Here is an opinion on Aussie rugby

[FrankLind]

Super Rugby expansion has hurt the Wallabies


OPINION: The Wallabies' woes lie in their own back yard and run much deeper than the simple excuse of a long list of injuries.
The year after a World Cup is always a fresh start, a bit of a clean-out, and the Rugby Championship has been an ideal tournament to judge new approaches and progress.
Steve Hansen has moved the All Blacks on in terms of tactics and performance.
There have been some promising signs for the Springboks under new coach Heyneke Meyer.
It's fair to say the Pumas have proven themselves a worthy addition.
But there's no denying that Australia have gone seriously backwards.
It's not acceptable to shrug that off as just a bad season complicated by injuries and coming against the best teams in the world. Their drop in standards has been unprecedented in recent times.
One of the great strengths of the Wallabies, as with many Australian sports, has been their “Digger” approach of courage, confidence and loyalty.
But these are qualities that have diminished in Australian game and I'm talking more than just the Wallabies.
Aussie CEO John O'Neill is a fantastic administrator but he has taken an expand-at-all-costs approach that I think has weakened rather than strengthened their game.
Desperate to break into new markets and fight against the threats of Aussie rules, league and soccer, O'Neill has been guilty of diluting their product. Sometimes it's better to simply look after your core customers.
Looking back to the old days of the Super 10, Australia had two very good sides in their traditional rugby states of New South Wales and Queensland.
The addition of the Brumbies to the Super 12 was justified and worked well. They became a champion side and provided the backbone for the Wallabies' 1999 World Cup triumph with the likes of George Gregan, Stephen Larkham, Stirling Mortlock, George Smith and more.
The move to invade Perth and build the Western Force stretched their playing resources to the limit.
But still they wanted more and O'Neill's ability to ride over New Zealand and South African administrators and get the Melbourne Rebels established in the Aussie rules hot-bed of Victoria took rugby beyond breaking point.
They simply don't have enough good players and this isn't a development competition - it's meant to be the global pinnacle of provincial rugby.
Their concession to allow more imported players is an admission of their own weaknesses and the flow-on certainly hasn't helped the Wallabies this year in their hour of need.
But this hasn't been just an Australian problem, it's also adversely affected Super Rugby.
International rugby is a success because of parochialism. When you blatantly commercialise the game, you lose that key element.
We've already seen that across the Tasman where their top players are constantly on the move. Look at the likes of David Pocock, Kurtley Beale, James O'Connor, Julian Huxley, Mortlock, Rocky Elsom and Drew Mitchell shifting franchises.
We need a strong Australian team for the sake of international rugby and if they're blatantly honest they would be better to downscale and go back to four Super Rugby teams.
Who could come into Super Rugby to replace that Aussie franchise? I'd go for a Pacific Islands nation.
It would be a great way to get some top island players back from the northern hemisphere clubs and encourage them to play in their own back yard. They would also strengthen the competition and add real interest.
Would they be competitive? I'd back an island team to get more wins than the Western Force and Melbourne Rebels combined.
They might struggle on the road a bit initially, but at home, they'd be more than competitive.
- Taine Randell is a former All Blacks captain

 

[TOCC]

Think about this... If the Force were to fold, would Australia be any worse off in terms of playing depth?

Around 5 may be able to earn starting positions in other provinces(notably the Rebels) but I'd say a large number wouldn't even earn a contract elsewhere.

Now I'm not having a dig at the Force, but it sort of questions the ARU'a policy of Australian eligible players.

If the Force were granted dispensation to recruit up to 10 foreigners would it really weaken the Australian playing pool? Australia doesn't have the depth to cover 5 teams so why try to enforce these rules?

Or would Australia be better off if the Force had 7-10 foreigners in their side, they actually preformed well and beat saffa and kiwi teams giving valuable experience to the remaining 20 Australian players in the squad.

 

[WorkingClassRugger]

Think about this. If the Force were to fold, would Australia be any worse off in terms of playing depth?

Around 5 may be able to earn starting positions in other provinces(notably the Rebels) but I'd say a large number wouldn't even earn a contract elsewhere.

Now I'm not having a dig at the Force, but it sort of questions the ARU'a policy of Australian eligible players.

If the Force were granted dispensation to recruit up to 10 foreigners would it really weaken the Australian playing pool? Australia doesn't have the depth to cover 5 teams so why try to enforce these rules?

Or would Australia be better off if the Force had 7-10 foreigners in their side, they actually preformed well and beat saffa and kiwi teams giving valuable experience to the remaining 20 Australian players in the squad.

