Where to for Super Rugby?

[sunnyboys]

Unpopular Opinion Warning

Playing NZ teams so often is bad for Australian Rugby.

For fans, following Australian rugby has become about accepting losing... losing often.

You can debate all you want about whose fault it is, but the simple fact is the talent gulf is massive and institutionally entrenched. Gee I laugh when i see people write "we just need to win more"... like we havent been trying to do that for 100 years.

Following Super Rugby and test rugby is for the diehards - those that want to feel good about sport have realised they need to follow another game.

 

[cyclopath]

Cyclopath, so accepting that i'm wrong on the Wallabies thing, I ask you the question - how few viewers or live punters at games are you willing to accept to continue supporting Wallabies players as they are now?

are 10k viewers/5k punters per Super Rugby game ok just as long as offshore broadcast money can keep wallabies in oz?

i'm keen to know what peoples threshold is for this. Tahs had 29k viewers last week - 10k isnt a bizarre hypothetical anymore

Is that the only alternative? What guarantee is there that a "new" system has just lower level players watched by even fewer people? My disagreeing with your premise does not mean I am happy with the current situation. I'm a little tired of people proposing an idea, then responding to any criticism with "well, you must be happy with it now" or labelling you an apologist for RA or whatever. I really feel the idea of reverting to almost a semi-pro system in Oz is flawed, UNLESS you accept that the national team will be realistically Tier 2. I'm just pointing that out.

 

[sunnyboys]

Cyclo - i'm not criticising at all. i'm genuinely interested in what people think that threshold is.

i totally accept your point that reverting to a domestic comp could well mean only semi-pro status and a much reduced status for the Test team. i dont think you are an apologist for anyone.

its a really complex problem - should we just accept that low domestic interest in Super Rugby is the new norm and stop sweating about it? and just accept its the price for maintaining the wallabies. if its not impacting on participation rates perhaps it isnt worth worrying about.

 

[Gnostic]

Unpopular Opinion Warning



Playing NZ teams so often is bad for Australian Rugby.



For fans, following Australian rugby has become about accepting losing. losing often.



You can debate all you want about whose fault it is, but the simple fact is the talent gulf is massive and institutionally entrenched. Gee I laugh when i see people write "we just need to win more". like we havent been trying to do that for 100 years.



Following Super Rugby and test rugby is for the diehards - those that want to feel good about sport have realised they need to follow another game.

DO you really accept that the fundamental talent of the Australian playing rugby is less than that of the NZ player?

The problem since 1996 IMO is the system for player development has been broken and it was as the retirement of the golden generation of players that transitioned from Amateur rugby and those training systems to the new system came about so the decline in Australian playing quality became more and more apparent. For me (and, I can and have posted on many occasions examples and some long winded posts and articles about it) the difference is in skill development in players, Australian players stagnate from the time they enter the "pro" feeder system and they get mighty fit but playing skill does not develop greatly. A player who cannot kick or pass etc never seems to develop that ability. This is why the gulf appears so large, and wither a better system of development (of players and coaches and referees as well) we will see a fairly rapid turn around.

That's the positive in the negative - the real negative is the ARU board and insular nepotistic appointments to key positions and decision making that puts people like Rod Kafer in a key role he has no real proven experience for, John Eales replacing Gregan on the board and now Waugh reportedly stepping in for Eales. All great Rugby people to continue the status quo which has worked so well.

 

[cyclopath]

Cyclo - i'm not criticising at all. i'm genuinely interested in what people think that threshold is.

i totally accept your point that reverting to a domestic comp could well mean only semi-pro status and a much reduced status for the Test team. i dont think you are an apologist for anyone.

its a really complex problem - should we just accept that low domestic interest in Super Rugby is the new norm and stop sweating about it? and just accept its the price for maintaining the wallabies. if its not impacting on participation rates perhaps it isnt worth worrying about.

Sorry, probably over-reacted a bit. I honestly can't see a good solution. I don't want the Wallabies becoming a team that won't compete with the best, but I am struggling to have the interest in Super Rugby that I used to. Unfortunately, my son is not into rugby so I don't really have that link anymore that drove me as a kid and young adult with school / club rugby. Too many people seem to want to let Super Rugby just die, and it might well, but I am not convinced that will necessarily be a better thing.

