The Pulverisation of Australian Rugby

[Inside Shoulder]

Europe and NZ do not have to contend with our distances.
The whole of NZ would just about fit between the Red and the Burmbies

 

[Omar Comin']

Not everything has to be about development for higher levels just because a higher level exists.

If individual leagues or tournaments get continually treated as development tools first and foremost, it makes people care less about them. No one cares about trial game results for example. Yet you could argue Super Rugby is treated like a series of trial games for the All Blacks and Wallabies. And this isn't good for growing Super Rugby!

 

[Marcelo]

I think New Zealand rugby has become too top heavy - even more than Australian rugby. It's like nothing else matters except the All Blacks and the main purpose of everything else is to develop players. With other levels devalued it's no surprise crowds are down.

If the All Blacks ever go through a period of bad results the NZRU will face the same sort of trouble the ARU have over the last 10 years.

Having the financial success of a sport basically determined by the fortunes of one team that plays just 6 home games every year and 12-14 overall is very risky. Works better for the NZRU than it does for us though, as the All Blacks brand is so much more valuable.

NZ is a completely different scene. It's a smaller country with less sport competition. That is, the Aussie rugby has to compete against the NRL and AFL. Similar sports with similar athletes. NZ hasn't a sport like League who would steal their best players as the League have done in Australia.

Cricket needs very different athletes, then it is not a hindrance to the growth of rugby in NZ. While the AFL and NRL have done much damage to the Australian rugby. They have always been a tough competition, even in their golden years the Wallabies couldn't overcome the TV audience of State of Origin.

 

[Dan54]

MHCS what in hell world do you live in that doesn't know NZ has to compete with League for players, not sure if you heard, but apparently there are are pretty handy number of NZ players playing in league. I actually think reading this forum that most don't realise that every NZ college tournament for years has had Aus and NZ league scouts attending, and even at college level, a number of colleges struggle to field 1st 15s because of numbers of kids that play league. NZRU works hard to keep Rugby number 1 in NZ, and I do tend to think in Aus here rugby people in general have to stop using league as an excuse. I surprised even Omar thinks everything in NZ is aimed at All Blacks, that is only what you read in papers here, if that was the case rugby would die in NZ very quickly. ITM cup rugby is a great comp. and though it helps develop players for higher level, that is not it's reason for existing, it is probably means more to a good number of kiwis than Super rugby! Club rugby is same, of course top club rugby develops players etc etc

 

[waiopehu oldboy]

Over 40 NRL players declared themselves available for NZ this year & probably another 10-15 could have but went with Australia, Samoa or Tonga instead and there's around 20 more potential Kiwis in UK Super League. Many would make a Super Rugby squad & a few (Shaun Johnson for one) would at least go close to the AB.

So, yes, rugby is NZ's leading winter code & that's unlikely to change any time soon but to state that it doesn't face competition from RL (& soccer & basketball & in certain communities NFL) is just silly. As @Dan54 notes, kids as young as 12 & 13 are actively scouted for RL at schools & age grade comps & the drain is significant.

Rugby in NZ stays on top because everyone involved from U-6's to AB wants it to stay on top & does their best to ensure that it does. They obviously don't get it right all the time but they're ultimately the reason we're so successful & as noted by an earlier poster ARU would do well to try & emulate the bottom-up NZ model & get the game into the readymade but neglected player & supporter pools that are already out there but being gifted to NRL & AFL.

 

[Quick Hands]

MHCS what in hell world do you live in that doesn't know NZ has to compete with League for players, not sure if you heard, but apparently there are are pretty handy number of NZ players playing in league. I actually think reading this forum that most don't realise that every NZ college tournament for years has had Aus and NZ league scouts attending, and even at college level, a number of colleges struggle to field 1st 15s because of numbers of kids that play league. NZRU works hard to keep Rugby number 1 in NZ, and I do tend to think in Aus here rugby people in general have to stop using league as an excuse. I surprised even Omar thinks everything in NZ is aimed at All Blacks, that is only what you read in papers here, if that was the case rugby would die in NZ very quickly. ITM cup rugby is a great comp. and though it helps develop players for higher level, that is not it's reason for existing, it is probably means more to a good number of kiwis than Super rugby! Club rugby is same, of course top club rugby develops players etc etc

Which is why I was very surprised to learn on the previous page that the NZRFU has lost money the last couple of years, super rugby crowds in NZ are down 10% and it took the game in Chicago for the NZRFU to turn a profit this year.

