Where to for Super Rugby?

[WorkingClassRugger]

Cutting 5 to 4 and than to 3 is a bad idea and just sends the signal that there is no future for players in Union so they should play League. That would be a path to total irrelevance and I fail to see how it can possibly lead to better outcomes for the Wallabies as it would just drive more talent overseas or to league.

We fix this by getting Union played in the public school system and rebirthing how we approach and support grass roots. We can only win this my attracting the imagination of under 8's who then put pressure on their parents.

We need kids to want the Wallabies jersey and to play the game. Scrap the 60 cap rule, select the best players regardless of the comp they are in.

Then what's the point of Super Rugby then? The idea is to have most of the best available talent playing locally in order to be selected and provide the best possible content. Now whether Super Rugby delivers this nowadays is debatable. What isn't is that once you open the door for open selection beyond the 60 caps rule you're effectively signing Super Rugby death warrant here. We might as well look at expanding the NRC and set up academy partnerships for the French and English clubs.

There are other alternatives. We could do as Reg has suggested and reduce our Super Rugby commitment to 3 teams sourcing talent locally from within the current catchments. We could also set the Rebels loose and steer them toward WSR by sanctioning it under the proviso that they can only recruit Australian talent from overseas (as I've previously mentioned this would be in line with one of the stated aims of the IPRC come WSR) and locally developed players within their region .i.e. WA and Vic.

This way we could do what Reg suggests. While not losing a national footprint (in fact with a Western Sydney team it would increase) but effectively relieving some if not most of the burden.

It would also open up interesting opportunities. We could have 6 teams competing in two separate competitions for 16 - 17 weeks. Which would offer more content in itself but with the June window soon becoming the July window and an apparent push back toward a round robin format in Super Rugby we could run a short form Cup competition among the 6 Aus team between the end of the Super Rugby/WSR seasons and before the Test season.

You could do it as two pools of 3 teams playing home and away for 4 games with the winner of each pool playing in a final or each team playing each other for 5 games with the top team declared the winner. This would offer a new commercial opportunity for the game and would offer the perfect selection tool for the Wallabies.

Hell, my ideal scenario (and one I still think is quite possible) is that Sth Africa say "sorry, boet. But we're off up north. We still want to be part of TRC but domestically the Pro 14 is the more attractive option". From there we could look to join up with WSR and form a second conference of 8 teams under a similar arrangement as above and go from there.

 

[Rugbynutter39]

JON in his wisdom said the Wallabies failures are hurting Australian rugby in his Fairfax article. Many others nay most others agree. My guess there is a general consensus agreement with his statement. Castle is also on record highlighting the need for Wallaby success.



Rating for the second test match in capital cities and fox were 501K down from 634K for the first test.



Many reasons are being put forward however the key to me is player quality and squad depth. NZ seems to have better players and more of them.



Super Rugby has never been a vehicle for growing the player base.



The Nobody Really Cares Competition equally has or is not set up to grow and develop juniors, it has become a selection vehicle to trial for higher honours be they Super Rugby or National Team.



I don’t think anyone would argue that a broader base of players and more quality players would not be beneficial to the Wallabies.



Herein lies the dilemma, and we are sorta at an impasse a quandary or predicament of our own making. By having a competition of two then three then four then five and back to four hidden away on subscription TV we don’t have either the reach or visibility to grow the player base especially with quality players.



This is further complicated by other codes increasing both their presence and team numbers.



JON in his article indicated the current model for Super Rugby is wrong and that we should go with NZ. Alas JON said, NZ are reluctant to leave the dollars attached to the SA rating.



My contention is to ever be competitive with NZ, we need more teams with more players and more exposure. This involves risk and capital something rugby is not good at, never has been, and certainty does not have the capital for.



The status-que for want of a better name, want the protection of the existing revenue provided by SA & European ratings. Yet they also see the need for an improved Wallaby team as essential.



I say hhhmmmm maybe to strong a word say. I think you can’t have both, Super Rugby will not grow either the player base or junior quality and the Wallabies cannot improve without more players which means more teams and a new competition Tis a Catch 22 me thinks.

I think ARU and now RA has for so long been beholden to NZ and their interests that this has damaged oz rugby. Personally if NZ does not want a Trans Competition then time for RA to turn to Twiggy and Asia Pacific Competition as personally I am sick of oz rugby hanging its coat tails on NZ and time to turn to what Twiggy looking to create I say and let NZ go do there own thing.

