Where to for Super Rugby?

[The torpedo]

The issue of 'too many S18 Aus teams', 'S18 model broken', 'we have too few players for 5 Super teams' etc etc are all red herrings that detract from the real heart of the Australian rugby problem(s) as we helplessly watch this wonderful code slowly but surely die here.

The core issues for Australian rugby are these:

(a) the chief supervisory body within Australia - the ARU - has for a decade or more demonstrated low to zero competence in designing and managing an institutional system that adequately develops both the core skills of Australian rugby players and the type of coaching depth at all levels essential to building such skills and coaching effective rugby team management practices.

Our problem is not one of volume and player numbers and shuffling the Super comp around. Our problem relates to adequate coaching depth and breadth and the institutional ability to build genuine excellence in even a much smaller number of Super or equivalent teams. Clearly we are not able to attain this end even where we have a developmental player base of reasonable size in Sydney and Brisbane- both the 2017 Reds and Tahs are almost as lamentable in fundamental skills and genuine team excellence as are the Rebels, Force and Brumbies where the core cluster of player numbers and grass roots platforms is way less.

Then we face on top a new Darwinian reality smashing us in the face. As we inexorably degrade to new lows of base rugby skill and aptitude, NZ has in parallel totally and utterly raced ahead of Australian rugby in every core element of the game's required attributes and the gap has very likely become an un-breachable chasm affecting the entire rugby system competitiveness between our two countries, not just at the AB level.

Our ARU and State RU's D grade managerial outcomes are in marked contrast to the NZRU's which exists as an exemplar organisation displaying how to design and execute a total rugby developmental system that enhances deep quality in its players and teams.

We have learnt nothing from the NZRU as we have no motivation in our elite ranks for genuine change and institutional reform, period - see why in (b) below.

People rabbit on about player depth etc in NZ as some kind of assuaging cop-out but that is not the key: the key is they manage the code and its systemic foundations as a whole far, far better than Australia does. (Like one dying business competitor Nokia (as once it was) as Apple makes them eat dust and gets further and further ahead.)

(b) Very few persons in elite positions within Australian rugby are (i) objectively competent and chosen on a rigorous, independent, merit-based system and form of conduct and (ii) ever held genuinely accountable for anything in their charge despite often appalling performance and governance outcomes. This is a profound reflection of a set of historical practices deep within the bowels of Australian rugby dominated by self-centred networking, nepotism, insularity and then relentless self- and crony-based protectionism in relation to objective performance standards and stakeholder expectations.

Sports codes with a degree of base line athletic and school-driven talent and the exploitation of glories past can survive for a period with poor institutional governance.

But ultimately that elemental survival is not enough, the laws of Darwinian competition take charge and the institutional toxicity, negligence and incompetence renders itself more and more visibly with more and more disastrous consequences.

At that tipping point, and the fix for it, the only remedy is not tinkering and mild alterations, radical change in leadership and core structures is the only way out followed by deep cultural and institutional reform at all levels.

Reducing our core to 4 or even 3 Super teams will answer, on its own, nothing.

RedsHappy, you've gone viral:

https://www.reddit.com/r/rugbyunion/comments/5zh5zy/redhappy_gives_a_clear_explanation_for_what_is/

 

[mst]

Bit of conclusion jumping here - the article doesn't even mention the brumbies - it just says 'an Australian team'

True. The media article on Foxsports only talks about about the Brumbies reallocation to Melbourne, cutting the Rebels or merger type scenario, without naming a team.

I have no idea how people jumped to the conclusions they did.

 

[TOCC]

ARU will push some kind of faux merger on the public, they will already be drafting a carefully worded press release which makes no mention of 'cut' or 'culling', instead claiming a merger of two clubs will combine the fan base and provide new opportunity..

Unfortunately that's why I think the Brumbies and Rebels keep getting mentioned, however illogical the ARU probably sees them as the two easiest teams to merge.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

 

[Quick Hands]

It not about high school post codes. How childish. Its professional sport. Pffft

That's right, so it doesn't actually matter where the professional sporting team is located. The players will still be signed from elsewhere.

I'm simply pointing out to you that providing a player list is a particularly weak argument for the location of a professional sporting team. You seem to acknowledge this yourself, which makes me wonder why you would have made the argument in the first place.

 

[Ulrich]

That's right, so it doesn't actually matter where the professional sporting team is located. The players will still be signed from elsewhere.

I'm simply pointing out to you that providing a player list is a particularly weak argument for the location of a professional sporting team. You seem to acknowledge this yourself, which makes me wonder why you would have made the argument in the first place.

I believe his point is that the Brumbies in particular made these players.|

From my point of view, I hated when SA teams had to face the Brumbies. It really sucked because a loss was pretty much guaranteed.

 

[Quick Hands]

I believe his point is that the Brumbies in particular made these players.|

From my point of view, I hated when SA teams had to face the Brumbies. It really sucked because a loss was pretty much guaranteed.

Possibly, but this would have occurred regardless of the location of the super franchise. What they had were people like Rod McQueen and Eddie Jones (both imported from Sydney Shute Shield clubs) to run the programme. That's a large reason they became successful. Subsequently they have built well on this tradition.

Tradition is actually their best argument, even though many Brumbies supporters like to belittle tradtion as it suits their attacks on the "evil" Shute Shield clubs (where they get many of their players from historically, but I digress).

They've built a great tradition there in Canberra and long may it continue. I've never argued that the Brumbies should be axed, I favour the retention of all 5 teams. I simply pointing out to the poster concerned that running the line about your player roster isn't a good argument for the Brumbies. It's only a good argument if a place is a net exporter of rugby players - which Canberra clearly isn't.