 

[sunnyboys]

Gnostic - no i dont accept the fundamental talent is less.

but i accept everything else you have written - this is the "institutionally entrenched" i was referring to.

i am resigned to it being entrenched for decades to come, just as it has been in place for decades.

To quote Horne: ... a lucky country run by second rate people

 

[Killer]

getting battered by the kiwi's at super and international level for 15yrs doesn't seem to have made us better rugby players.
In fact I would say we have an expectation of losing and therefore just putting up a good show is the goal.
To improve rugby here at all levels we need a larger mass of players fronting up from the under 6's.
It's not happening though, it's the opposite so no surprises why we are slowly dying.
Super rugby is not the answer, exit and invest from the grassroots up.
Btw you will need to get rid of clone and the board first.

 

[sunnyboys]

my favourite option is actually to run trans tasman but oz states (4 teams or 5) and nz provinces (7 top NPC teams).

diluting their talent might even the comp. plus it would mean more games on TV at the right time. and i think the NZ component would attract foreign broadcast money. and travel costs would be lower. and the nz derbies would be a step down in intensity for them.

and most importantly we could have teams with place names!

 

[James Pettifer]

DO you really accept that the fundamental talent of the Australian playing rugby is less than that of the NZ player?

The problem since 1996 IMO is the system for player development has been broken and it was as the retirement of the golden generation of players that transitioned from Amateur rugby and those training systems to the new system came about so the decline in Australian playing quality became more and more apparent. For me (and, I can and have posted on many occasions examples and some long winded posts and articles about it) the difference is in skill development in players, Australian players stagnate from the time they enter the "pro" feeder system and they get mighty fit but playing skill does not develop greatly. A player who cannot kick or pass etc never seems to develop that ability. This is why the gulf appears so large, and wither a better system of development (of players and coaches and referees as well) we will see a fairly rapid turn around.

That's the positive in the negative - the real negative is the ARU board and insular nepotistic appointments to key positions and decision making that puts people like Rod Kafer in a key role he has no real proven experience for, John Eales replacing Gregan on the board and now Waugh reportedly stepping in for Eales. All great Rugby people to continue the status quo which has worked so well.

Surely the problem is significantly due to the fact that in NZ Rugby is the no 1 sport by far - there is 1 league team and 1 soccer team (both in Australian competitions) and 5 Rugby Union teams. In Australia, there are 15 NRL teams, 18 AFL teams, 9 A League teams and 4 Rugby Union teams.

Of course there is coaching issue etc but this is pretty hard to deal with.

Losing constantly to NZ isn't helping Australian rugby in the slightest - whether it is Super Rugby or the annual beating at the Bledisloe.

We need to take a long term view and that means having a shit next 5-10 years but starting again with a domestic league. It will require moving towards selecting any eligible player from anywhere and thus saving money for some of the more expensive stars. Crowds will drop but at least we then have something solid to start to build back from. Tapping into Twiggy is the obvious way to reduce the short term pain.

The alternative is to stick with SuperRugby. Crowds and ratings continue on their merry decline and we find ourselves with 3 teams in a couple of years and much reduced broadcast payments.

 

[hoggy]

Surely the problem is significantly due to the fact that in NZ Rugby is the no 1 sport by far - there is 1 league team and 1 soccer team (both in Australian competitions) and 5 Rugby Union teams. In Australia, there are 15 NRL teams, 18 AFL teams, 9 A League teams and 4 Rugby Union teams.

Of course there is coaching issue etc but this is pretty hard to deal with.

Losing constantly to NZ isn't helping Australian rugby in the slightest - whether it is Super Rugby or the annual beating at the Bledisloe.

We need to take a long term view and that means having a shit next 5-10 years but starting again with a domestic league. It will require moving towards selecting any eligible player from anywhere and thus saving money for some of the more expensive stars. Crowds will drop but at least we then have something solid to start to build back from. Tapping into Twiggy is the obvious way to reduce the short term pain.

The alternative is to stick with SuperRugby. Crowds and ratings continue on their merry decline and we find ourselves with 3 teams in a couple of years and much reduced broadcast payments.

With this 4 year cycle of world cups, the question can be asked who will remain after Japan next year, Folau,Genia,Pocock & co they will all be gone (Folau maybe earlier), my point is what chance of a Wallaby resurgence after next year, so we sign up for another Super rugby cycle with declining interest and a re-building Wallabies.

