Far from Australia adding value, I would argue that the focus on SR in NZ has in fact depressed the value of domestic rugby in NZ. I would also argue that it has harmed player development in NZ.

The highest ratings and biggest crowds in NZ, as Dan James has said, are for NZ vs NZ. They always have been, throughout the history of SR. The Canterbury vs Auckland/Wellington/Otago rivalries, and of course everyone vs Auckland, go back more than a century. Everyone talks about tribalism. NZ could revive it in a heartbeat. Reinstate the original titles of the existing clubs, add another two or three clubs, go full season, and you have 4 or 5 games a round for 20 to 25 weeks, which would make Sky very happy, and NZR richer.

NZ SR teams are oversubscribed for talent, which means in comparison with Europe there are far fewer opportunities for talented players to play Tier 2 games. Far too many SR players spend all their time playing local club rugby rather than competing with other T2 players, which harms their development. The biggest mistake NZ rugby as a whole ever made was refuse to expand the number of NZ SR teams. They should have moved to the point they could have 6 to 8 teams play SR at the start of the season and a Super Rugby NZ/Elite NPC at the end of it, creating a full season T2 structure.

Instead NZ focused on maintaining the same number of teams and winning SR every year, which is pretty much what has happened. What its got is a weakened SR, an NPC that has all but failed, and an ever greater dependence on the AB’s. I agree that the balance between domestic and international has to shift, but for NZ the same SR and NPC structure is not going to do it. Which is why its going to change.

And as Dan James said, if Sky NZ does not keep NZR happy, then NZR can start broadcasting on NZR+ [its streaming platform] to its NZ fans, who will pony up, and Sky NZ can go and die in a corner. And Sky NZ knows it.

You might not get it from my posts but I am really disappointed by what’s happening with Aussie rugby. Australian rugby stepped into the massive gap left by South Africa’s removal in the early eighties, and for the global game, not just NZ. Brilliant teams playing brilliant rugby [with functioning backlines no less] at test level, giving amazing tests and test series, real rivalry, all the good stuff, with the provincial game expanding with the South Pacific championship, leading to an expansion of that rivalry.

Now this crap.

Canterbury used to have the same rivalry with Auckland. Massive. The biggest in rugby outside test level. It disintegrated because Auckland didn’t adapt to professionalism, what it really meant. They thought it was about money, resources, promotion, all that rubbish, when its about a commitment to excellence. They used to have it, abandoned it, now look at the state of them.

Australia has gone down the same route. Like Auckland, Aussie rugby used to be harder and smarter than anyone else. Since professionalism its surrendered itself to the corporate blowhards and the egotists. There seem to be very few real rugby people at the top of the game over there. Like Auckland, Aussie rugby seems all but empty at the top, having to import from your greatest rivals to extract any sort of performance.

And no, I don’t think NZ rugby will be damaged by the collapse of Aussie pro rugby. Like Canterbury, there’s always another rival to play. Its just such a shame. Not just for NZ, for the game as a whole. its like the disintegration of the West Indies. Cricket has never been the same for me.

Professional rugby doesn’t have to exist in Australia. Australian rugby climbed out of mediocrity in the 1970’s due to a commitment to excellence. It sustained its place at the top table for twenty years because of excellence. Its been in steady decline for twenty years because of its indulgence of mediocrity. Its got so bad the whole thing could just fall over.

That is some of the most artificial logic I have ever come across. Young Australian rugby players go to the Brumbies because they know that if they can make it there they can make it anywhere in Aussie rugby. And it is not just because some accumulation of talent. It is because, from the first day they step in the door at the Brumbies Academy, they are in a better environment than they would be if they stayed in Sydney or Brisbane or wherever. They’re much more likely to get a pro contract in Aussie and overseas and much more likely to be Wallabies, because they are much more likely to be better players than they would have been if they stayed in Brisbane or Sydney or wherever. There is no dividing line between development and performance. The success of the Brumbies, like the Crusaders, is founded or their radically greater ability to develop players. Doesnt matter where they were from, they make then their own.

And as for TWAS, he belongs in the same nativist school you do. So i’ll pose teh same question. Where would those players be now if tehy had stayed in NSW or Queensland? How many would be on the outer, not able to make Aussie U20’s extended squad, and asking themselves why they didnt take up teh offer to go to the Brumbies.

And the crucial question you fail to ask is where all those players recruited out of the mire of Queensland and NSW player development be if they stayed in that mediocrity? And where would they be in five years if they stayed there?

I’ll give you a hint. It lies in almost thirty years of losing by the Reds and the Waratahs, even though they start with more than 90% of Aussies schoolboy talent.