AFL, A-league and NRL not been held to ransom by NZ self interests and stuffed if I really see what cane toading to NZ interests and what NZ want has really done to help oz rugby....as yeh not NZ's job to look after oz interests but yet ARU/RA seemed to care more about keeping NZ happy then being prepared to look elsewhere if can't get what it needs out of SANZAAR etc....

Yeh sure ARU/RA now lost that early opportunity to have the funds to try something itself compared to when they had the funds back in 2003 but Twiggy does have the funds so time to swallow that pride and go to Twiggy asking how we can work with him to have one workable competition rather than two half arsed competitions with flaws.

 

[Rugbynutter39]

I think we need to follow the Twiggy model of lets create a competition that has the best talent irrespective of whether they oz players as gets fan appeal and then the commercials stack up for growth. Got to have more fan interest - good commercial product that would allow growth and then get more motivation at grass roots to a) join a competition financially viable and can afford to pay good salaries and b) opportunities for growth and eventually adding more teams

As for cutting teams - unless surplant with other content / teams from WSR this is failure in progress as wont' be enough content to keep fans interested who are already struggling compared to what offered by competing football codes - commercial suicide......

Sorry Reg I think you are going down the wrong barrel.....in view of competing football codes already dominating the landscape and TV content.....

 

[RugbyReg]

Rugby in Australia will never compete with afl and nrl on a national footprint basis. Those organisations don’t have an international game of note to factor in.

Rugby has and should use it as it’s showpiece. It should be about the Wallabies. Less teams (like we had in the 80s and 90s), best the all blacks and win world cups, remember how the national team was considered up there with Waugh’s cricketers?

Kids will still play rugby. Even in Perth and Adelaide. Like they did in the 80s and 90s. If they’re good enough they will move, like Ewen McKenzie did from Vic and Adam Wallace-Harrison did from WA.

I think more kids will play rugby because of a successful wallaby team rather than a half arsed ‘provincial’ rugby team in their state struggling in some half arsed competition.

I think We need to funnel the talent and ensure our best players are playing more top level footy together, rather than scattered across the country playing with mildly capable players who’s abilities peaked a season or 2 ago.

 

[Rugbynutter39]

Rugby in Australia will never compete with afl and nrl on a national footprint basis. Those organisations don’t have an international game of note to factor in.



Rugby has and should use it as it’s showpiece. It should be about the Wallabies. Less teams (like we had in the 80s and 90s), best the all blacks and win world cups, remember how the national team was considered up there with Waugh’s cricketers?



Kids will still play rugby. Even in Perth and Adelaide. Like they did in the 80s and 90s. If they’re good enough they will move, like Ewen McKenzie did from Vic and Adam Wallace-Harrison did from WA.



I think more kids will play rugby because of a successful wallaby team rather than a half arsed ‘provincial’ rugby team in their state struggling in some half arsed competition.



I think We need to funnel the talent and ensure our best players are playing more top level footy together, rather than scattered across the country playing with mildly capable players who’s abilities peaked a season or 2 ago.

Reg how many tests do Wallabies play a year? Answer will never be enough to keep fan interest and forget that worked 20/30 years ago as things have changed (see below for more on that).

Sorry I can't see that as the answer but respect you providing your views as we are in a world of pain so everything should be on the table.

We can't compete with AFL or NRL for national footprint but if can't provide at least some sort of regular content in face of their expanding content then yes we will struggle further for relevance. The more markets we move out of both territory and TV footprint the more audiences we lose. Content footprint equally important variable today in todays dominant digital sports broadcast world.

I agree a half arsed provincial competition with low calibre talent is not the answer. Hence why I like the idea of Twiggy surplanting a Tonga/Samoa led side in Western Sydney to build better content and providing marquee players etc etc. Yeh I worry that Twiggy will have a second tier comp unless they work with RA and hence recent article (gees forgot who wrote it but summed up for me that better to have one good competition than two half arsed competitions).

For me more and more people are deserting to club rugby - why because we want to watch more local content and not getting that from Super Rugby and to be frank get almost as good at more accessible level with club rugby at the moment!!!