Does anyone seriously think the game can grow under that structure

 

[wamberal]

DO you really accept that the fundamental talent of the Australian playing rugby is less than that of the NZ player?

Do you really not accept that rugby is a religion in New Zealand, the game in all its glory is deeply rooted in popular culture, it is followed like a religion (no, far more seriously), and the vast majority of the best kids who choose a winter football code want to play rugby?

In other words, even though the potential recruiting catchment is much smaller over there, rugby in New Zealand gets the best of the best. Compare and contrast with Australia. Surely, surely, you understand that the AFL and the NRL (or their forebears) have swamped us over the years in providing opportunities - most particularly during our amateur era, which is when they established their dominance. We were small, and we were amateur.

The problem since 1996 IMO is the system for player development has been broken and it was as the retirement of the golden generation of players that transitioned from Amateur rugby and those training systems to the new system came about so the decline in Australian playing quality became more and more apparent. This is why the gulf appears so large, and wither a better system of development (of players and coaches and referees as well) we will see a fairly rapid turn around.

.

The gulf appears so large because it always has been, except for very brief periods when we managed to retain some very good players.


Our game nearly died in the fifties. We were saved by a couple of inbound Fijian tours. We managed to survive, and have had some short periods of prosperity since. Just managing to survive is a huge achievement, frankly.


We are still an amateur game at heart, in the sense that if a person does not grow up loving our game, there are lots of attractive alternatives, especially the AFL and NRL (both designed for Australian tastes, and locally governed) and always have been. There is no serious alternative in New Zealand.

 

[dru]

No, it wouldn't. We'd end up with a lower level of professional players being the only "eligible" players, and the better ones plying their trade overseas. I don't know why people don't get that players playing in a lower level comp will play to a lower level. A lower level than all the Home nations, probably France, definitely NZ and maybe SA.
OR, if we waive the eligibility rules, we accept the limitations of running a squad with far more limited coaching access and squad time. The antithesis of, say, NZ or England.
Now, that's all fine, but we would have to accept we would really be a Tier 2 team, all the time.

There are polemics on all sides of this discussion cyclo. The reason that I don't "get" this is that I don't believe it is an inevitable outcome.

In the scenario put forward by Half above, there is a representational level between the domestic pro system and the Wallabies. The proposed SOO system puts the same level of competition in place as a fore-runner to Internationals. Or at least that is the intentions. For me this would ideally this would pick up other SANZAAR partners - it is not however something we can control can't be banked. In the mean time the opportunities for rugby pathways are increased and it would be hoped that we increase the generation of players by doing so.

There would also be an intent to build within that domestic comp so that the standard increases over time - the same way that we currently see grade players stepping up at NRC. The loss of headline talent to overseas is obviously an issue, especially in the transition - but would that transition be worse than what we have already experienced in the "shrink to greatness" strategy?

It is also a matter of whether it is in Aus Rugby's best interest to build from the top down, or from the grass roots. If the later then you can even accept a drop of quality as being inevitable (which I don't).

Reading below I see you state that you are not satisfied entirely with the status quo. So there is common ground. I see the diversion from that common ground as differences in expectations in how Super will morph going forward. If things are expected to improve then the alternatives being discussed are palpable rubbish. But if expectations going forward are that it will not get better it is a simple matter of where the line in the sand is that says "OK it's over, on to Plan B".

I get that plenty of fans have not reached that point and that some never will. But plenty have too. And just as a gut reaction, over say the last three years that cohort is increasing quickly.

 

[Braveheart81]

I guess the biggest challenge is that if you started a new semi professional comp as the main avenue for people to play rugby in Australia as a career (or part of their career) and the salary available was less than any Super Rugby player in Australia was currently getting paid, who would hang around for it?

Would the people involved be much different from club rugby players just being paid a bit more than they currently are?

Would enough people show interest in that competition to make it financially viable? It would still need a TV deal and reasonable crowds to pay for its modest expenses.

People talk about the current situation of cutting a Super Rugby team as being shrinking to greatness.

All of the "Plan B" proposals involving severe cost cutting and clearing the way where the vast majority of our professional players will have no choice but to move overseas will undoubtedly cripple our revenue.

A test side that is hamstrung by only being able to commence preparation in the test window is going to rapidly fall down the rankings and the dollars it can demand both in TV revenue and gate takings will drop like a stone.

