Super Rugby Expansion in Australia. Success or failure?

[waratahjesus]

There's no doubt the reds have suffered at the hands of expansion. Although this time round it seems the tahs and the force will have it worse.
.

i find this to be a myth. the reds have been affected by the force more than any other team sure. but people forget that the tahs struggled for years after canberra came in and took so so many players that could have brought the tahs a couple of championships. the argument for the brumbies is these players were not getting opportunities in nsw and thus is the reason that state v state died many years before the force came in and professional rugby and teams came into existence.

as a tahs fan, would i refer to see a nsw dream team? sure, am i upset kurtleys gone? sure. am i going to belt on about it for years to come, bet ya freakin life. but its professional sport.

 

[Gnostic]

i find this to be a myth. the reds have been affected by the force more than any other team sure. but people forget that the tahs struggled for years after canberra came in and took so so many players that could have brought the tahs a couple of championships. the argument for the brumbies is these players were not getting opportunities in nsw and thus is the reason that state v state died many years before the force came in and professional rugby and teams came into existence.

as a tahs fan, would i refer to see a nsw dream team? sure, am i upset kurtleys gone? sure. am i going to belt on about it for years to come, bet ya freakin life. but its professional sport.

Get your myths right. The vast majority of those that went to the Mules were not wanted by the Tahs and couldn't get a start or were deemed too old like Mackenzie.

 

[Groucho]

It's to the lasting benefit of Australian rugby that players move around freely. This is especially the case when they move from the rugby nurseries to the newer teams. No matter how much we might p*ss and moan, it was good for rugby that the Force 'poached' the players they did, otherwise they would never have got off the ground. Ditto the Brumbies, and now the Rebels.

NSW and Queensland were for a century the rugby nurseries of the whole of Australia, and that should be a matter of great pride, not dissatisfaction. So what if players choose to go elsewhere to get opportunities? Already we see home-grown ACT players doing the same thing, and one day we will see home-grown WA and Victorian players doing it too.

It will be a milestone for Australian rugby when the Reds 'poach' the first young Victorian superstar.

 

[Bowside]

I think something needs to be done to stop the flow of Top class players (IE Beale, Sharpe....Giteau) away from their home states. Maybe some form of salary cap bonus is required for players you develop (I think they already have this in league). I also understand the reason for them moving may have had more to do with coaching and poor administration, which is equally important.

Please dont take my view point from a purely qld perspective. I would be more than happy for the Fiangaa twins to return to the brumbies, likewise AWH to the Force, and even Taps and Digby to Melbourne (even thought they both spent half their high school life in qld).

The important thing is that the expansion teams dont end up like the storm in rugby league, who even after more than a decade in the comp (and a pretty damn successful one at that), still haven't really established a strong rugby league culture in victoria.

 

[Groucho]

I think something needs to be done to stop the flow of Top class players (IE Beale, Sharpe....Giteau) away from their home states. Maybe some form of salary cap bonus is required for players you develop (I think they already have this in league). I also understand the reason for them moving may have had more to do with coaching and poor administration, which is equally important.

Please dont take my view point from a purely qld perspective. I would be more than happy for the Fiangaa twins to return to the brumbies, likewise AWH to the Force, and even Taps and Digby to Melbourne (even thought they both spent half their high school life in qld).

The important thing is that the expansion teams dont end up like the storm in rugby league, who even after more than a decade in the comp (and a pretty damn successful one at that), still haven't really established a strong rugby league culture in victoria.

Bowside, I think the top class players are precisely the ones who should be encouraged to move. Having them leave opens up new spaces in the nursery states for new young stars to emerge, and so the cycle goes on. Until new areas like Melbourne have been going for quite some time, there is no way they will develop top class players, and therefore be competitive.

If the Brumbies had been required to rely exclusively on home-grown talent from the outset, there is no way they would have been competitive, and therefore no way they would have been able to grow rugby the way they have. Growing rugby from the grass roots requires a decent dollop of success, else no one will be interested.

The Storm didn't fail to develop league in Melbourne because they brought talent. It was because they only brought talent, and did nothing else for the local game. The Rebels could not be more different, already. Their fans are fantastic, and they have a commitment to the develop local rugby written into the constitution of their club.

