It seems to me that there are two types of supports. One set understands the commercial aspect of rugby and what it takes to build a product, and the flow on effects of having a financially viable product brings. The other side just wants to be the best at Rugby, and believes that to do so you need to play the best week in week out, regardless of the impact it might have on that product and its financial viability. Top League and Japanese rugby performance is an excellent example. They have improved drastically by creating a financially competitive, entertaining and viable domestic product. This has allowed them to spend more money in bringing in Rugby IP and talent that has improved their game dramatically. The financially unviability of our product is acting as a talent/braindrain and the other global markets and they are taking full advantage.

Completely agree Greg. Baffles me that people are so quick to forget the steady decline of performance and interest in Australian rugby particularly during the more recent seasons of 2015-2019 SR.

The numbers speak for themselves. I would argue that if we continue with a full TT 5 AU vs 5 NZ teams next year and into the future in the mold of previous SR competitions Rugby in Australia will continue its slow, suffocating death. Just like everyone else, I want us to be able to compete with NZ. However, it baffles me that people cant seem to wrap their head around the variety of reasons its just not possible at this time, with our code being in the situation its in.

“The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, but expecting different results”

Someone will have to tell me how having a TT competition next year would not give us the same results of SR before the couf hit us and WHY they believe that to be so before I am convinced.

sorry mate but your argument just doesn’t stack up with the data.

You have to explain how Australian Rugby declined steadily on both a performance and revenue aspect from 2015-2019 while we played SA/NZ week in week out (while we played in the World’s “toughest comp”).

The argument that playing the best non-stop makes you better is just silly. It ignores the basic fact of a ranking/tiered system of competition and why it exists in the first place. If the 100th ranked tennis player played Nadal/Federer week in week out do you think after 4 years they would be just as good as them? Or do you think the ranking system is in place because to improve you have to play people on a similar level (or just slightly better) to foster a good competition.

The core argument for building a strong domestic comp is based on money. If the Australian market is not tuning into the rugby because they know the results in advance and the games are barely competitive, thats not an entertaining product. Remember, Rugby is a product, it’s the Olympics or a giant pissing contest (even though most Rugby fans believe it to be so).

Also your argument that financial success does not align with performance falls flat on its face. The European competition and Japanese Top League are an easy case study to point too.

To me its as simple as this. I consider NZ rugby to be in the “firsts” division (school or Uni example). Australian rugby now is more in the “Reserves” division. Sure its good to have the reserves play the firsts now and again to test their mettle against the best, but overall you want your reserves (or seconds) to be playing in a competitive comp. Its the reason the Victorian Football clubs have relegation. If playing against the best each week made you better, why does relegation exist in the first place?

Make Australian Rugby enjoyable & competitive. If its enjoyable, people will pay more money to watch it. If you have more money going into the code you can afford more Rugby IP and Talent, as well as ensuring that you secure young talent before it signs up to AFL/League. Why would our young talent want to sign up to play in the SR TT and get dominated each week by Kiwi’s, in a competition with fuckall fans, when they can go play AFL or League and be showered in glory and adulation? Most people outside of Rugby tragics don’t really give two shits about whether the code they watch is international or domestic. They watch it to escape from the everyday doldrums of life and because its entertaining.

can you elaborate Andy on a few points.

“all their best at home and a large pool of developing players paid for by Aus”
– do you mean that all the best players (exaggerated assertion) in NZ will be playing in Australia, as well as the developing players and that Rugby Australia (administration) will foot the bill and not the Clubs themselves when they contract players?

Are you arguing that its impossible to change the central contract structure? A new competition means just that, its novel, and as such there would have to be huge structural and procedural changes in order to create a competition alike to the NHL.

That’s why I said its not possible with the Kiwi’s involved, unwilling to change due to the obsession with being number 1. Unfortunately looks like that obsession will lead to their downfall (already witnessing).

Hey Jacko, they would get a growing, competitive and entertaining Rugby product that would both help the Australian Union market grow and compete with its major code competitors. This would have flow on effects to the NZ market which has been tapped out, I don’t see any growth potential for the NZ rugby market as it is at its ceiling, and one could even argue that NZ are currently facing their own decline in Rugby interest domestically.
This would put more bums on seats and create a more competitive competition. Fans would be able to support their team nationally through tests, but Kiwis and Aussies would be side by side as fans of these teams and with an open draft. I would love to see Kerevi Line up outside Barrett in our own competition and use that electric interest to generate revenue in our market, not in Japan. An open draft system would add new layers of interest and content to be engaged with by fans, and also potentially increase fans travelling between countries to attend games. Using that money, we could mirror the Top League approach to bring in star names and quality players, which will increase the interest in the competition from N.H and South African players, thereby building the Oceanic code overall.
Once again Jacko, at its core, Rugby union in Aus/NZ needs to make money to compete. Australia is the larger market by a considerable factor. All our pollies harp on about this “ANZAC” tradition, and yet to see this spirit of camaraderie in light of the Australian code crumbling around us. The Kiwi’s will not be number 1 for ever, its not a question of IF its a question of WHEN. Everything is cyclical. Arguably we are closer to that time than ever before, think you would agree there. We need to think long-term. To create the capital required to keep good players and IQ here, as well as lure in players and rugby IQ from other countries, we need an entertaining product.
I believe we are failing to see the wood for the trees. Wallabies vs All Blacks is already Australia VS NZ. Why does every other game have to be the same? I’d happily become a Chiefs fan if they had a few Aussie blokes in the team, even jump on a plane and watch a few games and share some beers with my Kiwi Brothers. In that sense, I also believe it has the opportunity to bring us together as fans, and we can save all our jongoistic behaviour for the tests.