I accept all the criticisms of Super Rugby. It has massive problems and something clearly needs to change going forward.

I have absolutely no idea why people are so confident that a domestic semi-pro competition at a standard that is probably slightly above club rugby (but probably lower than the NRC currently) will somehow be the way that Australian rugby becomes sustainable and grows long term.

 

[Braveheart81]

BH, I'm not particularly emotive about it, but no, I don't think you were suggesting that international exposure from Daikin was "not worthless". You were suggesting it was primary. I don't think so.

I don't think anything in my original post suggested the international aspect of the competition was the primary reason for the sponsor becoming involved. It has an impact though and thus makes it a consideration for the type of companies that are likely to be major sponsors of Super Rugby teams (or sporting teams that operate in an international competition).

You're now clutching at straws BH. Are you seriously suggesting that companies which sponsor Australian rugby teams do so to achieve exposure in foreign lands?

We often disagree, but at least you usually present a logical and coherent argument which I can respect even when in disagreement, but that's just nuts.

I'd suggest that the reason Daikin sponsor the Waratahs is largely because they want exposure in the Australian market, not in Tokyo or Mendoza or Pretoria. Most of their sponsors are either Australian companies or the Australian arm of international companies. The sponsorship by Volvo for example would be coming out of Volvo's Australian operation not from Stockholm, nor would the Volvo operations in Argentina, South Africa or Japan be contributing to the sponsorship. Daikin would be the same. The local managers would have a budget and would have to justify the budget on the basis of sales in Australia, I'd be extremely surprised if they'd be able to claim sales in other countries against their sponsorship spend.

No, I am not suggesting that is the reason they choose to sponsor the competition. I am suggesting that it influences the type of companies that do get involved as major sponsors.

There is a reason why lots of the sponsors in rugby are multinational companies (or at least companies whose business has international exposure) compared to say the NRL which features far more locally based businesses.

Depending on the structure, many multi national businesses have management/head office fees which cover things like group marketing. Sponsorship of competitions with international exposure most likely does carry some weight in terms of a credit against what they owe head office for group costs.

 

[hoggy]

I guess the biggest challenge is that if you started a new semi professional comp as the main avenue for people to play rugby in Australia as a career (or part of their career) and the salary available was less than any Super Rugby player in Australia was currently getting paid, who would hang around for it?

Would the people involved be much different from club rugby players just being paid a bit more than they currently are?

Would enough people show interest in that competition to make it financially viable? It would still need a TV deal and reasonable crowds to pay for its modest expenses.

People talk about the current situation of cutting a Super Rugby team as being shrinking to greatness.

All of the "Plan B" proposals involving severe cost cutting and clearing the way where the vast majority of our professional players will have no choice but to move overseas will undoubtedly cripple our revenue.

A test side that is hamstrung by only being able to commence preparation in the test window is going to rapidly fall down the rankings and the dollars it can demand both in TV revenue and gate takings will drop like a stone.

I accept all the criticisms of Super Rugby. It has massive problems and something clearly needs to change going forward.

I have absolutely no idea why people are so confident that a domestic semi-pro competition at a standard that is probably slightly above club rugby (but probably lower than the NRC currently) will somehow be the way that Australian rugby becomes sustainable and grows long term.

Well at least we won't go bust, and maybe long term it will help us get away from the never ending thinking that somehow having some foreign entity forever paying for our rugby is the way forward

 

[Braveheart81]

Well at least we won't go bust, and maybe long term it will help us get away from the never ending thinking that somehow having some foreign entity forever paying for our rugby is the way forward

Why would this ensure we don't go broke?

If you have half the revenue and half the expenses how does it make your position any more secure?

 

[Rebels3]

I guess the biggest challenge is that if you started a new semi professional comp as the main avenue for people to play rugby in Australia as a career (or part of their career) and the salary available was less than any Super Rugby player in Australia was currently getting paid, who would hang around for it?

Would the people involved be much different from club rugby players just being paid a bit more than they currently are?

Would enough people show interest in that competition to make it financially viable? It would still need a TV deal and reasonable crowds to pay for its modest expenses.

People talk about the current situation of cutting a Super Rugby team as being shrinking to greatness.

All of the "Plan B" proposals involving severe cost cutting and clearing the way where the vast majority of our professional players will have no choice but to move overseas will undoubtedly cripple our revenue.