 

[The_Brown_Hornet]

That is a myth QWERTY. Whenever the Wallabies have been successful the Wallabies have had a dominant or at least comparable forward pack with the best sides in the world. The 1991 RWC side was the best forward pack in the World for four years until the end of 1994. The 1998-2002 pack was able to dominate in a few games against the ABs and regularly beat the Bok and England. Since then we haven't had an effective forward pack and even with some truly gifted backs have struggled.

Yep. Every successful Wallaby team has a good (and occasionally great) pack. You've got to at least win your own ball to be consistently successful.

 

[Bowside]

Bowside, I think the top class players are precisely the ones who should be encouraged to move. Having them leave opens up new spaces in the nursery states for new young stars to emerge, and so the cycle goes on. Until new areas like Melbourne have been going for quite some time, there is no way they will develop top class players, and therefore be competitive.

If the Brumbies had been required to rely exclusively on home-grown talent from the outset, there is no way they would have been competitive, and therefore no way they would have been able to grow rugby the way they have. Growing rugby from the grass roots requires a decent dollop of success, else no one will be interested.

The Storm didn't fail to develop league in Melbourne because they brought talent. It was because they only brought talent, and did nothing else for the local game. The Rebels could not be more different, already. Their fans are fantastic, and they have a commitment to the develop local rugby written into the constitution of their club.

Interesting point about it opening up more spaces for young players. I look at it this way, a guy like mortlock should be going to the rebels because he is well and truly past it, yet still has decent promotional value and is a great ambassador the game. As you say initial success is important, as we saw with the brumbies, but the success will be for nothing if you cant continue it using home grown players. Mortlock was not a local product, but now he has left we see blokes like Smith in the team replacing him who are local products. This is what I was trying to say about the rebels, they can have their suggar daddy poach a few players and with macqueen as the coach, who knows they might even win the comp, but at the end of the day, we can only really label them as a great success if in 5-10 years they replace their imported stars with local produce, something which the storm have not done.

In regards to Beale, in one sense, I think the influence of Macqueen will be a great thing for him and I think he will really shine at the Rebels. But I still think he had greater value to the tahs as he could have been the poster boy for growing the game in indigenous communities in sydney. For all the talk about taking rugby to new frontiers, there is a frontier much closer to home known as western sydney, which has not yet been conquered. The great shame is that the coach and managment at the tahs is not quite what it should be and as such they couldn't keep him in NSW.

Now I know many do not agree, but if Rugby League has taught us anything, its that state of origin games are that much more exciting because the fact that the players are actually playing for their state gives the game legitimacy and adds to the spirit of the contest. I'm a rusted on Rugby Union support but I would rather watch a state of origin game over most wallabies tests, especially considering some of the performances the wallabies have put in over the last few years.

Just because the sport is professional does not mean that we should just drop the state loyalties and not treat intra conference games as grudge matches. The potential for spirited derby games is there. We already have QLD vs NSW, and this year we had the battle of the expansion teams in the force vs rebels clash. Also consider lesser derbies like the reds v brumbies. I love watching this game because Chisolm always puts in a good performance because I think deep down he is still a bit angry about being given the cold shoulder by QLD all those years ago.

Sorry about the long post, I hope that explains it a bit better.

 

[Finsbury Girl]

My bad...

Point being...

ACT produces a significantamount of players... Players move around...

Big deal...

No it is patently NOT a significant number of players. It is a handful at best after 15 odd years of professional rugby. A poor return on investment.

 

[RedsHappy]

....why do you think that the ARU has been pushing private enterprise onto the unions, because they realise that the current set up is indeed dysfunctional.

First, the ARU is pushing private equity into the expansion states as it is quietly but surely running out of spare investment money itself. The QLD disaster recovery program is very expensive up front at least (may be repaid in say 2012-14, let's see), and, as another example, Wallabies' gate receipts are little by little declining down in direct correlation with Wallaby mediocrity since 2004 approximately (and the superior code marketing skills and grass roots development skills of the AFL and NRL). The 'saviour' factor has been S15 Fox and related TV rights income. Second, and where your are 100% right TOCC, is that the ARU appreciates that private investment brings, in principle, not only money, but, equally, hard-drivng and marketing savvy business co-owners that will have no truck with the introverted rugga-mates culture and second-rate management skills that are markedly deteriorating most State and ACT RUs today.