Then why have the Brumbies been winning for almost three decades, while the Waratahs and Reds have been whipping boys for most of that time? Can you count championships, finals, semi-finals? The Brumbies are better at everything. Recruitment. Development. Coaching. And above all, winning.

The sad thing for Aussie is that the rest are starting to catch the Crusaders [the Chiefs might be about to go past them] while no one in Aussie is within screaming distance of the Brumbies.

And that is where all you Brumbies haters/Crusader haters in NZ fall down. It is, absolutely, an achievement to turn an u18 rep player into an u20 rep player, even if its just NSW Schoolboys to Brumbies u20’s, let alone Australia U20s. Its a massive step up in intensity and consequence. The first level is just schoolboys, with all the variables associated with that. A lot of players at that level don’t even want to become pro players and simply walk away. Whereas the next is the product of a fully professional environment where their whole life is monitored by a club who has invested resources into that player in the expectation that they will succeed as a professional player. All these players are seeing if they have are good enough to be pro players. The first is largely a test of talent and the vagaries of selection. The second is a test of organisation. Which is one of the reasons why the Brumbies have as many SR championships as the rest of OZ put together. You want to keep backing losers and refuse to learn from the winners, there’s a place for you on the board of the Waratahs.

I’ll leave you with two questions. Where do you think Aussie rugby would be if the Brumbies were as badly run as the rest of Aussie mens professional rugby? My answer is that the Brumbies wouldn’t exist, but then I suspect neither would mens pro rugby in Aussie. Second question. What if the rest of Aussie rugby was as well run as the Brumbies? How many RWC and RC’s would the Wallabies have won? Hurts to think about it, doesnt it?

If you believe that sort of fairy story Jacko, good on ya. Everyone in the Blues, Chiefs and Hurricanes doing the real work catching up with the Crusaders knows its drivel. The Crusaders aren’t richer. They’re poorer. Less money, fewer NPC teams off a smaller population, but twice as many championships as the rest put together. Its been that way from 1996 to now. Why is the real rocket science.

Again, you seem to not understand the basic mechanism of PD. If an organisation like the Brumbies is capable to attracting the best talent because it has a reputation for doing the best thing by its young players, then delivers on that by getting those players into Aussie underage rep teams and into Brumbies, or other lesser Aussie SR teams, then you have to ask what would happen to those players if they stayed in Queensland or NSW.

The answer is nothing as good, as so many players have demonstrated.

If you actually believe that the development done for players in school compares in any way to what is done in the post school environment, then I suggest you look at all the North Island players who were in NZ schools teams over the last three decades, stayed with the Blues, Chiefs and Hurricanes, and went absolutely nowhere. I have zero doubt the same thing has happened in Oz. That’s the test, and its one that the mediocrities in Queensland and NSW have certainly failed. Look at the numbers. That’s where Aussie is going wrong.

All sounds very familiar.

You’re right about it only being a snapshot, and strictly speaking I am guessing that this sits in the middle of the evidence, but given the performance of the Brumbies in SR in the last ten years vs the Waratahs and Reds I’m fairly sure its accurate.

The bulk of your counter-argument is however that the real work is doen before the players go to the academy’s, and so therefore the Brumbies cant be credited. That is simply wrong.

Everyone competent in PD recognises that 18-21 is the crucial age for players. Get it right, all things are possible. Get it wrong and its just another player on the scrap heap. That is where the biggest areas in OZ and NZ have failed for decades, beleiving that somehow quantity beats quality. In reality it does not matter where they are from, its where they end up at 18. Lenny Ikitau is the player he is because he went to the Brumbies, not because he played schoolboy rugby for Queensland.

This is universal. If Sam Whitelock had stayed in Manawatu rather than come to Canterbury, where do you think he would have ended up? What about Kieran Read in Counties? Or Richie McCaw in Otago? The rest of NZ has spent decades whining about the success of the Crusaders. People like that have to ask themselves where NZ rugby would be without it. Would the AB’s have won any world cups?

Other NZ SR teams don’t do development. Their development is run through NPC academies. Its a crucial difference to the Crusaders.

The fact that the NPC teams are still clinging to that crucial role shows just how entrenched the NPC is in the NZ system. That will eventually change when the NPC is downgraded to the same level as the Currie Cup and all the academies are taken over by the SR teams.

For example instead of Northland, North Harbour and Auckland academies there will eventually be Blues academy’s in Whangarei, North Shore and Auckland, just like there is a Crusaders academy in Nelson and one in Christchurch.