A test side that is hamstrung by only being able to commence preparation in the test window is going to rapidly fall down the rankings and the dollars it can demand both in TV revenue and gate takings will drop like a stone.

I accept all the criticisms of Super Rugby. It has massive problems and something clearly needs to change going forward.

I have absolutely no idea why people are so confident that a domestic semi-pro competition at a standard that is probably slightly above club rugby (but probably lower than the NRC currently) will somehow be the way that Australian rugby becomes sustainable and grows long term.

Agree with most of this. The other facet is that without the lure of a professional competition the likelihood of talented youngsters that might be interested in the game actually playing the game would drop dramatically. Currently you could argue that we are probably getting 10 out of every 100 youngsters that is gifted at oval ball sports, remove the professional level and suddenly you'd be looking at 5/100 youngsters. Then give a generation without role models or players they can follow and it just becomes worse.

The other aspect nobody talks about is what happens to the QPR or SS if they are pillaged of a large portion of their players to form more clubs. The standard of these competitions would become second rate, they would still cry foul that they aren't receiving the attention needed and there would again be disconnect with the larger community.

I am happy to stick to my guns in believing that a Trans-Tasman competition is still the best way forward, it basically supplies the content that most of us want, keeps the wallabies relevant, minimises the ridiculous travel needs on players and provides opportunities that are attractive to young aspiring athletes.

 

[hoggy]

Why would this ensure we don't go broke?

If you have half the revenue and half the expenses how does it make your position any more secure?

Well then, maybe it doesn't but you would finally be using a model that is universally accepted world wide as the most successful way to operate a sporting code competition, sort of take your pick.

 

[Braveheart81]

Well then, maybe it doesn't but you would finally be using a model that is universally accepted world wide as the most successful way to operate a sporting code competition, sort of take your pick.

And I would agree if that was the competition seen as the one to drive revenue in the game, but it isn't and I can't see that changing.

The Wallabies drive the revenue.

The Wallabies generate more revenue when they are successful. The international nature of rugby dictates that more income comes from overseas interest than for a domestic focused sport that doesn't attract TV rights overseas.

If there was a way to smoothly transition our current playing stock to a domestic competition I think it would be far more likely to succeed but no one has come up with a suggestion to do that. The suggestion seems to be that if we just remove Super Rugby and make say the NRC the main competition in town (except with less professionalism) that it will suddenly be much more successful than Super Rugby is.

 

[dru]

I am happy to stick to my guns in believing that a Trans-Tasman competition is still the best way forward, it basically supplies the content that most of us want, keeps the wallabies relevant, minimises the ridiculous travel needs on players and provides opportunities that are attractive to young aspiring athletes.

It is a potential B Plan for sure. Like all the potential B Plans (and of course the A Plan) it is not without flaws. We put our national interest in the hands of the Kiwis. The Kiwis give absolutely no outward indication of interest (absent Saffers). The Kiwis are also highly concerned about Australian competitiveness and how this impacts NZ national interest. They will not open All Black representation to players in the trans Tasman not based in NZ, so the comp continues to be lop-sided. The travel cost savings (from dropping SA/Argentina/Japan) are reduced. I see little evidence that income (per Aus club/franchise) would be any better than other B Plan.

But the real kicker is Kiwi interest - which I do not expect to be sufficient to allow a true national footprint in Aus (requires at least 5 teams). And that in turn, for me, makes it an unacceptable option.

On the A Plan (I see the Trans Tasman as an adaptation of the A Plan - as i suspect it would eventuate) the issues start with:
x new broadcast arrangements likely to result in a smaller pie.
x Aussie conferences are not making ends meet with current income.
x A very obvious Kiwi/SANZAR expectation to extend the "shrink to greatness" strategy based on Clynes "evidence" showing three was the correct number, the franchises not performing on the field, the franchises not performing commercially.
x the team reduction and the income reduction inevitably leading to further expatriation (assumptions this will be less than a domestic comp I believe to be optimistic)
x continuation of the lunatic scheduling that requires a PhD in logistics to fathom
x current perceptions of the RA from Grass Roots (particularly in the largest grass-roots market - Sydney) likely to continue strongly

I understand a fondness and familiarity with Super. But it isn't so super and the trend at best is poor, at worst suicidal for the game.