Cripes yes I am pinning a lot on RA and Twiggy co-operation but that is because a) he has the money b) the less boundaries/ constraints to play outside of the rules and be less beholden to state union politics etc etc where we need dramatic and bold change and c) involves involving other teams that could appeal e.g. Fiji and even Japanese sides where get right competition dynamics for uncertainty of outcome could offer greater appeal

I am at the stage where feel it is so hopeless that unless RA and Twiggy can work out how to work together then yeh suggestions like yours become viable which to me means we become even less relevant but is moreso just fighting for financial survival on smaller footprint. Not enough Wallaby tests a year and back in days of 90's where could rely just on wallabies for fan interest gone as viewer expectations much higher in terms of more regular content exposure to keep fan interest.

I don't think personally you have recognised the landscape changed in terms of digital content and fan expectations to think what worked 20/30 years ago will work now. Very different world where content is king which includes quality of content, accessibility of content on regular viewing schedules.....

Just imho of course.

 

[hoggy]

Rugby in Australia will never compete with afl and nrl on a national footprint basis. Those organisations don’t have an international game of note to factor in.

Rugby has and should use it as it’s showpiece. It should be about the Wallabies. Less teams (like we had in the 80s and 90s), best the all blacks and win world cups, remember how the national team was considered up there with Waugh’s cricketers?

Kids will still play rugby. Even in Perth and Adelaide. Like they did in the 80s and 90s. If they’re good enough they will move, like Ewen McKenzie did from Vic and Adam Wallace-Harrison did from WA.

I think more kids will play rugby because of a successful wallaby team rather than a half arsed ‘provincial’ rugby team in their state struggling in some half arsed competition.

I think We need to funnel the talent and ensure our best players are playing more top level footy together, rather than scattered across the country playing with mildly capable players who’s abilities peaked a season or 2 ago.

I just can't see how this approach can work, it is essentially the structure we have now anyway. 90% of the resources are funneled into the Wallabies, they play what 15 Tests a year. It sounds good in theory but how do you funnel that talent if they are not choosing you in the first place.
The whole attitude of we can't compete against the NRL & AFL is part of the issue, were compromised before we even start.

The Wallabies are the sports showpiece yet that has not grown the game, they are the worlds 2/3rd ranked team over the last 20 years, so in reality the only way to grow the game is to be constantly beating the All Blacks, we need to do that somehow with an ever shrinking domestic base, how can that possibly work.

 

[Rugbynutter39]

I just can't see how this approach can work, it is essentially the structure we have now anyway. 90% of the resources are funneled into the Wallabies, they play what 15 Tests a year. It sounds good in theory but how do you funnel that talent if they are not choosing you in the first place.

The whole attitude of we can't compete against the NRL & AFL is part of the issue, were compromised before we even start.



The Wallabies are the sports showpiece yet that has not grown the game, they are the worlds 2/3rd ranked team over the last 20 years, so in reality the only way to grow the game is to be constantly beating the All Blacks, we need to do that somehow with an ever shrinking domestic base, how can that possibly work.

I don't think when they established the A-league when the old NSL was a distant fourth and well behind rugby took the attitude they can never compete with AFL or NRL and indeed are continuing to expand rather than shrink their way to greatness and provide more content.

Soccer has more relevance then did 20 years ago and same as rugby they relied on international game/footprint for that but equally realised can't just rely on that as need strong professional league below that to keep and grow fan interest. Why does Rugby think it is different to other codes who have followed a well trodden path to attract fans....so what we do the opposite of what they have done to successfully grow their fan base! No wonder rugby so screwed in this country and failed to strike and position itself for growth at height of interest in early part of this century.

Frank Lowry changed soccer's fortunes when NSL was imploding and soccer going no where so I can only hope Twiggy - RA collaboration can do the same as foundations for rugby are just so wrong we need a major catalyst for change to have any hope..

 

[dru]

I think ARU and now RA has for so long been beholden to NZ and their interests that this has damaged oz rugby. Personally if NZ does not want a Trans Competition then time for RA to turn to Twiggy and Asia Pacific Competition as personally I am sick of oz rugby hanging its coat tails on NZ and time to turn to what Twiggy looking to create I say and let NZ go do there own thing.

AFL, A-league and NRL not been held to ransom by NZ self interests and stuffed if I really see what cane toading to NZ interests and what NZ want has really done to help oz rugby..as yeh not NZ's job to look after oz interests but yet ARU/RA seemed to care more about keeping NZ happy then being prepared to look elsewhere if can't get what it needs out of SANZAAR etc..

