On a travel bye week and weekend, it’s interesting what we do with time we would normally spend thinking about upcoming games.

I spent a lot of time trying not to think about what sort of clown James O’Connor is, instead trying to take in some alternate views on the game, and on the Wallabies.

The perspective that really stayed with me over the weekend came via former Wallabies captain Rocky Elsom, who gave a really interesting insight into an area he’s had a lot of experience in over the past few years: missing games of rugby due to injury.

Facebook Twitter Whatsapp Reddit Email Share

Elsom is now based in Narbonne, in France, having finished up with superclub Toulon at the end of the last French Top 14 season.

He’s not playing currently – in fact isn’t actually attached to a club currently – instead preferring to recover from his Neuropraxia-related issues, which first came up when he was at the Waratahs and prevented him taking up a contract in Japan.

Speaking on Green and Gold Rugby’s podcast last week, host Matt Rowley asked Elsom for his thoughts on why the Wallabies were in the state they were.

I was expecting another hypothesis on the Wallabies’ commitment to the breakdown, or yet more thoughts on the scrum, so it was something of a surprise for off-field preparations to feature in the former skipper’s theory.

Said Elsom: “… what you need to be able to do is increase the chances of Australia playing well, and beating the All Blacks.

“I know we had trouble with South Africa as well, but essentially, that’s the goal of Australian rugby, to win most of the time, and particularly against New Zealand.



“In order to that, we need to have our best players out on the field and… the past five years have been very stagnant in terms of player physical preparation and the performance program, and I feel that [Ewen McKenzie] is wearing that now, he’s feeling the effects of it.

“It doesn’t get too much press, but every year it’s the same; you have half-a-dozen or more top line players that aren’t unavailable, and if you have that, it also means that there must be other players that are underprepared in that group if you have that many top-line players out all the time.

“It’s very difficult to be consistently successful when you have enormous player depth, and I think what you see for us is we’ve got less depth than New Zealand and South Africa and a higher injury rate, and I would say a far inferior performance program, which is a really big part of us not doing as well as we would like to against New Zealand, and not just this year, but in previous years.”

Asked if he thought if it was a case of the other teams being fitter, or at least appearing fitter, Elsom continued his theme of preparation, while also pointing to the age-old battle between country and states:

“I think a big element of the reason why [the All Blacks] appear fitter, or why they are able to field virtually the same guys week in, week out… is that they control it all centrally.

“As far as I can gather, they do have a good grip on what goes on in the provinces. You can have a program for the All Blacks if you like, but if it’s not getting supported at the provincial level then you lose an enormous part of the year [to refreshing conditioning requirements], and it’s important to have that control over it.

“… If you get good people, and Australia does have good people in there at the moment, the Wallabies do, but they need to be supported by other staff in the Wallabies, but also in the provinces by not necessarily doing exactly what the Wallabies want, but having the same kind of principles in relation to what’s going to be the best for the player and what’s going to get the most out of them.”

And it was Elsom’s thoughts on the centralised and controlled nature of the All Blacks’ preparation and conditioning that got me thinking about how decentralised things operate in Australia.



The situation as it currently stands is that the ARU provide somewhere in the order of $5 million to each of the franchises each year from broadcast deals (more studious Roarers will be able to provide a much clearer breakdown).

The Force and Rebels get a little bit more than this currently, I understand, and at different points in time, both the Reds and Waratahs have relied on bailouts from St Leonards.

Once funded, the five Super Rugby sides operate independently, with only token Wallabies input.

And so, despite providing a good percentage of each state union’s Super Rugby operating budget, should the ARU actually be allowed to have more of a say in areas like strength and conditioning, recovery practices and the treatment of injuries?

Bill Pulver has openly spoken of his desire to see the Wallabies conquering the world again, so if the best rugby program in the world is just over the pond, wouldn’t there be value in attempting to replicate it on our own shores?

And should we go even further than that? Should the ARU adopt the New Zealand Rugby Union model and take control of Australia’s Super Rugby sides completely?

The five sides could still run the local operations in terms of administration and marketing and memberships, but why shouldn’t the rugby side of things become a spoke of a centralised performance hub of Australian rugby?

It should kill the infighting and self-interest dead. It would have to bring everyone in line, and would provide the proper avenue to truly develop this mythical ‘Australian way’ of playing rugby we keep hearing about.



Roarer Midfielder spoke in these terms in comments under my national competition column last week, citing the national curriculum being implemented by Football Federation Australia.

Expert-in-waiting Elisha Pearce has spoken in similar terms too, about what the ARU could learn from the FFA, and there were many comments along the same lines.

A national gameplan. Centrally contracted players. ARU-appointed coaches and strength and conditioning departments all singing from the same song sheet.

Not a complete dictatorship from HQ, but a co-ordinated approach for the development of the game and, more importantly, the performance preparation of players at the professional level.

The benefits seem obvious: increased conditioning and recovery and treatment of players across the board, a national approach to the game while still allowing the states to play to their strengths and, ultimately, a synchronised motivation to feeding into the best rugby program in the country: the Wallabies.

It wouldn’t even require any great increase in expenditure.

But could it really happen? Could the traditional self-interest of Australian rugby ever be set aside for the greater good, or is this simply too logical, or too ambitious to become reality?