 

[mudskipper]

Possibly, but this would have occurred regardless of the location of the super franchise. What they had were people like Rod McQueen and Eddie Jones (both imported from Sydney Shute Shield clubs) to run the programme. That's a large reason they became successful. Subsequently they have built well on this tradition.

Tradition is actually their best argument, even though many Brumbies supporters like to belittle tradtion as it suits their attacks on the "evil" Shute Shield clubs (where they get many of their players from historically, but I digress).

They've built a great tradition there in Canberra and long may it continue. I've never argued that the Brumbies should be axed, I favour the retention of all 5 teams. I simply pointing out to the poster concerned that running the line about your player roster isn't a good argument for the Brumbies. It's only a good argument if a place is a net exporter of rugby players - which Canberra clearly isn't.

Brumbies create Wallabies... and many great ones who have won a RWC... YEs we employ good coaches, we are professional and look for the best fit we can get just like the corporate world, but in the end its the RESULTS that are remembered...

Kinda Rugby Postcodes don't count in professional global sports...

Example THE MELBOURNE CUP....

And for the record the Brumbies supported the SHute Shield with players for years... Pity the SHute Shield did not allow the Vikings into the comp but would rather UNI win every year...

 

[Tomikin]

I suppose one obvious question is, how many of those players started their careers in the ACT?

How many became good once they were in the brumbies system

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

 

[Rebels3]

Obtain a small leather hat with minimal dye.

Nacho hat. haha

 

[Ulrich]

They've built a great tradition there in Canberra and long may it continue. I've never argued that the Brumbies should be axed, I favour the retention of all 5 teams. I simply pointing out to the poster concerned that running the line about your player roster isn't a good argument for the Brumbies. It's only a good argument if a place is a net exporter of rugby players - which Canberra clearly isn't.

Of course running the player roster is not the best of arguments.

With or without the imported expertise at the time; kudos should be given to the Brumbies in my foreign opinion. They were up against established unions and made the best of their resources I believe - and that in a comparatively short amount of time when you consider the most recent additions to Super Rugby and a little further back.

To me the Force for example are still a new team, yet they are more than a decade old now. Perhaps it's just my age or perhaps the Brumbies were just something else at the time. The game has changed in the meantime too, yes.

The Force this season may have had some good results, their coach, Wessels, is a student of JW so whilst winning games may happen for them, I believe the time where teams won using simplicity has expired. It does not make him a bad coach, it makes him a limited coach unless he proves himself by expanding their abilities as they go along. Unless he is willing to expand his ideas himself and his team may be left behind sooner or later. I like the Force, always have.

South Africa has some Rugby strongholds as well, but only one franchise has managed to win a Cup. One of the finalists was one of the weaker unions traditionally, in fact, they were promoted back then to the CC and were called the "Natal Piesangs" (Natal Bananas) - Much the same as the Kings were recently re-established.

So the fact that Australia has 3 Super Rugby winners makes it exemplary and particularly since the first winners were a new franchise. You ought to be proud of that. I would if I were you.

 

[wamberal]

And for the record the Brumbies supported the SHute Shield with players for years. Pity the SHute Shield did not allow the Vikings into the comp but would rather UNI win every year.

And they also raided the Shute Shield for many years. As for the Vikings, why on earth should a Sydney competition invite a team from Canberra to be involved? Especially if, as you assert, so many great players emanate or are developed there. Surely enough for your own competition?




As for Sydney Uni, they win a few and lose a few.

 

[Slim 293]

How many more weeks of this do we have to endure?

 

[Brumby Runner]

Ah, but Wambie, the SS did invite a side from Canberra to participate in its competition. Lasted one year only as I recall. A very successful year for the Canberra team and it was widely believed the invitation was not repeated because Canberra was too strong and had shown up too many of the SS sides.

 

[Slim 293]

Can we axe the Shute Shield?

Is that now one of the options?

 

[mudskipper]

And they also raided the Shute Shield for many years. As for the Vikings, why on earth should a Sydney competition invite a team from Canberra to be involved? Especially if, as you assert, so many great players emanate or are developed there. Surely enough for your own competition?

As for Sydney Uni, they win a few and lose a few.

Raided !!! What ??? were they meant to recruit profession prospects from womens hockey... Brumbues develop prospects

 

[Buggins]

If the Brumbies get cut its F&*K Rugby - F%^K the ARU. F$%K the Wallabies. I'm off to AFL.

 

[KOB1987]

My read on the whole thing:

- SAF turned up to the meeting expecting that they would cut the Kings and we would cut one too and a ridiculous new 16 team comp would be the result
- given that won't work, the question has been asked that if SAF cut 2 teams we will agree to cut one too and it will go to a 15 team comp
- if SAF don't agree to cut 2 teams AND we don't agree to cut one it will stay at 18 teams in either the current format or a new 3 x 6 format.

I guess it's possible that if the latter happens then the Kings could be replaced with a PI team?

 

[Brumby Jack]

SANZAAR trying to turn things around to organise a new comp

 

[WorkingClassRugger]

SANZAAR trying to turn things around to organise a new comp

View attachment 9017

Solution is simple. SA can look to focus on the Currie Cup. Returning it to being their premier competition. We take the other 12 and run our own competition over 16 weeks and the top 4 from each then play off in a Champions League competition at the end.

 

[Joe King]

My read on the whole thing:

- SAF turned up to the meeting expecting that they would cut the Kings and we would cut one too and a ridiculous new 16 team comp would be the result
- given that won't work, the question has been asked that if SAF cut 2 teams we will agree to cut one too and it will go to a 15 team comp
- if SAF don't agree to cut 2 teams AND we don't agree to cut one it will stay at 18 teams in either the current format or a new 3 x 6 format.

I guess it's possible that if the latter happens then the Kings could be replaced with a PI team?

That would fit with Fiji's aspirations. Question is, if we don't cut a team, will SA?