Yeh sure ARU/RA now lost that early opportunity to have the funds to try something itself compared to when they had the funds back in 2003 but Twiggy does have the funds so time to swallow that pride and go to Twiggy asking how we can work with him to have one workable competition rather than two half arsed competitions with flaws.

Firmly agree with this.

 

[RugbyReg]

I just can't see how this approach can work, it is essentially the structure we have now anyway. 90% of the resources are funneled into the Wallabies, they play what 15 Tests a year. It sounds good in theory but how do you funnel that talent if they are not choosing you in the first place.
The whole attitude of we can't compete against the NRL & AFL is part of the issue, were compromised before we even start.

The Wallabies are the sports showpiece yet that has not grown the game, they are the worlds 2/3rd ranked team over the last 20 years, so in reality the only way to grow the game is to be constantly beating the All Blacks, we need to do that somehow with an ever shrinking domestic base, how can that possibly work.

Check out Ben Darwin’s work in this area.

 

[WorkingClassRugger]

https://www.supersport.com/rugby/su...ims_to_finalise_Super_Rugby_plans_in_November

I'm just going to leave this here in regards to the insanity that is Super Rugby at present.

 

[sunnyboys]

whether we expand into national comp or shrink to 2 or 3 Super Rugby teams wont make a difference until we appropriately deal with the administration of the game. The administrators determine funding amounts and allocation, coaching development and appointments, player development and recruitment.
There is not one professional rugby union in this country that has shown they are capable of professionally managing these aspects.
We are a sub-scale sport that lacks the scrutiny required to drive high performance. We are hidden mainly from public view. We have too few people involved in the game - there is just not enough alternative options when it comes to board, executive and coaching appointments. The gene pool is very shallow. The QRU is a basket case, RA little better....

The path we are currently on is actually a burning platform (sorry to use a tosser business strategy term). But it is. the next broadcast deal will not deliver more money from Fox. If there is an increase it will be from SA, NZ or foreign markets. This is a major tipping point for the game. Even Fox meeting the last deal is a backward step in real terms.

I am quite pessimistic on this. The lack of challenge to the existing leaders of the sport means that there is no urgency for them to change. Or they are too fearful of being the ones that tried something new. The current status of the sport is of no surprise to anyone who understands business or marketing... and that's not to say better marketing would fix this. Rather its to say that if what you are selling doesn't make people happy - or meet a need - they will find a substitute.

You only need to look at how crowd numbers wax and wane over the decades for AFL teams as they swing through different performance cycles. Now imagine signing up to a perpetual cycle of poor performance and then wondering why crowd and viewer numbers keep leaving.

we have the best of luck and the worst of luck being located right next door to NZ. but after 16 years (and might i add many more to come on current trends) of losing Bled, and an appalling Super Rugby record v kiwi teams - you'd think we'd start thinking twice about bashing our heads against that brick wall again... but no... apparently its 'good for us' and 'makes us better'...

This is the question I always ask when i post here... how small are we willing to let our crowds become, and how low our viewer numbers, and then subsequently how small our broadcast deals and how limited our finances, before we decide to act? when will we think it worthwhile giving fans something to cheer about?

(and please spare me the "play better" response - that is slap in the face to all those working tirelessly now to be the best they can - we are playing at our best. but fewer people each week and year are deciding its worth watching)

 

[kiap]

Check out Ben Darwin’s work in this area.

Ben Darwin's work, while I'm sure has some value, applies to team dynamics and the personnel within. It's not a model that provides a needed basis for running teams and comps … or a financial blueprint for a sporting code.

If you look at Ben's statements, he's careful not to extend too far by claiming "X professional teams is the answer!", where X is {1 … 3}. Clearly, New Zealand itself does not fit such a formula. Nor Ireland.

But to be frank, I don't mind seeing this sort of talk of shrinking Supe and RA.

Does it underline the failure? Yes.

Will it win the Bledisloe? Ahhh … erm … okay … sure.

 

[kiap]

https://www.supersport.com/rugby/su...ims_to_finalise_Super_Rugby_plans_in_November

I'm just going to leave this here in regards to the insanity that is Super Rugby at present.

