Wasting 138 years of rugby tribalism will have fans seeing Red

There is nearly 140 years of rivalry between NSW and Queensland. Picture: AFP

Mention the word “Reds” virtually anywhere in the world and Liverpool football fans will launch into reveries about glory-filled days at Anfield.

In the right audience, those with an Australian connection might assume you are talking about Adelaide United but Americans will know instantly you are referring to the Cincinnati baseball team. Only those steeped in rugby will assume the discussion is about the Queensland side.

The cognoscenti perhaps will dazzle you with the observation that it was nine years last Thursday since the Reds won their one and only Super Rugby title, playing a brand of football that for one, brief shining season was truly breathtaking. Otherwise, it has been a generally hard slog.

Super Rugby returns! Watch every game of Super Rugby AU and Super Rugby Aotearoa Live & On-Demand on Kayo. New to Kayo? Get your 14-day free trial & start streaming instantly

There is no confusion about the Brumbies, however. To the best of my knowledge, there are no other “Brumbies” in serious world sport, although there might have been. When the Brisbane Broncos were being formed, a list of potential club names was circulated by one of the founding fathers. Not sure if it was Porky Morgan or Barry Maranta. Anyhow, someone influential in the club’s history had put forward the name “Brumbies” but, in the end, they went for the American version of wild horses, from memory because they wanted to forge a relationship with the Denver Broncos.

Eight years went by before a Super Rugby club was established in Canberra and “Brumbies” just seemed to fit. All that Man from Snowy River and Clancy of the Overflow stuff. Wild horses running free. Perfect. And then, of course, the Gregans, Larkhams, Roffs and Kafers overlaid it all with a brand of rugby that gave rise to imitators all over the world.

And then there were the Waratahs, who seem to have been around forever, mainly because they have been. It’s the oldest sporting rivalry in Australia, NSW v Queensland in rugby. They’ve been going at it since 1882, and when the Queensland Rugby Union went into recess for the Great War and lost all track of the time, and didn’t get their act together until they reformed in 1929, it was the Waratahs who carried the load for Australian rugby.

That is the reason why NZ and Australia don’t have matching figures for the number of trans-Tasman Tests played. As far as the Kiwis are concerned, they did not play Australia from 1914-29. So let’s not mention that the Waratahs toured there in 1921, winning nine out of 10 games, including the Test!

The Western Force didn’t come into being until 2006, when the “Star Wars” craze was probably past its peak. Yet someone recognised all the fun subeditors could have with the name “Force”, although no-one anticipated, sadly, that “Forced closure” would ominously appear in 2017. The Force truly was with them as they thrashed NSW in their final Super Rugby game. Happily, though, the team from WA returns to the fold on Sunday night at the Sydney Cricket Ground and one knows they are going to give it to those poor old Tahs all over again.

The Rebels are the newest addition to the Australian rugby landscape and, while they have locked into Ballarat and the Eureka Stockade and Peter Lalor – the Irish-Australian rebel, not The Australian’s cricket writer, although I am aware of numerous Rebels’ fans who read his every word – generally speaking, they are the club that has looked to the future. Melbourne’s partnership with Kintetsu in Japan has already produced fruit and indications are that it has only just begun.

You may wonder what has prompted this trip down memory lane. It was the suggestion this week that Australia might revert to a Big Bash-style contest if the New Zealanders insist that they will only allow two Australian teams into any trans-Tasman competition they are prepared to launch next season.

Now, before we start, it should be noted NZ Rugby boss Mark Robertson has denied there is a split in the NZR board which might, or might not, mean that rumours of only two Australian sides is pure bunkum. Still, while one would always draw short of using the word “arrogance” where New Zealanders and rugby are concerned, let’s just say they do have a very high opinion of themselves – which they may well be entitled to.

Nonetheless, nothing is decided. Even if the board is split down the middle, there is still half that apparently favours letting five Australian teams play next year, so all is not lost. Yet even if it all does blow up in our faces, I question whether Australia should abandon names familiar to the rugby world – the Brumbies, Tahs, Reds, Force and Rebels – in order to switch to a Big Bash-style Sydney Sizzle or Brisbane Brooms (You know, they’ll sweep the competition. Okay, well you think of something….).

“Tribalism” is one of the most overworked words in the Australian rugby lexicon but this is where it legitimately has use. Even Ned Hanigan, who finished up on the losing side, spoke in awe of the passion Queensland and NSW poured into the interstate match last week. On the wall of my study is some artwork from the first intercolonial match which shows not one but two New South Welshmen using a choke hold to stop a Queensland ball-carrier. “Collaring a Bananabender” reads the caption. It has always been thus.

“Brand” is another overused word but, again, this is where it can usefully be applied. The Australian rugby brand names have been built up over years, decades and, sometimes, centuries. I have no problem if Australian rugby is forced to go it alone. Indeed, having witnessed how Queensland drew decades of motivation from NSW snubbing the interstate series in the 1960s because the Maroons weren’t considered worthy opponents, I have no doubt what reaction a snub from the other side of the ditch would provoke.

If need be, Australian rugby should look to bring in a team of Fiji-domiciled players, along with a couple of sides from Japan. Supplement all teams with a sprinkling of Pumas, because the Argentinians would surely be looking for some action following the death of Super Rugby. And maybe a South African or two.

But build on a solid base. Don’t let 138 years of work be wasted.