 

[Slim 293]

No it is patently NOT a significant number of players. It is a handful at best after 15 odd years of professional rugby. A poor return on investment.

That is just pure rubbish and you know it...

The ACT has produced many players (and coaches)... Even the inaugural Brumbies squad were packed with local boys...

And this is from a place that has a small fraction of the population of places like Sydney and Brisbane...

Perth and Melbourne have a long way to go before they catch up with little ol' Canberra...

 

[Groucho]

Interesting point about it opening up more spaces for young players. I look at it this way, a guy like mortlock should be going to the rebels because he is well and truly past it, yet still has decent promotional value and is a great ambassador the game. As you say initial success is important, as we saw with the brumbies, but the success will be for nothing if you cant continue it using home grown players. Mortlock was not a local product, but now he has left we see blokes like Smith in the team replacing him who are local products. This is what I was trying to say about the rebels, they can have their suggar daddy poach a few players and with macqueen as the coach, who knows they might even win the comp, but at the end of the day, we can only really label them as a great success if in 5-10 years they replace their imported stars with local produce, something which the storm have not done.

In regards to Beale, in one sense, I think the influence of Macqueen will be a great thing for him and I think he will really shine at the Rebels. But I still think he had greater value to the tahs as he could have been the poster boy for growing the game in indigenous communities in sydney. For all the talk about taking rugby to new frontiers, there is a frontier much closer to home known as western sydney, which has not yet been conquered. The great shame is that the coach and managment at the tahs is not quite what it should be and as such they couldn't keep him in NSW.

Now I know many do not agree, but if Rugby League has taught us anything, its that state of origin games are that much more exciting because the fact that the players are actually playing for their state gives the game legitimacy and adds to the spirit of the contest. I'm a rusted on Rugby Union support but I would rather watch a state of origin game over most wallabies tests, especially considering some of the performances the wallabies have put in over the last few years.

Just because the sport is professional does not mean that we should just drop the state loyalties and not treat intra conference games as grudge matches. The potential for spirited derby games is there. We already have QLD vs NSW, and this year we had the battle of the expansion teams in the force vs rebels clash. Also consider lesser derbies like the reds v brumbies. I love watching this game because Chisolm always puts in a good performance because I think deep down he is still a bit angry about being given the cold shoulder by QLD all those years ago.

Sorry about the long post, I hope that explains it a bit better.

Those are very good arguments, Bowside. I think there are benefits to Australian rugby in both positions.

 

[RedsHappy]

I respectfully disagree. If we take a very basic premise that what the ARU is trying to do is spread the game of rugby, then we should expect more player participation and an expansion of club rugby, not only in player numbers but in quality. An expanded pool of players should provide at the very least, the basis of a representative/professional team and with time, be able to stand on its own two feet in terms of player development. Now, how many local products are on offer in these 'growth' areas of the ACT and WA, bearing in mind the ACT has had a "super" team since 1996, WA since 2006 ? (Let's ignore Victoria for a moment, they've just started so let's give the VRU the benefit of the doubt). I will give the ACT some leeway in that their population is reasonably small and at least some players have come through the ranks, though nowhere near enough to sustain a local rep side. However Perth has what, 1.5m compared to about 2 in the BrisVegas connurbation? What are the returns from this generous investment from the ARU? What has been the cost per capita? Let's also consider the fact that Qld is a MUNGO state and rugby is a minority sport. By any comparble factors vis a vis the underdog minority sport vs entrenched majority sport (as with WA with aerial ping pong), Qld (and NSW for that matter) has fared significantly better in terms of not only general player participation but producing a sufficient quantity of professional players. Indeeed their ranks have been continually decimated by the expansion. So until this siuation has changed, the experiments conducted by the ARU can only ever be considered failures and expensive ones at that.

Needless to say FG, I think you make some excellent points. It is a genuinely complex matter though: Gnostic's point re a broad-enough size of the sort of 'feeder system' needed for a strong, high quality Wallabies base is a valid one, just as is Groucho's re the critical need to have genuine local rugby grassroots, club and school development systems to build the true _strategic_ depth of the code over the next say 4-6 years, and longer.