I've always thought that the great strength of rugby in NZ was that it was interwoven into all levels of the community from 6s to ABs. The drop-off in super rugby crowds tends to suggest that there has been some loss of connection - unless you have a different explanation.

You're right in saying that there is league in NZ, but really rugby has a position of primacy in NZ sport unparalled anywhere in the rugby world. Aussie Rules in Melbourne occupies a similar position.

Rugby in Australia is a long way behind league in NSW and Qld and behind Aussie Rules in the other states. This means that we have far less resources to attract players and sponsors. For decades, world rugby league was financially propped up by Sydney and the fact that rugby has little of no presence in parts of Sydney is a consequence of the pre-eminent position of league post-WW2 and the lack of foresight and resources available to rugby during the amateur era. Remember that rugby in Australia had to compete with professional league, when league in NZ would have been little more than amateur itself.

It's not an excuse, to say that league affects rugby in Australia more than it does in any other country, it's just a statement of fact.

 

[TOCC]

Apart from market saturation, I really don't think that New Zealand should be held up as an example of what the ARU should aspire to, whilst their business model works well for them currently it is precariously balanced in its reliance in the success of the All Blacks. In reality, NZRU have focused their energies in a similar fashion to Australia yet the major difference been that the All Blacks have been successful and the Wallabies haven't.

Lets just say hypothetically the Wallabies had enjoyed the success that the All Blacks have experienced over the past 10 years, and the All Blacks had run the Wallabies course. I don't doubt the ARU would be flush with money and the NZRU would be hurting to make ends meets.

If we want to look to other unions as a means of running the game, then i think South Africa has a pretty successful business model, and similarly a balance between what France and England would also be ideal.

Obviously different markets, different environmental factors etc, but still an example of what could be achieved.

 

[Brendan Hume]

The drop-off in super rugby crowds tends to suggest that there has been some loss of connection - unless you have a different explanation.

IIRC, crowds and viewing figures have been down across the whole Super Rugby competition. Might be an economic issue. I think the whole Super Rugby concept could do with a revamp to make it more geographically compact.

 

[Brendan Hume]

Apart from market saturation, I really don't think that New Zealand should be held up as an example of what the ARU should aspire to, whilst their business model works well for them currently it is precariously balanced in its reliance in the success of the All Blacks. In reality, NZRU have focused their energies in a similar fashion to Australia yet the major difference been that the All Blacks have been successful and the Wallabies haven't.

Lets just say hypothetically the Wallabies had enjoyed the success that the All Blacks have experienced over the past 10 years, and the All Blacks had run the Wallabies course. I don't doubt the ARU would be flush with money and the NZRU would be hurting to make ends meets.

If we want to look to other unions as a means of running the game, then i think South Africa has a pretty successful business model, and similarly a balance between what France and England would also be ideal.

Obviously different markets, different environmental factors etc, but still an example of what could be achieved.

The difference seems to be that the lower tiers are better resourced. I agree completely that the competition from other codes has a significant impact on the availability of the level of competition required to develop the finest players, and the staff and finances to assist in delivering this. In saying that, Australia doesn't have a strong, integrated plan to make the best use of the resources that are available.

I'm not sure why there's a negative view of competitions striving to develop the best players that they can. Every level of competition has its own place in the landscape, and is valued for what it is. If one of the tiers fail underneath the National team, there are effects at the top level in the future.

I also don't see how NZRU have made a mistake in having the All Blacks as the central figure in their strategy - what else can they do? How is SA different and better?

 

[TOCC]

I also don't see how NZRU have made a mistake in having the All Blacks as the central figure in their strategy - what else can they do? How is SA different and better?

Di didn't say it was a mistake, just that's it's precariously balanced and as long as the All Blacks continue to win its a successful concept..

Someone might have the figures but South Africa's domestic competition generates proportionately more revenue in comparison to the test team, likewise with France and England.. The health of the code in these countries is less reliant on the test team, rather greater focus is offered to the domestic comps.

It's definitely something tp consider if we are going to use other nations as a benchmark.

 

[Brendan Hume]

Didn't say it was a mistake, just that's it's precariously balanced and as long as the All Blacks continue to win its a successful concept..

Someone might have the figures buy South Africa's domestic competition generates proportionately more revenue then the senior team, likewise with France and England.. The health of the code in these countries is less reliant on the test team, rather greater focus is offered to the domestic comps.

South Africa is definitely interesting. They are losing a lot more players to Europe now, so it will be interesting to see if there is a significant impact from that in the medium term on their domestic comp.

