it?
Frankly
Roar Rookie
I think puting emphasis on NSW in the team name, and less emphasis Waratahs, will make very little difference in terms of supporters connecting to the team. Personally, I don't think Super Rugby should have used the NSW Waratahs and QLD Reds names. I believe these names should be reserved for representative teams, that is, those teams can only be represented by players from their respective states. Both of these two teams have a very proud representative history. When RA was spruiking State of the Union matches, as potential content for the broadcasting deal, I wonder what RA were going to call each of the teams. Below is what I think should bring the integrity back to these names. But it involves a little more then name changes. Rugby can't thrive in the Australian sporting lanscape with only 5 professional teams. Not when the AFL has 18 and the NRL has 17 teams. It needs significanly more teams to provide significantly more professional player contracts. The aligning of the states will go a long way to assist the Wallabies to perform better. However, I feel to continuing with Super Rugby as it is now, will never give rugby the ability to lift its profile to be any where near the profiles that the NRL and AFL enjoy. RA needs to focus no promoting junior participation, help suburban and regional competitions thrive, and create strong pathways to professional rugby. I feel RA needs to create a national domestic competition with a goal of having at least 12 teams. I also feel each of these teams need to create their own identity, not creating 7 teams in addition to the existing 5 SR franchises. I feel RA should reduce Australia's participation in the SR competition to a maximum of 3 teams, and part of this change is to move SR to start in July and run as a tournament style over a max 8 weeks. Two of the teams will be the NSW Waratahs and the QLD Reds. Each of these teams should select their state representative players only. This brings back the representative tradition of the teams names. The 3rd team can be made up by any Australian player that doesn't make up the Waratah's, or Reds's, squads. Once Victoria or Western Australia consistently develop enough player depth, they can then add a team to SR.
Sheepie
Roar Rookie
But on a serious note, I am actually VERY in support of what the OP is saying here. Year on year on social media I'm saying I'd love it if NSW would hold one or two regional matches each season. And I'm talking in-season matches, not pre-season. I'll be taking OP's lead here and making a concerted effort to refer to them as NSW going forward rather than "the Waratahs" or "the Tahs" as I have done historically. I'm a nobody though. And I'm just one person. But so is every other NSW fan, and if all of us "just one person"'s do the same, it'll be a massive change.
Redbeard
Roar Rookie
Tribalism is a good thing. Fully agree with you Paddy!
Brett Allen
Roar Rookie
It’s been a long time since Origin was a selection trial for the Kangaroos. Origin is a stand-alone event now, and in some ways the Blues & Maroons are really now super clubs. Both states have club style pathways systems and High Performance units. Both teams selection policy is only partially based on current club form, far more weight is placed on continuity than current form.
Brett Allen
Roar Rookie
That’s my point, the SR teams shouldn’t be viewed as rep teams. They are club teams, albeit club teams that have evolved from formerly state rep teams. That said, I agree that even club teams need a geographical tie.
PaddyD
Roar Rookie
Also, only 5 out of the 34 named in the NSW Waratahs 2024 side aren’t nominally from NSW. With the Blues and Maroons fielding players who don’t even represent Australia internationally. The NSW Waratahs are a rep team. Sorry had to do reply like this because it was blending it into one big paragraph.
PaddyD
Roar Rookie
No one doubts that Sheffield Shield sides are state-representative teams when they have the same cross-state player movement as Australian Super Rugby sides. With both these structures having the purpose of feeding into a national side, selected based on ‘origin’.
PaddyD
Roar Rookie
It’s a bit different because the State of Origin series are the most important representative games, superseding the Kangaroos. And it’s only three games. So you select the state sides as if they were national ones; keeping in mind that when the Kangaroos were the eminent rugby league team, NSWRL and QLDRL were selected the same as the Waratahs or Reds (the majority of inter-state rugby league played under these conditions (since 1982)). Look at Steve Rogers’s career. t
PaddyD
Roar Rookie
Cheers Scott, thanks for the comment.
