Getting back to the original point of this thread, regarding the ARU and how they measure success, I think it's a multi-layered answer. I apologise if the length is a bit much but:
The first two are obvious -
- on field success: the teams that compete on the provincial and international stage (Super sides and Wallabies) need to be doing well.
- financial success: teams need to be getting bums on seats and eyes on screens. The former has been going pretty well at the provincial level thanks to good management at the reds and success combined with better management at the Tahs. The Force maintain a solid core, but support for the Brumbies seems a little down, and the Rebels are still fairly new. The Wallabies meanwhile are down on pretty well all counts - poor crowds and ratings.
But for me, one of the other key indicators is HOW we sell the game in Australia; a critical ingredient in how we succeed in the first two. Now, it's been common for Pulver, McKenzie, Cheika and other coaches and administrators to all talk about the realities of Australia's incredibly complex and competitive football market and the need therefore for the most entertaining style possible.
I understand this, but also fundamentally feel it is your classic example of confusing the signal for the noise and is actually partially why we find ourselves where we are.
What I mean by that is the focus on style seems to be predicated on the notion that we'll attract more AFL, or League fans, and I just don't think that's true. Doing it also means we tend to neglect our area of tradition weakness; scrummaging and forward play in general.
What we ought to be doing is focusing on these areas as a point of difference rather than simply agreeing with the chorus of nay-sayers in other codes. Now, I really don't like soccer, but they do this rather well. The other day I was listening to Triple M and they had an A-League pro-mo in which one of the examples they used to describe the types of "thrilling" matches on display was a "heart-stopping nil all draw".
I laughed, but also thought to myself "now THAT is how rugby should sell itself." What they're doing is turning a traditional weakness of the game and selling it as a strength, and with good reason - soccer fans have no trouble with nil all draws the world over, it's only non-soccer countries that do. People like me who will never like the game will scoff, but what it does is turn it into a debate, as soccer isn't just conceding the point to its competitors.
The same can be said for rugby and our scrums and penalties. We need to stop letting the opposition frame the debate of our code, and take charge of the narrative ourselves. And on that measure, the ARU have failed - they have followed the agenda set by others and tried to conform to a market they can't win.
I still think it's admirable to aspire to play "positive" rugby, but we should also take pride in the areas of the game that our detractors are so keen to belittle. By not doing so, we only make the target on our backs bigger.