France and England have great domestic competitions, but there is huge money invested in clubs with private ownership. I can't see that model working in Australia or NZ. The population is too small in NZ and the game is too far behind League and AFL in Australia to gain the TV revenue required.

NZ doesn't have a lot of options other than to pin their fortunes to the AB's. Its a tiny nation with a generally weak currency. TV drives sporting revenues globally and they're not in a good position to bargain for more. I'm not sure that poor performances for the AB's will see the ruination of the NZRU - and I think the development model they have adopted will ensure their future success. It's hard to imagine an AB's that isn't top 2 in world rankings, ever.

 

[TOCC]

Yes all those countries represent vastly different market places to Australia, a good manager will look at the successful components and uses benchmarking as a means to improve and set a strategy for their own union.

Using the NZRU blueprint in Australia wouldn't work, nor would using the RFU or FRU.. Perhaps there is a happy medium in among all those though that suits Australia's unique market.

 

[Quick Hands]

Yes all those countries represent vastly different market places to Australia, a good manager will look at the successful components and uses benchmarking as a means to improve and set a strategy for their own union.

Using the NZRU blueprint in Australia wouldn't work, nor would using the RFU or FRU.. Perhaps there is a happy medium in among all those though that suits Australia's unique market.

Probably the closest to Australia would be France, where rugby runs a distant second to soccer and rugby in concentrated in one sector of the country (the south-west), with outposts dotted around the country. The main difference that I can see is they have a bottom up structure while we have a top down structure.

But you're correct in saying that Australia is unique in terms of the issues we face and we need to work out how to do what we do with maximum efficiency.

 

[Marcelo]

Which is why I was very surprised to learn on the previous page that the NZRFU has lost money the last couple of years, super rugby crowds in NZ are down 10% and it took the game in Chicago for the NZRFU to turn a profit this year.

I've always thought that the great strength of rugby in NZ was that it was interwoven into all levels of the community from 6s to ABs. The drop-off in super rugby crowds tends to suggest that there has been some loss of connection - unless you have a different explanation.

You're right in saying that there is league in NZ, but really rugby has a position of primacy in NZ sport unparalled anywhere in the rugby world. Aussie Rules in Melbourne occupies a similar position.

Rugby in Australia is a long way behind league in NSW and Qld and behind Aussie Rules in the other states. This means that we have far less resources to attract players and sponsors. For decades, world rugby league was financially propped up by Sydney and the fact that rugby has little of no presence in parts of Sydney is a consequence of the pre-eminent position of league post-WW2 and the lack of foresight and resources available to rugby during the amateur era. Remember that rugby in Australia had to compete with professional league, when league in NZ would have been little more than amateur itself.

It's not an excuse, to say that league affects rugby in Australia more than it does in any other country, it's just a statement of fact.

Between countries with rugby tradition like: NZ, SA, Australia, England, France, Scotland, Wales, Ireland, Argentina, Japan and Italy. Australia is the only country where League is bigger than Union, in ALL other countries Union is the dominant code. So you can't deny the negative influence of the League in the Australian rugby.

League exists in NZ and they are the second country in player development, just behind Australia. But they don't even have a professional competition of League.

The situation in League for NZ is equal to the situation of Argentina in Union. They have many players but don't have a professional tournament, so their best players should play abroad and that isn't the best scenario by many reasons that I don't want to write. They are the same reasons why the migration of Aussie players to Europe is detrimental for the Australian rugby.

There may be a stronghold of the League in NZ, but they don't have the strength or the crowd to create a tournament like ITM Cup for League.

They couldn't sell out the Wellington stadium at the final match of the four nations against the Kangaroos. That's very poor, Wellington is the second most populous city in NZ, it is assumed that the League should be there more than 35k supporters.

 

[Quick Hands]

Between countries with rugby tradition like: NZ, SA, Australia, England, France, Scotland, Wales, Ireland, Argentina, Japan and Italy. Australia is the only country where League is bigger than Union, in ALL other countries Union is the dominant code. So you can't deny the negative influence of the League in the Australian rugby.

League exists in NZ and they are the second country in player development, just behind Australia. But they don't even have a professional competition of League.

The situation in League for NZ is equal to the situation of Argentina in Union. They have many players but don't have a professional tournament, so their best players should play abroad and that isn't the best scenario by many reasons that I don't want to write. They are the same reasons why the migration of Aussie players to Europe is detrimental for the Australian rugby.

There may be a stronghold of the League in NZ, but they don't have the strength or the crowd to create a tournament like ITM Cup for League.

They couldn't sell out the Wellington stadium at the final match of the four nations against the Kangaroos. That's very poor, Wellington is the second most populous city in NZ, it is assumed that the League should be there more than 35k supporters.

