Australian rugby in crisis

Fishooks12

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/sport/2012/1015/1224325257645.html

Brilliant article from Matt Williams on the state of Australian rugby

Very worrying times ahead of the Lions tour

Gargled

Not for us

Fishooks12

Gargled wrote: »

Not for us

In a way it is though

World Rugby needs a competitive Australia

At the moment they have a very average team pulled up over the mire by some quality players

I remember looking at the Aussie pack for one the Rugby Championship games and thinking "Not one of those guys would come near Ireland's starting 8". Not a good sign

JustinDee

Aussie rugby union has been in serious straits since 2003/2004.
The last time NSW sold the SFS out was considerably further back than a couple of years ago. In fact the last time the stadium itself was sold out was probably for a concert or a derby NRL game.

Swiwi

Fishooks12 wrote: »

In a way it is though

World Rugby needs a competitive Australia

At the moment they have a very average team pulled up over the mire by some quality players

I remember looking at the Aussie pack for one the Rugby Championship games and thinking "Not one of those guys would come near Ireland's starting 8". Not a good sign

Any yet they beat Wales 3-0, finished 2nd in the 4N, and retained their 2nd spot in the world rankings. The only side that clearly has the wood on them is NZ. Oh and Scotland

It's not all doom & gloom - the Australian schoolboys has just beaten the NZ schoolboys for the second consecutive year. Which is a good effort, considering most NZers start to play rugby once they are out of diapers, whereas Aussies tend to take it up at high school.

Their problem is not talent, it's retaining it in Union, and away from League in particular.

I agree they are in a bit of a hole, but I wouldn't write them off v the Lions, especially if they have a full deck of cards to choose from.

And I wouldn't judge them solely on crowd attendances, either. On that basis, NZ would be firmly a tier 2 rugby nation.

JustinDee

Swiwi wrote: »

Their problem is not talent, it's retaining it in Union, and away from League in particular.

I agree they are in a bit of a hole, but I wouldn't write them off v the Lions, especially if they have a full deck of cards to choose from.

And I wouldn't judge them solely on crowd attendances, either. On that basis, NZ would be firmly a tier 2 rugby nation.

A major part of the problem is very simply money. Wasting a shedload on the ARC project was the first in a range of decisions that can be deemed headscratchers at best, for example.

Swiwi

JustinDee wrote: »

A major part of the problem is very simply money. Wasting a shedload on the ARC project was the first in a range of decisions that can be deemed headscratchers at best, for example.

Yeah, I agree. Trying to set up an Australian version of the NPC was a bit silly. Even NZ with all its rugby traditions struggles to keep the NPC in the black, let alone a country like Australia where rugby is about 4th most popular winter sport.

Ciaran-Irl

Swiwi wrote: »

Any yet they beat Wales 3-0, finished 2nd in the 4N, and retained their 2nd spot in the world rankings. The only side that clearly has the wood on them is NZ. Oh and Scotland

It's not all doom & gloom - the Australian schoolboys has just beaten the NZ schoolboys for the second consecutive year. Which is a good effort, considering most NZers start to play rugby once they are out of diapers, whereas Aussies tend to take it up at high school.

Their problem is not talent, it's retaining it in Union, and away from League in particular.

I agree they are in a bit of a hole, but I wouldn't write them off v the Lions, especially if they have a full deck of cards to choose from.

And I wouldn't judge them solely on crowd attendances, either. On that basis, NZ would be firmly a tier 2 rugby nation.

Yeah, but I can't remember the gap between NZ and the rest of the world being so vast. SA being poor for a lot of the championship is the only reason Aus finished second. They have a quality first 15, but their depth beyond that isn't great at all. They only scraped to victories against Wales, and they would have been completely out of sight a year or two ago against that Wales team.

Swiwi

Ciaran-Irl wrote: »

Yeah, but I can't remember the gap between NZ and the rest of the world being so vast. SA being poor for a lot of the championship is the only reason Aus finished second. They have a quality first 15, but their depth beyond that isn't great at all. They only scraped to victories against Wales, and they would have been completely out of sight a year or two ago against that Wales team.

TBH, I think the reason NZ is pretty good this year is because just this once the players don't have the weight of yet another RWC choke on their backs. Players are free to play without endless meaningless analysis in reference to 2015.