Personally, I think all Aus teams should look to have 5 or so imports. Particularly from the likes of Argentina and such. There are some very good young players coming up in the Argentine junior ranks plus some quality veterans who should be playing Super Rugby especially now that we have then in the Rugby Championship.

 

[Bruce Ross]

I notice a couple of members responding who seem to have taken this article far too seriously. I have always thought of Taine Randall as a taciturn and rather humourless individual - he is a Kiwi after all. But now we see a glimpse of rather subtle wit, namely his description of John O'Neill as "a fantastic administrator" who is "desperate to break into new markets and fight against the threats of Aussie rules, league and soccer". Now that's really taking the piss.

"Fight[ing] against the threats of Aussie rules, league and soccer"? Can you imagine the hilarity if any one of those codes listed "How to overcome rugby's hold on the Australian sporting public" as an agenda item at one of their strategy meetings?

"Desperate to break into new markets"? Plonking franchises in Perth and Melbourne then restricting the academies to Sydney and Brisbane does indeed smack of desperation, but more probably desperation to stem financial haemorrhaging than to "break into new markets".
.

 

[TOCC]

I notice a couple of members responding who seem to have taken this article far too seriously.

It's a forum Bruce... Articles like this are used to stimulate further discussion... If everyone agreed with the article there would be no point for discussion

 

[Hugh Jarse]

One of the most tribal institutions we have in our lives is our "old school".

Athletes change clubs with regularity. Very few kids change schools. It is a constant in our lives, and by law every one must attend school until they turn 17.

In the Sydney market, we are nowhere as ferally loyal to our sporting tribes as they are in WARIPLAND*, so IMHO any hearts and minds campaigns should be directed at the Schools Tribes. Where the main codes have won the battle in the schools, the code seems to reach a form of critical mass.

The only key "submarket" where there is a rugby stranglehold is in "exclusive Private Schools" in Sydney and Brisbane and ARU have little ability to influence what goes inside those institutions.

AFL would love to gain access those. NRL is probably a bit Meh about those because of the CHS and CCC access they enjoy.

NRL already enjoy more or less a stranglehold on the CCC Market in Sydney. Rugby and AFL would love to get into those. There would be as much chance of Rugby takeovers in those bastions as there is the NRL taking primacy at Joeys and Knox.

I don't know much about the soccer stronghold schools. They have a great junior club setup, and social club league. They seem to be a bit thin in the Schools market and junior academies feeding into domestic professional/semiprofessional ranks. For Soccer to realise its full potential, it would love to be the key tribal sport in either GPS/CAS/ISA and/or CCC/CHS.


* Where Australian Rules Is Played Land

 

[Bruce Ross]

This was apparently directed at me and WCR, yet we were talking about more marquee/foreign player positions and not the issues you raised in regards to JON.

So you are content that Australia currently has enough depth at Super Rugby level to be competitive?

Collateral damage, TOCC. My first sentence was just a lead in not necessarily, you may be surprised to learn, meant to be taken too seriously.
.

 

[WorkingClassRugger]

Collateral damage, TOCC. My first sentence was just a lead in not necessarily, you may be surprised to learn, meant to be taken too seriously.
.

I've been of the opinion that Super Rugby franchises should start to look to filling roster spots with players from emerging nations for a while now as a means of assisting there development and our depth issues for some time. I actually haven't read the article. Just responding to TOCC's comment.

I actually think the recent expansions into both Perth and Melbourne will deliver greater depth long term than we are seeing at the moment. It's the development and pathways below Super Rugby that need streamlining in order to draw more participants, coaches and referee's.

 

[ChargerWA]

Consider this. A super squad is 30 players plus 5 EPS, and only 3 of those are allowed to be foreigners (for the WF anyway). This represents 8.5% of the squad.

In Western Australia, 40.7% of the population was born overseas. These numbers can't really be used statistically to prove anything as they don't take into account what percentage of imigrants that would be eligible, but they do draw attention to the fact that the 3 player rule seriously cuts down our ability to do the one thing we rely on in the West to compete globally, import labour.

If the foreign player restrictions aren't loosened (for the Force anyway) I can't see them lasting beyond another 5-7 years.

 

[waratahjesus]

Did anyone really think expansion would have immediate effect? It has to be a 5-10 year plan, not overnight. In the long run it will benefit.

In south Africa and new Zealand a couple of teams have always struggled year in year out. There are haves and have nots. Time will solve everything.

The force struggle because they came in to early. It's not to say they can't succeed but the smart economic and player choice was Melbourne, I always thought if the rebels had come in first and had 5 years or so the expansion to Perth would have worked better.