And no, its not just a difference in naming. The Tasman academy wasn’t doing an effective job for teh Crusaders, so it was effectively taken over. Now it has become a major source of talent for the Crusaders. Southland has been a liability in development terms for almost all teh Highlanders history. Now they have been “aligned” with the Highlanders, they are starting to produce a lot of talent. Which is their job.

So I’ve read something interesting that might help with context for this discussion.

The preliminary Aussie U20’s squad came out almost three months ago, and it reveals who is doing the real work in Aussie rugby, which is player development. That is where you get your SR teams from, that is where you get your Wallabies from. Not the NRL.

https://www.rugbypass.com/news/preliminary-australian-u20-squad-for-2024-announced/

45 players selected, all aligned with SR clubs [As they should be. In NZ that’s only done in Crusaderland]

18 Brumbies
10 Waratahs
08 Reds
06 Force
03 Rebels

Now I dont know if that is typical of the distribution of player development within Oz, though I suspect it is. And Oz does seem to be doing some things right in PD lately. Its u20’s team was very good last year, and was unlucky to not go further in teh u20’s WC. It’ll be interesting to see how well tehy go this year in TRC u20’s and WC u20’s.

My analysis on this small but indicative sample is

1. The Rebels need to be cut. All that money, and they’ve produced nothing.

2. The Force are doing alright, and need to be backed as Australia’s expansion team for teh next decade or so. As they should have been at inception.

3. The Reds need a kick up the backside. They have more than 30% of Australia’s playing population, so should be in double figures every year in a 45 man squad.

4. The Waratahs need a bigger kick up the backside. With almost 50% of Australia’s playing population They are the Blues of Oz, except more so, lazy, arrogant, entitled losers who need a Brumbie to run them to get them to wake up.

5. The Brumbies should not be touched. At all. Any spare cash needs to go to them, though everyone in their right mind knows that. It is the one centre of excellence in Aussie mens rugby. Lose that, and the whole creaking edifice might come crumbling down.

The 22 protected players equaled a first pick team, which was how many players there were in a match day squad in around 2007, which was when protected players/draft was last applied. AB rugby at least had its greatest period of success after that, and in reality there was a decline in NZ SR rugby only because the Crusaders weren’t winning and other than the Chiefs the rest couldn’t take up the slack. Not that there is a direct causal relationship between these changes and the results. NZ SR teams wanted an end to the draft. They got it. Some made the most of it, some didn’t.

You’re right that there is a major discrepancy between the player bases of the teams, the Highlanders area is for example a quarter of the size of the Blues. But the Crusaders are only half the size of the Blues and they outnumber them in championships 14 to 3. The Highlanders have for decades operated on the principle that they could just pick up players in their early twenties. Now they have finally realised that they need to recruit from 18, when the players have left school, from their own patch first [Which they’ve failed to do. Damian McKenzie being the most prominent example] and then throughout teh country. They’ve finally realised that they cant expect SR ready players to be handed to them, that they have got to grow their own. And they are. They’ve got a very talented bunch coming through.

“Maybe NZR should buy the Rebels licence for a couple of bucks. I bet if they did it would be a success.”

I wonder….

They certainly tried something like that in a few years ago

Nope. The old NZ draft system was an abject failure, one that was ditched at the same time as SR in NZ went to open contracting for all fully contracted players, in 2007 if memory serves. The good thing is that all NZ’s teams seem to have got the message and are focusing in their own as a way of building winning teams. Getting rid of draft players has been essential for the Highlanders. They need to make it extremely clear to young players that committing fully to Otago/Southland rugby will give you a slot in the Highlanders, that you wont get gazumped by some bright young thing coming through from up north. Its the only way they will get off teh floor.

The Chiefs might actually be ahead of the Crusaders, the Blues aren’t that far behind either team, and the Hurricanes and Highlanders are starting to come right. I’m expecting NZ SR teams to pull further ahead of Aussie SR teams over the next 5 years, not come back to the pack.

NZ has already pulled well ahead of Aussie in PD despite running the same system, which says clearly its not the system but the content of it that is the problem in Aussie. Aussie used to be the best at PD, now its the worst. That’s what needs to be fixed. There is no alternative. Everything else, NRL players, drafts, restructuring etc, is just a distraction.

It is difficult to unpack all the errors of fact and logic you have shoved into those few paragraphs, so I’ll just address the principal one. The majority of the six development player contracts given out each year by NZ SR teams are given to that SR teams own development players. The players come from within their own system. They are therefore not draft players. This is a trend that is only acclerating, with the Highlanders having no draft players this year. The whole point is that the draft has failed to deliver the results for the SR teams, even in the much more limited role it has now. There is virtually no regulated redistribution of talent in NZ SR any more, and therefore no meaningful draft.