U. S. A.
U. S. A.
U. S. A.

Rah rah rah.

Blah blah blah.

 

[WorkingClassRugger]

U. S. A.
U. S. A.
U. S. A.

Rah rah rah.

Blah blah blah.

Teams in the US are a pipe dream outside perhaps some kind of combined PI based out of Hawaii. Apart from that. No chance.

 

[kiap]

TBF, the US could work for the likes of Argentina. But if you're adding another far-flung destination to the sort of soup format used now (or even worse, a round-robin) it's going to be trouble.

The only way something like that might be do-able , in my view, would be in a late season champs cup.

Hawaii … dunno. Maybe. It's further east in terms of time-zones than people sometimes realise. The same sort of distance as Pakistan if flying north west. But in an NZ conference where SA and OZ don't go there too often I suppose it might be viable.

 

[WorkingClassRugger]

TBF, the US could work for the likes Argentina. But if you're adding another far-flung destination to the sort of soup format used now (or even worse, a round-robin) it's going to be trouble.

The only way something like that might be do-able , in my view, would be in a late season champs cup.

Hawaii … dunno. Maybe. It's further east in terms of time-zones than people sometimes realise. The same sort of distance as Pakistan if flying north west. But in an NZ conference where SA and OZ don't go there too often I suppose it might be viable.

The US has its own thing going on that should be given time to work itself out and see how it's progressing. Having SANZAAR looking to interfere will not achieve much if anything short term and will likely hold the country back medium to long term. Regarding Hawaii. Time zone wise it's 20 hours behind Sydney and 22 hours behind Auckland. I think with the right scheduling that could be workable.

 

[andrewM]

Rugby has and should use it as it’s showpiece. It should be about the Wallabies. Less teams (like we had in the 80s and 90s), best the all blacks and win world cups, remember how the national team was considered up there with Waugh’s cricketers?

Kids will still play rugby. Even in Perth and Adelaide. Like they did in the 80s and 90s. If they’re good enough they will move, like Ewen McKenzie did from Vic and Adam Wallace-Harrison did from WA.

I think more kids will play rugby because of a successful wallaby team rather than a half arsed ‘provincial’ rugby team in their state struggling in some half arsed competition.

Reg, Reg,Reg!

Harking back to the bad old days of the 80's and 90's, there was always a couple of bright young up and coming stars in the local comp who took the big step of moving east. Some made the move permanent, some returned, their dreams falling short . A few made it through to the big time. Kudos to all of them for following their dreams. The fundamental issue here is that most of them were lost to the local scene and for what? Simply for them to bide their time as the third-in-line inside centre for a Shute Shield club? How does that benefit Australian Rugby as a whole?

Would Godwin, the DHP's, Keiren Longbottom etc ever made it through that log jam or ever even made the journey in the Good Old days you refer to? The mere fact that there are now more WA-born/developed players in the Wallabies squad suggests probably not. Whilst the cultural belief of inadequacy may be gone it is still a hell of a commitment to pull up stumps from one side of the country and place everything on Black. As we have seen, developing a pool of high quality Wallabies candidates come from exposing players to higher grade competition on a regular basis - if not, why are we bothering with the NRC?

Kids aspire to play rugby most when they have a connection with their stars - knowing that they - Godwin, Haylett-Petty's, Longbottom etc played or still play at the same local clubs they do gives them self-belief. The correlation between the increase in junior participation in WA and the foundation of the Force and the number of WA players in the Wallabies is a demonstration of that.

This begs the question is what are Australian players lacking at this higher level that leads to the Wallabies dismal performance? Is it poor coaching, skills deficiencies, fitness or a combination? Given that we've had a few players picked up by Kiwi teams in the past few years, 'd suggest coaching is a bigger part of the problem than some believe.

 

[dru]

whether we expand into national comp or shrink to 2 or 3 Super Rugby teams wont make a difference until we appropriately deal with the administration of the game. The administrators determine funding amounts and allocation, coaching development and appointments, player development and recruitment.
There is not one professional rugby union in this country that has shown they are capable of professionally managing these aspects.
We are a sub-scale sport that lacks the scrutiny required to drive high performance. We are hidden mainly from public view. We have too few people involved in the game - there is just not enough alternative options when it comes to board, executive and coaching appointments. The gene pool is very shallow. The QRU is a basket case, RA little better..