Australia have never really had depth, not since I can remember, but they always manage to piece together a fairly decent 1st-XV. If rugby rankings were based on an "A" and a "B" side, Australia would be well done the pecking order.

Tox56

Swiwi wrote: »

TBH, I think the reason NZ is pretty good this year is because just this once the players don't have the weight of yet another RWC choke on their backs. Players are free to play without endless meaningless analysis in reference to 2015.

Australia have never really had depth, not since I can remember, but they always manage to piece together a fairly decent 1st-XV. If rugby rankings were based on an "A" and a "B" side, Australia would be well done the pecking order.

The Kiwi's have a great team, but this is a really weak international era. They have free reign at the moment. The lack of RWC pressure will certainly help, and all these things are combining to leave NZ totally untouchable in international terms.

Swiwi

Tox56 wrote: »

The Kiwi's have a great team, but this is a really weak international era. They have free reign at the moment. The lack of RWC pressure will certainly help, and all these things are combining to leave NZ totally untouchable in international terms.

I agree. OK it is nice to win, but I wouldn't mind a few tense nailbiters TBH. I thought SA might provide it, but they screwed up Dunedin, and were ordinary in the 2nd half in Soweto. Only side I don't mind pasting over & over is England. Can never happen too often.

thomond2006

Was it in 2000 that Oz got 100,000+ into a ground for a Tri-Nations game against New Zealand? I think Lomu got the winning try in that game?

Jesus they are well off getting something similar again.

Swiwi

thomond2006 wrote: »

Was it in 2000 that Oz got 100,000+ into a ground for a Tri-Nations game against New Zealand? I think Lomu got the winning try in that game?

Can debate the title of the clip, but the ground was definitely chockablock. Munster fans should recognise Jim Williams and Christian Cullen (in the days before injury reduced him to a shadow of his former glory)

JustinDee

thomond2006 wrote: »

Was it in 2000 that Oz got 100,000+ into a ground for a Tri-Nations game against New Zealand? I think Lomu got the winning try in that game?
Jesus they are well off getting something similar again.

1999 (107,000+) which I was at and 2000 (109,000+, same as NRL Grand Final the previous year between Melbourne and St George).

Fight_Night

While it is argued that Union needs a competitive Australia, and to a point I agree, Rugby is a growing game internationally. Russia and the surrounding Caucasus region should be the main target. If rugby is going to continue to be the 4th sport in Australia, I reckon Russia would be a much better bet to invest in for the greater good of the sport. 4th most popular sport in Russia is still gonna have a hell of a lot of people.

But rant aside, Australia haven't had good depth for at least a decade now. Don't think it's a crisis. It's the 4th sport but I don't think it has any rivals coming through does it? The sport will probably stay static, ie. their depth won't improve. They'll still produce quality players though.

CatFromHue

I'm not worried about the Lions tour. Even an injury hit Wallabies beat Wales in the three test and finished ahead of SA and Arg in the 4 Nations. There are problems definitely but Australia are still very deserved of the second place in the IRB rankings (1.3 ahead of SA and nearly 3 poinst ahead of 4th and 5th place). As far as I know the Super rugby will include start earlier for the Oz teams to give their players more time off before the series. Not sure what's going to happen in the pre test games though. Though if you want to chart progress you could look at the teams and scores from the last Lions tour and compare them to next years one.

The Super teams are a problem though and I actually think the ARC was a good idea. Pity it failed after only one year as it could have been a good tool to bud players.

Also I'm in Melbourne at the moment and you wouldn't know there is a rugby team here, granted it's well off season at this stage. Also the Lonely Planet guide book doesn't mention that the Reds play at the Suncorp Stadium in Brisbane, just that a rugby league team play there.

Digifriendly

Aussie 2nd string tamely surrendering to a Munster side shorn of quite a few first choice players a season or two back showed the serious lack of strength in depth of the Australians. But this has been the case for many years now. I have a full record of Australian tours to UK and Ireland and comparing that to the All Blacks is eye opening indeed. Australia have lost 50 non-test matches on these shores while NZ have lost only 11. Comparison with SA is somewhat unfair due to the 'missing years' of the apartheid era.

