Had the guts to say what others are afraid to: Cheika nailed it in his steps required

[The InnFORCEr]

At last, someone is talking sense.

The comments by Michael Cheika this week hit the mark in more ways than one.

Finally, someone has had the sense and the guts to say what too many people are afraid of saying.

There is no discernible strategy for rugby in this country; and making decisions about grassroots rugby, Super Rugby or the Wallabies in a strategy vacuum is nonsensical.

There are no silver bullets. Reaching a Rugby World Cup Final in 2015 didn’t save Australian rugby.

A massive loan from Pacific Equity Partners hasn’t done it, and hiring Joe Schmidt alone won’t either.

So what is the path forward, what strategy should be implemented by the powers that be to revive rugby?

To “go it alone” and sever ties with Super Rugby if necessary.

Win a Ziggy BBQ for Grand Final day, thanks to Barbeques Galore! Enter Here.

1. Very clearly we have a problem identifying school-age talent let alone retaining it.

There should be an immediate plan to provide contracts to Australia’s top 15 schoolboy rugby players as well as to five developmental athletes from non-traditional or regional rugby-playing schools.

Such an initiative, rolled out across three-year cycles to 90 athletes at any given time, would cost less than $7million per year before sponsorship opportunities are factored in.

The developmental contracts at least, would in part be sponsored by big business as part of corporate social responsibility initiatives.

All contracts should be in the region of $100,000 (similar to League and AFL equivalents) per year but also provide for tertiary grants.

Rugby has a traditional affiliation with many universities around the country, whether that be Bond University, UWA or indeed Sydney University.

So why not use these affiliations to supplement contracts and create, for example, the ‘UWA Fortescue Rugby Scholarship’ or the ‘Bond University Build Corp Rugby Grant’?


2. The time has also come to bite the bullet and create a long-term, viable replacement for the National Rugby Championship.

It may replace Super Rugby eventually or it may not. But there should at least be a Plan B in case going it alone becomes a necessity, not a choice.

To date the major stumbling blocks have been funding and the perception that such a competition would undermine club rugby competitions, particularly the Shute Shield.

The solution is obvious. A new national competition should incorporate the major club competitions as conferences.

Each club competition, whether the Shute Shield or otherwise, could conclude before the top two from each conference would play off in an eight-team, seeded finals series played at traditional grounds such as Ballymore, Leichhardt Oval or similar.

As Cheika said, “We have a tradition in Australia of getting behind a national competition” and that sport in this country is based on “rivalry and connection”.

Battles like Brothers v Randwick or Canberra Royals v Nedlands are something for clubs to aspire to rather than be just an afterthought.

Suddenly, you have a national club competition at very little extra cost that retains tradition.

The finals series could be played in front of full houses at smaller grounds and provide for state-against-state rivalries -bragging rights on a national scale.

3. Australian Rugby must retain participation in Super Rugby for now but make it clear to all involved that the competition is on notice.

Most importantly, the game must be prepared for Super Rugby’s implosion.

It was shocking to see Cheika confirm that leaving Super Rugby was considered as far back as 2018 at “an executive level”.

Why is no contingency plan in place in 2024?

A national club competition is the first step to future-proofing but thought must be given to an origin series or similar to replace Super Rugby if and when necessary.

Just because rugby league thought of it first, doesn’t make it a bad idea.

4. Of course, it’s pointless having a national competition if nobody can watch.

When Channel Nine couldn’t even be counted on to televise the Wallabies v Argentina Test last week, Cheika’s comments came sharply into focus.

He said: “There’s a lot of free-to-air coverage of [League] so more people can see who [players] are. That partnership – how Nine have almost made league in their partnership with them and built the game together – that’s the type of strategic thinking that you need”.

Rugby union in this country must be shown on a reliable platform or platforms that are free.

If that means taking big hits on television money domestically and going cap in hand to philanthropists, sponsors and World Rugby then so be it.

As Cheika said, it will be difficult initially, it won’t be easy. But nothing worth doing is.

Which brings me to the last action point. Perhaps the most controversial of the lot.

5. So much has been written about the question of whether to select Wallabies from overseas or not.

As is too often the case, the debate has degenerated in recent times into absolutes; yes or no.

Importantly, Cheika pointed out that this is not a one-dimensional problem.

League is poaching school boys, Major League Rugby scouting club competitions and Europe seeking out Super Rugby players.

To my mind, the question is not how to stop players from heading overseas but how to incentivise them to stay while seeking out both experience overseas as well as financial reward.

Why not have dual contracts and reciprocal relationships with clubs overseas? Some players, perhaps many, could be very satisfied with one season out of every four in Europe, Japan or elsewhere while retaining the privilege of being Wallaby eligible.

Promising colts could spend some time scrummaging in Natal before starting their ‘UWA Fortescue Rugby Scholarship’.

The best club players who don’t make the grade for higher honours might do so next year after a winter in Glasgow.

Starting somewhere is better than going around in circles, seeing the same debates always end lacking in consensus.

So many of these steps are easy to take. They just require some courage.

Mostly they require a coherent strategy to be set out and implemented by a competent leadership with vision.

Not too much to ask.

https://www.msn.com/en-au/sport/othe...7836f5b6&ei=25

[AndyS]

Any 'replacement' for the NRC that involves the clubs would be a complete waste of time and money. It will do precisely zero for player development and standards, it is just more amateur club rugby.

If that is what Sydney wants though, good luck to them. Let them pick their teams that way...they can then go up against the same Brisbane, Q'ld Country, Vikings, Force, teams from 2019. Also, if they are going to put out amateur teams, there is really no justification whatsoever for excluding a state team from South Australia.

[tjs10]

Any 'replacement' for the NRC that involves the clubs would be a complete waste of time and money. It will do precisely zero for player development and standards, it is just more amateur club rugby

Agreed.

The tier below Super Rugby needs to be properly national, or at least mirror the SR franchises.

It can't be local amateur/semi pro conferences that only become "national" as a finals series.
The NRC had its faults, and was ignored/disregarded by NSW, but at least it was national and gave genuine opportunities to players in the pipeline or on the SR pathway.

Club rugby won't do that properly, and it spreads the net far too wide. We need to focus on a narrower funnel to develop the next tier down of the pipeline and in the future club rugby may be strong enough to fill that gap, but it isn't close to being there yet.

RA needs to learn to walk before it can run.
Right now it's barely crawling!