The problem (just as you comment on) we have currently is that multiple Aus RUs are neither creating excellent developmental systems that are producing their 'fair share' number of quality exportable players (to directly enrich the total Aus pool), nor are they executing the ultimate (and highly interrelated) 3 golden rules of State code success, namely: financial viability through real fan growth (and thus sponsorship $ growth), increasing $ gate receipts, and top teams that, with reasonable consistency (over say a 3-5 yr cycle), get up to SF or F level in Super Rugby, etc. Couple all this with no 3N or Bled outcomes for the Wallabies in many years. So, worryingly, there is no real Aus-wide, code-wide critical mass building the essential virtuous circles between player depth, team success, enhanced income, greater investment = greater player depth and code attractiveness, etc, etc. The modern AFL is, like it or not, an outstanding example of code-systemic virtuous circles at work, so my and your observations here are not theoretical ones.

There is little doubt that rugby is slowly losing code and sporting market share in Australia, almost exclusively as the result of poor strategic management of the code here since 1999 (or thereabouts). The tough question is what to do about this (now the down slope has gone this far), and where should increasingly scarce ARU investment $s go to arrest this decline. My own view is that radical upgrades of management (and, critically, KPI accountability) are required to the ARU and multiple state RUs, before we reach a negative 'tipping' point that cannot be reversed.

Sadly, whenever we start assessing the actual performance and strategic situations of individual RUs and such like, the vibe on a fan blog site like this equates quickly to that unfortunate moment in one's adolescence when you just had to criticise your best mate's mother's musical abilities: there are lots of immediate explosions entailed in so doing, but that doesn't mean she can play the piano.

 

[The_Brown_Hornet]

No it is patently NOT a significant number of players. It is a handful at best after 15 odd years of professional rugby. A poor return on investment.

So what solution you propose? I don't think we can go back to the cosy duopoloy of the past. A total base of around 60 Australian players at first class level does not build lasting success in modern rugby. As others have said, the five teams broadens the base, provides opportunities for youngsters to be exposed to top level rugby and serves the purpose of expanding the game into previously untapped markets. By providing the necessary environment and pathways for young players in the "minor" states to move up the ranks, we strengthen the game in the future and give good players a reason to stay in Australia. This could take a decade or more, but while the funding from sponsorship and the News Ltd TV rights deal persists, it's worth doing.

 

[waratahjesus]

Get your myths right. The vast majority of those that went to the Mules were not wanted by the Tahs and couldn't get a start or were deemed too old like Mackenzie.

read the sentence under the one you bolded there gnostic and you would see my myths are absolutely right. but feel free to take quotes out of context there champ.

 

[Gnostic]

read the sentence under the one you bolded there gnostic and you would see my myths are absolutely right. but feel free to take quotes out of context there champ.

You said it, plain and simple nothing was taken out of context. Your qualifier doesn't alter your statement at all. Make up your mind, do you say the Waratahs suffered for many years after the advent of the Brumbies because they were pillaged or not. Feel free to formulate a coherant paragraph that doesn't contradict itself - champ.

 

[waratahjesus]

You said it, plain and simple nothing was taken out of context. Your qualifier doesn't alter your statement at all. Make up your mind, do you say the Waratahs suffered for many years after the advent of the Brumbies because they were pillaged or not. Feel free to formulate a coherant paragraph that doesn't contradict itself - champ.

it doesnt condradict itself at all. the tahs depth with there player pool in nsw suffered when the brumbies came in. as a nsw fan i watched many local products turn out for another team, back then it was more state v state than pro team, i stated that when the brumbies came in, state v state died, not when the force came in that some qld fans often seem to say.

you took the first sentence out of context, but feel free to ignore that cos it doesnt support your point.

 

[Bowside]

it doesnt condradict itself at all. the tahs depth with there player pool in nsw suffered when the brumbies came in. as a nsw fan i watched many local products turn out for another team, back then it was more state v state than pro team, i stated that when the brumbies came in, state v state died, not when the force came in that some qld fans often seem to say.