Tom G
Roar Rookie
Don’t forget that adventurous move when they boldly headed west…all the way to Leichhardt Oval :laughing: :laughing:
Brett Allen
Roar Rookie
You can name them all you want, but it ain’t a rep team, SR teams are clubs in all but name. There is no comparison between the Waratahs & the Mighty Blues.
ScottD
Roar Guru
Congratulations on your first article, Paddy. It's well presented and well thought through. What you are suggesting is a subtle shift but it emphasises the huge reality, NSW Waratahs aren't a local club side like Manly Sea Eagles or Sydney Swans playing in a local competition. It is a state representative side playing in an international competition. Differentiating it as such is reasonable and could be a small but important part of putting more fan pride back into the jumper. Having said that, NSW rugby has to its part by taking its role as the state flagship more seriously and getting out to the regions more as others have noted. That too is part of the solution. Thanks for the article mate, I enjoyed the read.
Ken Catchpole's Other Leg
Roar Guru
Whilst I applaud the effort and the intent of your pitch here Paddy, we will need more than rhetoric to turn this ship around. Tim’s point here is well made. We need tangible engagement with every part of our catchment. Obviously the Tahs cannot play on every park in the State, but surely they could visit regions by design? There are plenty of stadiums now that could hold a Tah-sized crowd, after RA’s and NSW’s unique approach to code visibility. Most marketers work to increase visibility- but not our captains of industry, our best and brightest GPS alumni, our media-savvy suits. Popularity? Nah- that’s for those who believe expansion requires expansion. We have, at this juncture, a marketer in chief, whose most remarkable statement this year was ‘Don't watch’. I love this code. The recalcitrant culture of entitlement amongst those who decide how much participants and fans must pay to engage with it - not so much. Hamish is just a symptom. But even symptoms deserve treatment.
Ken Catchpole's Other Leg
Roar Guru
Too broad Sheepie Moore Park Tahs is more accurate
Sheepie
Roar Rookie
What's wrong with the Eastern Suburbs Waratahs?
jeznez
Roar Guru
Biggest issue for me, if this team is supposed to be a New South Wales representative team, like it used to be, is that so many of NSW's best aren't in it. I think I'm being generous to suggest that maybe 10 out of the 23 spots would be taken by our current squad members. Hard to call it NSW when it's just those that are playing for the side and not genuinely the best players from across the state. And that ignores the South Coast and Southern Inland Unions were ceded to the Brumbies. The ACT is now officially, the ACT and Southern NSW Rugby Union What should the updated NSWRU name be? NSW excluding Southern NSW Rugby Union? If we want to be inclusive I guess it would be the Sydney, Central Coast, Central North, Central West, Far North Coast, Mid North Coast, Hunter, Illawarra, New England and Western Plains Rugby Union. That's a bit of a mouthful to rattle off when calling a try! Even then, it's still not all the best players that had their start in those regions, so many that did are playing for other Super sides or overseas.
cs
Roar Guru
Agree Kris. All sport is local. The elevation of nicknames to team titles was a failed gimmick of primitive marketing minds. Next, the Rebels should become Victoria, igniting another great provincial rivalry.
Mario
Roar Rookie
I believe the Brumbies reintroduced ACT back into their name for the very reason of local identity.
PaddyD
Roar Rookie
Note when I regard to New South Wales, it’s cognisant of and without the ACT Brumbies supporting regions.
Kris
Roar Rookie
Peter Fitzsimons has made this point several times, and he's dead right. Most of the teams in the competition ended up officially changing their name to a root-less, geography-free title. This was a disaster for a competition already struggling with public name recognition in general. New viewers were forced to make sense of games between Frankenstein teams like "The Sharks" and "The Blues" — with commentators essentially banned from mentioning the actual province names whatsoever! Queensland vs. New South Wales is perhaps the greatest rivalry in Australian sports. Clashes between W.A. vs. Victoria and S.A. vs. Victoria on the football oval also have a storied history. It should be obvious: to market the game properly, any new Super Rugby commission should force franchises to use their original geographical monikers. But the underlying issue was the disastrous shift from Super Rugby being a champions' cup competition with qualification, to a closed franchise league. I don't think the administrators of the game understand that this new system was what caused the domestic leagues to end up in a state of near-collapse.