@GibbonRib said in RWC Week 3: Wales v Australia:

@Rancid-Schnitzel said in RWC Week 3: Wales v Australia:

@GibbonRib said in RWC Week 3: Wales v Australia:

@Rancid-Schnitzel said in RWC Week 3: Wales v Australia:

@GibbonRib said in RWC Week 3: Wales v Australia:

@Rancid-Schnitzel

My point is that using the questions "how many teams do we have the cattle for" and "how many teams do we have the $ for" is not a good way to determine how many teams we should have.

A better way is to ask "how many teams could we have the cattle / $ to support in a long-term, sustainable way". And being able to even try to answer that question depends entirely on having a credible long-term strategy, and a competent administration able to implement it.

Suppose we say that, at the moment, Aus can support 3 teams. So we cut 2. Interest and development in Perth/Melbs dies, maybe more players leave for overseas because of the reduced $, sponsorship dwindles. Now the number of Super Rugby level teams we can support is 2, so we cut the Brumbies. Eventually we can support 1, and then 0.

Perhaps a good credible strategy would show that Aus can eventaully support 4 teams, or perhaps it will say 2 or 3 or 5. Whatever it is, the ARU need to know what the target state is (worried that this starting to sound like Plank's corporate wanktalk now) so they can work out how to get there.

Maybe they will figure out that whatever the end goal is, it's not compatible with Super Rugby, or maybe they'll say we don't have the money to get there. But you've got to know (as far as it's possible to know) so that they can make smart choices.

The current plan of knifing teams, resurrecting teams, replace the coach & repeat isn't ever going to bring back the glory days.

What good is interest and development in Perth or Melbourne if the game is dying in its strongholds? No one can look at the state of the game in Aus before and after expansion and claim it improved the game. Nor can it be claimed that the game will die if it doesn't expand to other states. NRL could ditch the Storm tommorrow and continue on their merry way.

Sydney suburban rugby isn't dying because the Force and the Rebels exist. There's a tonne of problems, and there's no reason to think that axing more teams will help. Since super rugby started, the ARU have contacted (from the old club comps) then expanded then expanded again then contacted again then expanded again. Carrying on the same pattern is no more likely to fix the underlying issues than sacking Eddie Jones and replacing him with Cheika.

If axing teams will allow scant resources and playing stocks to be focussed on areas where the game has some kind of stronghold then axing more teams in cities where people largely don't give a shit would make a difference. Success on the field is a massive factor when competing in this market and that's pretty bloody difficult if the talent is diluted to such an extent.

The problem is that people don't give a shit about rugby anywhere in Australia any more. Adding a few of the Rebels best players to the Tahs' roster isn't going turn that liner around.

Be that as it may, the one thing that does more or less guarantee popularity is a successful national team. The issue for Aus is how to achieve that on a sustainable basis without bankrupting themselves in the process. Be that either by spending too much in trying to buy success or by strangling themselves financially by reducing the amount of rugby.

The Silver Fern

Catogrande