In the short term if your going to import players, they should restrict it to the Argentina and pacific island region, help our own backyard before becoming a retirement home for Europeans.

 

[Hugh Jarse]

When the AFL sent South Melbourne to Sydney, it took about 20 years before they were "established" and "accepted", and that was with plenty of concessions from HQ AFL and support that ARU can only dream of.

One of my Cross Country Volley Ball snouts reckons the GWS Giants will similarly take 15-20 years to get established as well. Again, HQ AFL seems to be cashed up and prepared to throw a fair amount of pocket money their way.

 

[Sully]

I think it's pretty short sighted to think Australia can't support less than 200 hundred quality rugby players. I'd be looking at a few other things before I put up the 'we don't have the cattle' argument. Finances, coaching, leadership and location for starters.
I don't agree that bringing overseas players strengthens Australian rugby. To me I just see it as 10 Australian players not playing Super Rugby. I'd rather they were doing that when the alternative is club rugby.

 

[p.Tah]

With all the recent injuries, if we didn't have the Force and the Rebels I think Sydney University 2nd grade may have lined up against the Argies this morning ('Slight' exaggeration).

I have friends and collegues in WA and Vic and they are very glad to have their own team. if they didn't they probably wouldn't be following rugby.

 

[Athilnaur]

Cheap article that isn't saying anything that wasn't said during the super rugby.

There is three nations in the super rugby, one of the conferences come last. Suddenly it is the end of the world?

My issue with Aussie rugby is at the Wallaby level. We put our guys through the mill in the 3N and RWC, then expected more, then expected them to back it up going straight into super rugby, then toss in an extra test vs Scotland before a a 3 test series?

JON may well be a good administrator, but the schedule in the past 12 months, without any contingency to manage burn out, has been nigh on incompetent. No doubt some will blame Deans, but I suspect after losing the RWC he has had little to no influence.

 

[Jets]

Didn't we just come second in the Rugby Championship? Also we were heavily hindered by having a coaching team that don't seem to have any tactical nous and used 1 backline move for the entire tournament and didn't place any importance on the line out.

 

[TOCC]

Did anyone really think expansion would have immediate effect? It has to be a 5-10 year plan, not overnight. In the long run it will benefit.

In south Africa and new Zealand a couple of teams have always struggled year in year out. There are haves and have nots. Time will solve everything.

The force struggle because they came in to early. It's not to say they can't succeed but the smart economic and player choice was Melbourne, I always thought if the rebels had come in first and had 5 years or so the expansion to Perth would have worked better.

In the short term if your going to import players, they should restrict it to the Argentina and pacific island region, help our own backyard before becoming a retirement home for Europeans.

I agree its a long term process, but It took 5 years before we started to look like we had the depth to sustain 4 reasonably competitive teams.. Even with the foreign positions, the Rebels have set the Australian conference back another 5 years... We need more foreign players today..

 

[Scotty]

Yep. 5 per squad. Keep 30 locals minimum add up to 5 non-locals. Make it so that 3 of the foreign players have to be from RC nations.

 

[Roundawhile]

So far this year we have used 38 players.

We have lost 2 games to the ABs, one to the Saffers and one to Scotland.

We have won three games vs Wales, one vs SA and two vs the Argies.

I would say that the depth of Aus Rugby is nowhere near as bad a lot of people try to make out. To me, seeing Australia A grind out a win against the Pumas is a vindication of the depth of our players. And further more I believe that depth has been helped by the addition of the Force and the Rebels.

Don't get me wrong, there was a lot of short term pain, and to an extant still is, from this growth. I was very sad when Sharpie et al walked from the Reds.

But I think this year has shown that there is now a larger number of players we can call on to step up and wear the Gold.

Not all are yet at International level, but we are improving.

I honestly believe 2013 will be a defining year for Aus Rugby.

 

[Jnor]

Consider this. A super squad is 30 players plus 5 EPS, and only 3 of those are allowed to be foreigners (for the WF anyway). This represents 8.5% of the squad.

In Western Australia, 40.7% of the population was born overseas. These numbers can't really be used statistically to prove anything as they don't take into account what percentage of imigrants that would be eligible, but they do draw attention to the fact that the 3 player rule seriously cuts down our ability to do the one thing we rely on in the West to compete globally, import labour.

If the foreign player restrictions aren't loosened (for the Force anyway) I can't see them lasting beyond another 5-7 years.

Interesting point, given that as a whole about 25% of the Aus population is born overseas maybe all the squads should have a higher proportion of overseas players allowed

 

[Schadenfreude]

Has anyone seen a reason Oz was ranked higher than SA this tournament?
Is it more wins?