Aussie desperately needs to improve its player development. You have suggested an NZ style draft without knowing what it was [most dont] and refuse to accept that it is now a very minor part of NZ’s SR PD scene, about 10 players a year out of 190. Aussie needs to focus on what does work, what is effective in a significant way. A draft will not do anything for Aussie rugby. Getting much better talent identification and training will. Which is why you have got Nucifora back, to advise on what you should have been doing twenty years ago.

And as for NZR, that useless collection of fish-heads, all the PD work is done by the SR teams and the NPC teams. NZ rugby as a whole has succeeded despite, not because, of NZR.

Like so many on this forum you’re not the sort who can be told you’re wrong, are you?

Again, the number players potentially subject to a draft per year is 6 out of 38, not 15, and the players are not on full contracts. This is radically different from the old SR draft system in NZ, or any other draft system of any consequence. The numbers are small, operate only at the edges, and are in decline.

Contrary ot your view, the Crusaders are entirely typical of the use of the draft. For example Sione Ahio and Wallace Sititi are the only players in the Chiefs 2024 who could be draft players from outside the Chiefs development system.

The Highlanders, who are the smallest and weakest of the franchises, have not recruited a single player in 2024 through the draft from outside their own development system. They instead have gone whole hog on growing their own. Which they should have done 20 years ago, but there you go.

The system is also being used less and less, with the Highlanders are typical of the way things are going in NZ. There is now a massive emphasis on retaining players from within your own development system. Listen to the master.

https://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/rugby/super-rugby/300796610/webb-of-intrigue-the-man-behind-the-crusaders-production-line

Its never been explicitly stated but I dont think the “retain your own trend” is to do with loyalty as such. It seems to be all about success. Though I haven’t been properly through the stats, the retention rate of draft players seems to be a lot higher when they have come through the SR teams own development system. Pulling in junior players from outside the region at SR level rather than academy level is much more likely to result in that player then reverting back to their original SR team if they succeed or, more concerningly, fail altogther. The reason is fairly obvious. They’re young men who would prefer to be somewhere they have grown up with, or has fully committed to them. Drafts of any sort, as NZ has discovered, are of very little value, and can ber very destructive.

What you have got there Kingplayer is a big red herring. You can continue to try and land it, insist it’s a prize winner, or you can cut the line, walk away. This is not the solution you are looking for.

There is no draft of any consequence in NZ SR.

https://www.nzrpa.co.nz/news/new-collective-employment-agreement-for-new-zealand-rugby

The first 32 players in each squad are all freely contracted.

The closest there is to a draft is that the 6 development players [Lowest paid] the SR teams can include in the squad [Inexperienced players without a history in SR] are in principal subject to a NZ wide draft, meaning they can be picked up from anyhere in NZ rugby, and there does seem to be some sort of meeting where the players are distributed according to SR team need.

In reality development players from within the SR team dominate the development positions. For example, from what I can tell, in the past 2 years the Crusaders have only picked up Taha Kemara, Heremiah Murray, Ioane Moananu and Rivez Reihana thorugh the draft. The other eight development players have been through the Crusaders academy. This sort of weighting is quite typical, and where it wasn’t, with the Highlanders, its now changed.

The small role that the draft has played since NZ went to open contracting is contracting. Teams need to look after themselves, and not look for others to do their development work. Even the Highlanders seemed to have finally worked that out.

Be interesting to see how the politics of this plays out. RA won’t want to leave SRP, NZR wont want them to leave but won’t want to pay more than $8M, NZ SRP teams don’t want them to leave for commercial reasons [sponsorship] and because they don’t want to be playing high intensity matches every round, and WR wont want Aussie running their own comp any more than they want Wales/Scotland/Italy/Ireland running their own comp. But if Aussie’s performance continues to decline against NZ even after losing a team, and if they go below 50% against Drua and what seems to be the imminent revival of the Jaguares, both of which are distinct possibilities, NZR restructures MP to make it more competitive [which it will have to], then RA might be forced out of SRP.

You have to wonder how much longer NZR will watch the death spiral of professional rugby in Australia and when they will move to protect the game in NZ from that failure. There doesn’t seem to be any enthusiasm in NZR for allowing open contracting in SR, [all players eligible for their national teams irrespective of where they play in SR], which is the only means in the short term of significantly improving Aussies SR performance. This suggests the obvious, that NZR doesn’t trust AU SR player development/coaching.