I think you've replied to the wrong person

 

[papabear]

I think I read somewhere that Australian Rules was looking to establish and dominate in NSW and QLD way back when, but the emergence of league saw off that threat.

Keeping in mind that rugby and AFL was played way back when in all the colonies without the same sort of dominant landscape you see today.

Thus I think blaming rugby league or the NRL for the ARUs position is a bit poor tbh.

Add to that RL has been around for ages and this decline in rugby has only really been post 03 and in particular the last couple of years.

As for the naming of other countries you could reverse your argument and say league would be bigger in those countries but for rugby union. I don't think it is fair to say that except for countries where it is blindingly obvious that rugby union is going out of its way to block leagues path of building its own base. And even then, if those countries had the support of the NRL or the ESL league would be fine, so really....looking externally isn't the answer for rugby leagues troubles in those countries.

Same goes for union in aus, you can blame league and afl all you want but in the end it is up to the ARU to make sure it prospers not the other codes.

 

[Quick Hands]

I think I read somewhere that Australian Rules was looking to establish and dominate in NSW and QLD way back when, but the emergence of league saw off that threat.

Keeping in mind that rugby and AFL was played way back when in all the colonies without the same sort of dominant landscape you see today.

Thus I think blaming rugby league or the NRL for the ARUs position is a bit poor tbh.

Add to that RL has been around for ages and this decline in rugby has only really been post 03 and in particular the last couple of years.

As for the naming of other countries you could reverse your argument and say league would be bigger in those countries but for rugby union. I don't think it is fair to say that except for countries where it is blindingly obvious that rugby union is going out of its way to block leagues path of building its own base. And even then, if those countries had the support of the NRL or the ESL league would be fine, so really..looking externally isn't the answer for rugby leagues troubles in those countries.

Same goes for union in aus, you can blame league and afl all you want but in the end it is up to the ARU to make sure it prospers not the other codes.

The thing that you are missing is that league has always been a professional sport, while rugby was amateur until the 1990s. When league first started in Australia, a number of the big name players went across because of the money, so in Australia league had a ready made playing base and fan base. They were able to use their professional status to expand at the expense of rugby. More recently, as the international powerhouse of league, Australia was able to change the rules to suit itself to meet demand (real or perceived)

In NZ, as far as I'm aware, this didn't occur probably because there wasn't the level of industrialisation in NZ 100 years ago to support a professional league. League was restricted in England by the class system which confined it largely to the working class north, while the upper and middle class south and west stayed with rugby.

I'm not blaming league for the position in which rugby finds itself, I'm merely stating some of the reasons that one code has such a position of dominance. The decline in rugby began before 2003, but it was masked by a golden era of Wallaby success. What basically happened was that demographics finally caught up with us - rugby did not move with the expansion of Sydney post WW2, our footprint largely reflects Sydney 1914 not 2014. Thus the huge population of young people in western Sydney mostly only have league or soccer as their winter team sport options in their local area. And there's no short term fix for this, however much some at the ARU might think there is.

 

[papabear]

I hear you and you make many points that have merit, but I think it should be clarified when rugby league started it was pretty much the same game (if not exactly the same game) as rugby union.

It was just a different organisation running the show. They were both playing "rugby" persay.

 

[Brendan Hume]

Thus I think blaming rugby league or the NRL for the ARUs position is a bit poor tbh.

As for the naming of other countries you could reverse your argument and say league would be bigger in those countries but for rugby union. I don't think it is fair to say that except for countries where it is blindingly obvious that rugby union is going out of its way to block leagues path of building its own base. And even then, if those countries had the support of the NRL or the ESL league would be fine, so really..looking externally isn't the answer for rugby leagues troubles in those countries.

Probably gone a long way off topic, but wanted to point out two things.

I don't think anyone blames RL for the position RU is in, it's just a fact that it's the game with the biggest fan base in NSW and QLD, and that's unlikely to change. League and AFL are the biggest competition for players and fans in our sport, which is a reality that can't be ignored.

League would be bigger than Union in France if not for the war. The actions of the France Rugby Union board at the time was pretty disgusting.

 

[Inside Shoulder]

I hear you and you make many points that have merit, but I think it should be clarified when rugby league started it was pretty much the same game (if not exactly the same game) as rugby union.

It was just a different organisation running the show. They were both playing "rugby" persay.

Except one was paid and one was not and one stopped for WW1 and one didn't: in consequence of which there was no QRU or equivalent in Queensland until after 1927/28, at least.