The path we are currently on is actually a burning platform (sorry to use a tosser business strategy term). But it is. the next broadcast deal will not deliver more money from Fox. If there is an increase it will be from SA, NZ or foreign markets. This is a major tipping point for the game. Even Fox meeting the last deal is a backward step in real terms.

I am quite pessimistic on this. The lack of challenge to the existing leaders of the sport means that there is no urgency for them to change. Or they are too fearful of being the ones that tried something new. The current status of the sport is of no surprise to anyone who understands business or marketing. and that's not to say better marketing would fix this. Rather its to say that if what you are selling doesn't make people happy - or meet a need - they will find a substitute.

You only need to look at how crowd numbers wax and wane over the decades for AFL teams as they swing through different performance cycles. Now imagine signing up to a perpetual cycle of poor performance and then wondering why crowd and viewer numbers keep leaving.

we have the best of luck and the worst of luck being located right next door to NZ. but after 16 years (and might i add many more to come on current trends) of losing Bled, and an appalling Super Rugby record v kiwi teams - you'd think we'd start thinking twice about bashing our heads against that brick wall again. but no. apparently its 'good for us' and 'makes us better'.

This is the question I always ask when i post here. how small are we willing to let our crowds become, and how low our viewer numbers, and then subsequently how small our broadcast deals and how limited our finances, before we decide to act? when will we think it worthwhile giving fans something to cheer about?

(and please spare me the "play better" response - that is slap in the face to all those working tirelessly now to be the best they can - we are playing at our best. but fewer people each week and year are deciding its worth watching)

This also I firmly agree with.

 

[WorkingClassRugger]

Reg, Reg,Reg!

Harking back to the bad old days of the 80's and 90's, there was always a couple of bright young up and coming stars in the local comp who took the big step of moving east. Some made the move permanent, some returned, their dreams falling short . A few made it through to the big time. Kudos to all of them for following their dreams. The fundamental issue here is that most of them were lost to the local scene and for what? Simply for them to bide their time as the third-in-line inside centre for a Shute Shield club? How does that benefit Australian Rugby as a whole?

Would Godwin, the DHP's, Keiren Longbottom etc ever made it through that log jam or ever even made the journey in the Good Old days you refer to? The mere fact that there are now more WA-born/developed players in the Wallabies squad suggests probably not. Whilst the cultural belief of inadequacy may be gone it is still a hell of a commitment to pull up stumps from one side of the country and place everything on Black. As we have seen, developing a pool of high quality Wallabies candidates come from exposing players to higher grade competition on a regular basis - if not, why are we bothering with the NRC?

Kids aspire to play rugby most when they have a connection with their stars - knowing that they - Godwin, Haylett-Petty's, Longbottom etc played or still play at the same local clubs they do gives them self-belief. The correlation between the increase in junior participation in WA and the foundation of the Force and the number of WA players in the Wallabies is a demonstration of that.

This begs the question is what are Australian players lacking at this higher level that leads to the Wallabies dismal performance? Is it poor coaching, skills deficiencies, fitness or a combination? Given that we've had a few players picked up by Kiwi teams in the past few years, 'd suggest coaching is a bigger part of the problem than some believe.

Part of the reason I suggested pushing the Rebels across to WSR so that it features three Australian teams while maintaining the original three in Super Rugby was to address some of these issues. The pipeline side of the equation being one of the primary purposes. Have RA green light WSR with set conditions. Them being in terms of recruitment they can only recruit Australian talent that currently ply their trade overseas. This falls in line with one of the stated goals of the IPRC/WSR from the beginning. To target Australian talent playing overseas and return them to Aus and Wallabies eligibility. And in regards to domestically, they can only look to promote local talent developed within their catchment. Meaning in regards to the Force, Rebels in this scenario juniors and so from within their preexisting structures and in the case of the proposed WS team any structures they put in place.

This would ensure that there remains a clear and viable pathway.

From there both competitions could compete within their own schedules with something akin to either a short form Cup competition between the 6 post both competitions or a Super v WSR game acting as a Wallabies trial along the lines of the event held recently both selected by the national set up.

 

[hoggy]

https://www.supersport.com/rugby/su...ims_to_finalise_Super_Rugby_plans_in_November

I'm just going to leave this here in regards to the insanity that is Super Rugby at present.

That is one of the most worrying articles I've read.