Sorry for the long responses mate very passionate!

One last thing, that’s why I’m all for an open draft competition like the NHL where Aussies and Kiwis mix in teams. Will never happen but a man can dream.

The Europeans have played kiwis sparingly and yet the Northern hemisphere has definitely caught up or are very close to consistently competing with Southern Hemisphere teams. Why have they seemed to leapfrog us in performance and ability while we were playing the Kiwis nonstop? Why have the Japanese improved drastically and yet they barely compete against the Kiwis? It’s because $$ is at the root of our problem , and my point at its core is that if the Australian market isn’t enjoying watching it’s rugby, it’s not paying for the product and creating new fans, and without that growth in revenue we can’t afford to pay the Rugby Talent and IP needed to compete and improve. Whether we want to beat the All Blacks doesn’t matter if nobody is actually enjoying the rugby, and I think we will both agree the domestic competition lit a spark and gave new life to a code that was slowly suffocating to death in Aus.

Very good question Brett, I don’t know to be honest, logically it seems that yes overall it would improve, yet the data and performances of Australian teams in those 4 years contradict that argument. Why didn’t we see improvements collectively and individually over those 4 years while we played both the Saffas and Kiwis? Why did Australian rugby decline in team/ individual performance as well as negative or stagnated growth within the Australian sports market? I’m not advocating for not playing the Kiwis at all, I’m saying balance is probably the right approach, and I don’t believe it is as simple as play Kiwis more = get better, because the data just doesn’t back that up.

Anyone who believes that the basic calculation of the more games against NZ teams in a year (with our current team structure) = the better Aus rugby will be need to explain to me how that argument stacks up in light of steady decline and dismal performances of Aus rugby in Super rugby from 2016-2019 (slight improvement was seen right before Covid) Seems to me to be way too basic a solution for what is a very complicated and multi faceted problem. Not saying I have the golden solution, or that we shouldn’t play the Kiwis at all. But those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it. Rugby union in Aus is low on the list of most popular codes in Australia. In NZ it’s a form of soft power.

Completely agree Aaron.

Anyone who believes returning to a TT comp because “playing the best makes you better” has either an incredibly short memory or amnesia. I’m fine with playing NZ teams, at the end of the season we can send our best and show respect to their dominance in this code.

Australian teams performance in Super Rugby from 2016-2019 speak for themselves and empirically destroys that argument for TT next year, particularly when you consider the fact that as fans we are finally enjoying rugby again. Let’s not forget this is entertainment at its core and a product, to Kiwis it’s almost form of soft power and plays a key role in their own national identity.

Playing the best makes you better sure. Consistently being beaten by the best week in week out for 3 years does not make you better.

There is a reason that there are feeder tournaments and relegation into the Champions League. There is a reason there are ranking systems in online competitive gaming. There is a reason school teams have an A side, B side and C side. “Why not just have the seconds play in the firsts competition , then they will be better” is such a black and white approach to what is a very complex subject.

Agree except for Gordon… I think he was pretty poor for the wallas last year off the pine and Powell deserves a chance based on merit alone. (and he is been a part of a winning, dominant team.. Gordon has not).

To reinforce your astute observation, the Burn Boys in the Rebels are all from Melbourne I believe.
Trevor Hosea is a Rebels Academy product and is looking mean this year.

When I watch them play I just feel the whole team is undersized and lacks overall physicality in both the breakdown and contact zone. They are rookies so eating, lifting and learning should be the mantra…. but that takes time.
I don’t think the forwards in particular are big enough, which means Swinton has to take on this weird sort of NHL-enforcer type role to try and get a physical edge. Frustrating.
So yeah.. selection issue.

Yep thanks Geoff wrong Lonergan 😂

If anyone would like to debate me as to why Gordon is a better pick than Powell please feel free, keen to test my argument for his selection against opposition.

Gordon over Powell? Lonergan over Powell? Not that I don’t rate both of them. But the stats don’t lie and the fact that Powell was the 9 for the majority of the Brumbies dominating streak does mean something..He may not look flashy but he is quick, tackles well and is very consistent.

Can someone help me with why Gordon / Lonergan were picked ahead of him?