There are around 139,000 registered rugby union players in Australia and you conducted a survey of 77? Were these participants randomly selected or were they self-selecting? That is, was it online or paper survey instrument sent out to a range of people and collating results from people who selected themselves? While some of the points you raise could be considered by many as valid, your survey is statistically invalid and cannot be used for any overall conclusions in relation to the administration of the game in Australia. You certainly do not enhance your credibility with this approach.

Well, I think it’s great that our cuzzies across the ditch have one game where they can consistently beat us… Go Kiwis! Imagine if Aussies stop playing AFL and rugby league and just focused on rugby union, that would be so unfair!

For mine, they are a much better team than they are currently playing.

“Nevertheless, it is well past time for rugby’s leaders in Australia and New Zealand, separately and together, to tackle the game’s problems in a holistic sense, with transparency and genuine strategic expertise.”
Well said Geoff, somes up the situation perfectly.

For mine, we need a Board that can provide a clear medium term strategic plan and a long-term strategic vision of where rugby in Australia will be in 2034. Then the challenge for the RA Board is to get buy in from all stakeholders in the game, not just the RA members, to this vision. They also need to leave operational management of the organisation to the CEO. Interventionist Chairs or Boards are rarely a good idea.
IMHO, what we need is a structure where the State organisations have a primary responsibility for the growth and development of the game within their jurisdictions, working closely with the Districts and Clubs with support from RA, while RA is responsible for all national and international competition. Seems to work for the ARLC.

I have a close friend whose President of a rugby club in SE Queensland who contacted Phil Waugh not that long ago and to his surprise got a phone call back. He said he found Phil knowledgeable and interested in what was happening at a club level and he sent a signed Wallabies jersey to support club promotions. Ironically, my friend tried repeatedly to contact the CEO of QRU to discuss issues, by email and telephone, and received no response. I guess some people are just too busy!

Exactly what Australian rugby needs right now, to be thrown into major turmoil in a process that could take 3 to 5 years or longer to settle. The unreality of this proposal is simply breathtaking. So the super rugby teams are going to give up their votes as members of RA, NSW and QLD are going to happily have their votes reduced from 2 to 1, the other State unions are going have their votes reduced from one each to 1 total, and RUPA loses their vote completely, and someone seriously thinks these various groups will vote for this to happen? Tell ’em their dreaming!
I certainly agree there are problems with the way membership of RA is structured, the idea that Tasmania, SA and NT should each have one vote as members is disproportionate and currently women’s rugby has no voice at all. It’s interesting to note when you compare RA membership to the membership of the ARLC, in that organisation only QLD in NSW have membership as States and each NRL team has one vote.
When you go into an organisation and set about reviewing every aspect of its operations, including its governance and organisational structure, inevitably all activity either stops or slows down due to the uncertainty and disablement such a process inevitably creates. Who thinks this is a good idea for RA when we have a Lions tour and a World Cup coming up in Australia over the next three or so years? This proposal would undoubtedly do more damage than good.
Nomination committees are fairly standard selection processes in national sporting bodies like organisations like RA and, for example, the AFL commission has its board members selected through such a process in consultation with its clubs. I definitely think the RA Board needs to be more diligent and accountable in its oversight of the Executive but this is a problem of poor Board leadership and a long-term strategy for Board development rather than a structural problem.
This proposal looks to me like yet another group of self-interested people in the rugby community offering solutions, without any realistic understanding of the actual problems.
What really makes this proposal so completely unrealistic is that we we all know, without doubt, that the self-interest of the existing members of RA will win through and Mr Tulloch and his group will go nowhere. As Paul Keating once said, if you go to the track and there is a horse running called “Self-Interest”, get your money on it because self-interest always wins!

Christie, I find your comments about the new format for the WC quite silly and poorly thought out. This format works really well for Football as it will for Rugby.
1) An additional four teams will likely add nations from North America (we need USA) as well as perhaps Europe, South America or Africa. These nations will only benefit from exposure to rugby at this level even if they go out after three games. It will also incentivise second-tier nations to achieve WC qualification.
2) Apart from the six teams who end up on top in their various pools, the teams running second and third will have something to play for in each game to either be part of the top 8 qualifiers and play one of the bottom 8, or to just make it through to round 16. Only the bottom teams in each pool plus 2 others (33%) will be going home at the end of the pool matches. Currently, 60% of the qualifiers go home.
3) We will get 12 games per round in the pool matches (there is no such thing as too much rugby!) and not have the nonsense of byes.
4) It is likely by the third round of pool matches 8 or more games will have direct consequences for qualification for the last 16, maintaining intensity throughout the pool matches.
5) We will have 8 more teams qualifying for the knockout phase which will make reaching this level of the tournament meaningful for sides who under the current format would be on their way home. This can only help to incentivise teams from those countries.
6) Having a 16 team knockout round creates the opportunity for surprises (Japan beats the Springboks?) making this round really interesting by involving more teams and more games.
It is inevitable that the cream will rise to the top in the semifinals but there will still be the odd surprise.
I am dumbfounded by the attitude of many in Australian rugby who constantly whinge about how terrible things are, but as soon as a good suggestion for change comes along, they pour buckets of negativity all over it. It seems like it has almost become a Pavlovian response!