Swiwi

Digifriendly wrote: »

Aussie 2nd string tamely surrendering to a Munster side shorn of quite a few first choice players a season or two back showed the serious lack of strength in depth of the Australians. But this has been the case for many years now. I have a full record of Australian tours to UK and Ireland and comparing that to the All Blacks is eye opening indeed. Australia have lost 50 non-test matches on these shores while NZ have lost only 11. Comparison with SA is somewhat unfair due to the 'missing years' of the apartheid era.

I know NZ have lost to Llanelli, the Barbarians, and some side based at Thomond Park , but I would be intrigued as to the other victors?

.ak

Swiwi wrote: »

I know NZ have lost to Llanelli, the Barbarians, and some side based at Thomond Park , but I would be intrigued as to the other victors?

Cardiff beat them iirc. Some other celtic teams too.

Morf

It was discussed on LF wasn't it. Munster were far from the only club team to have beaten NZ. Cardiff possibly had more wins than losses against them.

Digifriendly

Swiwi wrote: »

I know NZ have lost to Llanelli, the Barbarians, and some side based at Thomond Park , but I would be intrigued as to the other victors?

They have lost to Swansea (1935);Cardiff (1953); Newport (1963);Llanelli (1972); West Midlands (1972); NW Division (1972); Midland Division (1983); Northern Division (1979) as well as to Munster (1978) and twice to the Babas (1973/2010). Interestingly both Llanelli and Munster have beaten the Aussies 4 times and Australia have only beaten Cardiff once and that was in the professional era when they faced the regional side. They never managed to beat the club side. BTW Cardiff only beat the All Blacks on one occasion although running them close on other occasions.

JustinDee

CatFromHue wrote: »

The Super teams are a problem though and I actually think the ARC was a good idea. Pity it failed after only one year as it could have been a good tool to bud players

It was an unsustainable project and was doomed from day one.

In my own view, Aussie can't support five teams, let alone eight. The team in WA is in financial difficulty and the team in VIC, even with overseas signings permitted, is struggling to make a dent.
There are only so many Rugby League academies and clubs that can be targetted for getting the likes of James O'Connor, Kurtley Beale, Matt Giteau, Berrick Barnes, Cliffy Palu, Rocky Elsom etc into rugby union schools and clubs before joining franchises.

Luckycharm

JustinDee wrote: »

It was an unsustainable project and was doomed from day one.

In my own view, Aussie can't support five teams, let alone eight. The team in WA is in financial difficulty and the team in VIC, even with overseas signings permitted, is struggling to make a dent.
There are only so many Rugby League academies and clubs that can be targetted for getting the likes of James O'Connor, Kurtley Beale, Matt Giteau, Berrick Barnes, Cliffy Palu, Rocky Elsom etc into rugby union schools and clubs before joining franchises.

Well given the vast distances between states it would be damn expensive to run an ARC. OZ have always been the Cleverest most inovative team in world rugby and never really had much Depth. Their team was very settled for a long time look at how many caps, gregan, larkham etc racked up.

Swiwi

Digifriendly wrote: »

They have lost to Swansea (1935);Cardiff (1953); Newport (1963);Llanelli (1972); West Midlands (1972); NW Division (1972); Midland Division (1983); Northern Division (1979) as well as to Munster (1978) and twice to the Babas (1973/2010). Interestingly both Llanelli and Munster have beaten the Aussies 4 times and Australia have only beaten Cardiff once and that was in the professional era when they faced the regional side. They never managed to beat the club side. BTW Cardiff only beat the All Blacks on one occasion although running them close on other occasions.

Looks like 1972 was a dark year for AB rugby! The worst I can remember was 1998, when after legends like Brooke & Fitzpatrick retired NZ lost 5 on the trot to SA & Aussie.

Digifriendly

Swiwi wrote: »

Looks like 1972 was a dark year for AB rugby! The worst I can remember was 1998, when after legends like Brooke & Fitzpatrick retired NZ lost 5 on the trot to SA & Aussie.

NZ have won over 75% of all test matches played and over 80% since the game went professional. Also Richie McCaw has won 100 of the 112 test matches he has played for the AB's. Some record!

Swiwi

Digifriendly wrote: »

NZ have won over 75% of all test matches played and over 80% since the game went professional. Also Richie McCaw has won 100 of the 112 test matches he has played for the AB's. Some record!

Before the professional era, SA had a better win/loss record against NZ, but it now stands at NZ 56% I think. All other teams are pretty much 70% or better.

Conrad Smith is the most successful with a win rate over 90%.