There’s good reason for that. While cutting the Rebels will help improve AU SR performance, all AU’s SR teams outside the Brumbies are right at the beginning of understanding how to develop/coach SR grade players. Whether centralisation will make any difference to the performance of those teams is doubtful. SR AU will spend years bedding in new processes, squabbling over roles, etc, etc. Again, NZR doesn’t seem to want to encourage NZ players into that environment, particularly not ABs.

There are also two changes in NZ rugby that will almost certainly make AU SR performance problems even worse. First, there is strong evidence that NZ SR clubs are generally improving their player development/coaching. The Crusaders have been the best run rugby club in the world, with an unmatched ability to produce international and world class talent, but after the Chiefs decided five seasons ago to invest in long term development they are very near that standard. They badly botched the final in 2023, but because they are fundamentally sound they will learn from it and progress. And their selections for this year show they remain committed to bringing new players through. The Blues, gifted the biggest player pool in the country, one twice the size of the Crusaders, haven’t reached that standard yet, but they made a lot of progress under McDonald, Cotter should take them further, and again they are committed to bringing teh right sort of players through.

What’s really interesting though are the Hurricanes and Highlanders. The Hurricanes have always been very badly run, with seemingly no ability at all to produce the props, locks and first five eighths which are the foundation of long term success in SR, and of course test rugby. Again, look at the Crusaders. They seem now to be building a new group of players in exactly those positions, have dumped a number of players who were worthwhile but not championship winners. It’ll be interesting to see if they try to play a properly structured game this season. The most radical change though is the Highlanders. They seem to have finally realised that they need to look after/appeal to the players from Otago and Southland first, that the time to recruit players is when they are 18, not 23, and that they can’t behave the way they have for all of SR and simply expect SR capable players to simply be gifted to them by the draft or by late recruitment. In short, the sort of improvement you would expect from the Blues, Hurricanes and Highlanders over the next few years should make it much more difficult for the Crusaders or Chiefs to dominate the competition, but should also drive down Aussie SR’s win percentage, further undermining their willingness to stay in the comp and as well as their commercial credibility.

And the second reason? The long brewing fight between NPC and SR in NZ is finally happening, and SR will win. NZ’s SR teams will push towards twenty or so scheduled games a season, either inside SRP or outside it, will accrue all the benefits from that in terms of onfield coherence and player depth, the advantage all the club teams in the northern hemisphere have, as well as of course the much better financial rewards [sponsorship etc], and Aussie SR will fall even further behind. Aussie has at most half the playing talent, distinctly worse player development, obviously inferior coaches, and will soon only be playing two-thirds of the scheduled games. It simply cant complete.

Rugby in Australia can’t restructure its way to success. Talk to cutting an Aussie team [NZR’s preference] or two Aussie two teams [NZR’s fundamental desire] is not going to make any long term [five plus years] difference if Australian player development/coaching continues to be crap. Which, outside the Brumbies, it is. If four of the five individual divisions within a company are very badly run closing two of them still leaves the company with two thirds of the company in an appalling state and the whole of it on its way to failure.

It is possible that cutting the Rebels will marginally improve the performance of Aussie’s SR teams for a couple of years. In 2018 and 2019, after cutting the Force, Aussie SR teams won 8, lost 24 against NZ SR teams, which was only slightly better than the ratio in 2016 and 2017. Irrespective, if the player development/coaching process remains as defective as it has been in the Waratahs, Queensland and the Force, then all cutting the Rebels will be by the five year mark is just another sugar hit, to which Aussie rugby has become addicted.

Yeah, it is a bit bob both ways from RA, isn’t it.

Aussie rugby politics. No surprises there.

TBH, yeah. But Joe is a big boy. Deans and Rennie effectively destroyed their careers as international coaches by going with Toxic Aussie. I get the feeling it’s Joe’s last chance to dance.

Nice of Joe to come to the rescue of the Wallabies. Fair response to Aussie league coaches coming to the rescue that similar train wreck, the Warriors. Who knows, it might even stop the bleeding.

What most have missed the point that if Schmidt was available RA didn’t really have a choice. They are desperate to put up a credible showing in 2025 against the Lions. No one, other than Gatland, has a better understanding of British and Irish international rugby than Schmidt. With him in charge it is now possible that the tour will be a success on the field and off. Put in a novice coach and a three nil defeat is near certain, and just as damagingly will be seen to be near certain, which will effect crowds and tourists and therefore the money RA is relying on. At that point RA’s buisiness plan will be undermined and Aussie’s place on the Lions roster will come under threat.

Finally, a smart decision from RA. Hopefully the first of many.