For mine, the Wallabies are not the problem with Australian rugby, they are the symptom. The problem is at the other end of the pyramid. Signing league players may in some small way help assuage the symptom, but it sure ain’t going to cure the problem!

So, we sack the RA Chairman and we sack the Coach (might as well bundle out the CEO while we’re at it) and all the problems facing rugby in Australia will be solved! I didn’t realise it was going to be that easy!
Hang on, hasn’t something like this been tried before?

I find it interesting that when a team ranked 9th in the world going into the World Cup fails to make the final 8, that team is a laughingstock? That said, the Wallabies making it to the final 8 would have been a pass in my books.
For mine, the most pertinent comment in this article is that “In Australia, we have a federated system and states are their own little fiefdoms and they don’t like each other and don’t trust Rugby Australia.” Perhaps if if we had a little less focus on self-interest and State organisations entirely focused on managing downwards to achieve the best outcomes for rugby with in their state jurisdictions, it would create better outcomes for the game across Australia. This may be better than having states managing upwards into SRP and using their membership of RA to influence RA decisions and trying to create outcomes for their advantage.
With States entirely focused on their own jurisdictions we may be able to start building better skill levels and an intuitive understanding of the game from young age, along with stronger competitions and better pathways for coaches and referees. Like rugby league.
Starting high-performance pathways around age 15 seem sensible, but these players should have a good basic understanding of the game, skill requirements, the rules, the positions and fundamental tactics when they reached that age.
It seems to me we have plenty of elite athletes playing rugby, just not elite rugby players.

Strikes me that Eddie is looking more to 2027 than 2023. How many players in this team should be at their peak in 2027? Let’s face it, if we make the quarters this year it is a pass, the semis is overachieving and the final… yer dreaming!

Seems to me that RAs comments about an AU competition is more about promoting the game in Australia rather than player development. Seriously, how can you sell a sporting competition to Australians where the grand final comprises a team from Christchurch playing a team from Auckland? Apart from Kiwi expats and rugby tragics, Australians with a mild to incidental interest in the game, the audience RA needs to attract to the game to achieve growth, couldn’t give a rodents rectum about Kiwi sides and find getting beaten by Kiwi teams depressing. Are Kiwis better at Rugby than Aussies? Obviously! It doesn’t mean we can’t enjoy watching Aussie teams playing the game.
In my opinion, Australia pulling out of SPR would present far more of a problem for the development and maintenance rugby in New Zealand than for rugby in Australia.

I take it Rattue’s haemorrhoids have been playing up again?!!

I am not sure I agree that the four key areas are hierarchical, I see more is intertwined. I also think the success of rugby in Australia has to be built on sound, efficient and effective administration. Not quite sure we are there yet! I used to think the promotion of rugby in this country was poor, but more recently I see that is a standard we have yet to attain. Success at an elite level is dependent on success at a grass-roots level, the more players we can bring through, the more players we can choose from. Managed properly, private equity will be a major boon for game and should help rugby compete more successfully in the Australian market across all key areas.

Have to disagree with you on this one LP, as I am very positive about where Australian rugby is at the moment. One thing we have to keep in mind is the age of many of our standout players such as McDermott, Wilson, Bell, Valentini, Patia, Lolesio, Harris, Harrison, Ikitau, Swain, and others, all of whom are aged 24 years or younger. I remember a post on the Roar identifying the optimum page for a World Cup player is 27 years, so this group has a way to go to reach full potential. TT is only 25 and just reaching his prime. There are plenty of good young players coming through but when you look at X-factor in Australian SRP teams, not many are in that 26 – 28 year range. The pathway programs seem to be working. Things have to get better! 😊 😊

Thought the Reds showed Kiwi-like intensity in the second half against the Brumbies, and the Brumbies defence couldn’t cope.

Ahh, the Blues, always unbeatable! 🙂

I think it applies to most areas of leadership…business, politics etc.

I always thought the Reds would win the battle of the benches, but it seemed to me they played smarter rugby on the day. I think they will be wanting to get Vunivalu onto the paddock as soon as possible as his speed and aerial abilities will cause problems for most defenses. Any team that kicks too much against Kiwi sides is inviting disaster, as Kiwi sides love to strike from long-range. Although the second row will be a focus going forward, I think the Reds have recruited really well with a lot of great young talent in their squad. It’s easy to forget just how young the current Reds starting side still is.

Not surprised by this, the most logical option was always to broaden the pool while limiting the number that could be selected. I always thought it be somewhere between 3 and 5, though eligibility is slightly tougher than I expected. It seems to me that 2027 is a major factor in this approach, allowing players to contract to return to Australia that year to be eligible for selection in 2026. I am sure there will be few players wanting to come back to be eligible for selection to play in a World Cup in Australia.

Thanks for your many great articles over the past year Brett, enjoyable and interesting. Totally agree with you regarding the Tahs, they will definitely improve over 2022. As a Reds supporter, it is much more fun beating the Tahs when they think they’re going to win! 😁

The highlight of 2021? A full year of fantastic rugby. Great super rugby, great test matches and genuine signs of Aussie rugby rejuvenation. Currently going through withdrawals! 😊

You lead my mate Anastacia out of this! She brought two test matches to Townsville on one day and now sittith on the right-hand God

Opps! “without inside understanding”