Sure you could say it started to die, but the brumbies had local players playing for them, and their poaches were less high profile. Contrast this to the force, who had no local players and poached many current and future test players.

 

[RedsHappy]

I am loving the debate here, both sides have pretty good arguments. I do want to object to one of your points RH, and it is this one: I see a lot of evidence that they are close to challenging. You paint the Force as struggling no-hopers who have zero chance of ever competing. .....A team like the Force aren't far away from 'breaking out'. Take two examples from this season- the Reds and Highlanders, both of whom have struggled in recent seasons. All of a sudden a couple of good new players and a bit of luck with injury and the bounce of the ball and they are right in finals contention. The Super 15 is a close competition and the Force will beat a few good sides this year, I have no doubt. Providing they keep JOC (James O'Connor) they have the bones of a very good side- Pocock, Sharpe and JOC (James O'Connor) are arguably the three best players in Australia. With a centralised academy structure they will get a better share of the promising youngsters, and that should see them go a long way.

Respecfully Barbarian, I did not say that (in bold). Whilst it may suit the cut of your more optimistic, love-of-all-Aus-rugby argument to attest that I did, but what I did say is: (a) I don't believe the Force can be considered a success as a sports entity that is truly building the rugby code in an optimal manner, in fact IMO I think it's a failure (at this time) as such (b) I don't believe the Force is assembling the critical mass of total coaching quality, player depth etc required to break out and get to a point of making a Super Rugby SF (or better, but let's start with a SF) and I am also concerned it may no longer be able to attract outstanding players and hold its existing ones, and (c) in effect, I don't believe that 5 years to be too short a period in which to expect better results for an expansion team in which the ARU has made a very considerable $ and opportunity cost investment.

Finally, and btw, I think the notion of saying 'being competitive' is somehow 'good enough', and what can be happily tolerated as such is, in a high overhead professional code body, a dangerously low standard of required outcome. What must be sought by each and every RU, and intensively with every drop of money, code passion and blood, is S15 SFs and Fs. (But I do accept that our expectations in the Aus rugby passion-zone are dropping alarmingly: we become incredibly excited when we beat the ABs in one (offshore) Bled, and our faith base seems to be happy with 'we're building for next year' models of delayed gratification, that get moved forward every year. That's fine, but it won't put money in the bank or drive fan numbers up.)

I know it is with hindsight (as it appears here), but I have long considered that an ARU investment in a Melbourne base, and a second Super 15 team in QLD (say Gold Coast and Sunshine Coast, or such like), would have been strategically better calls as expansion investments.

 

[waratahjesus]

Sure you could say it started to die, but the brumbies had local players playing for them, and their poaches were less high profile. Contrast this to the force, who had no local players and poached many current and future test players.

agree totally, it wasnt high profile, but it still affected development. loyalty has been dead for ages, it sucks but its reality. the force should be coming in now, melbourne should have a few years back, it wasnt a good bussiness move at all.

 

[James Buchanan]

The relative success or failure of the expansion teams depends on your metrics for such success or failure.

There seems to be a number of people who are using grassroots involvement as the only metric of success. I disagree with that opinion.

If there are 150 odd players in Australia that are thereabouts to play Super Rugby, except 90% of them come from NSW or QLD, then we do Australian rugby a disservice by only offering them NSW and QLD. More teams in the Super Rugby comp means more professional rugby contracts out there, which means more talented kids will be likely to consider it as a potential career path. Distributing the teams amongst the major population centres also serves another goal, by increasing the potential markets which the Super Rugby product can be present in. This is important for a number of reasons, it means that there we reach out to more people in total and we create more potential revenue from television deals (which is the number 1 reason Melbourne got the license over the Spears/Kings).

So the question remains as to what metrics are relevant to determine success?
- Cashflow?
- Supporter numbers?
- Total Super Rugby quality players/potential Wallabies?
- Grassroot involvement?

My take is that all of them are important. I think that all of them are best achieved through the setup we have at the moment. To localise teams to where their players currently come from is an increasingly isolationist view which is out of sync with how other sporting organisations in the country (particularly the AFL) are operating. The real solution is investing in walla-rugby programs in schools like the AFL does with Auskick. We need to think long term, or else we will be beaten by the people who are.