Sean Fitzpatrick can’t speak for rugby
Columnist
By Spiro Zavos, 8 Apr 2009 Spiro Zavos is a Roar Expert
- Tagged:
- Rugby Union, Sean Fitzpatrick
New Zealand, All Blacks Brad Thorn, right and John Afoa, left, react after Thorn scored a try against Ireland in the Rugby Union International at Croke Park, Dublin, Ireland, Saturday, Nov. 15, 2008. AP Photo/Peter Morrison
The All Black legend Sean Fitzpatrick has launched a bitter and self-serving attack on New Zealand rugby. But should anyone take notice of his comments?
In my opinion, they should not because he (along with Phil Kearns and Francois Pienaar) forfeited their moral authority in rugby matters when they tried to steal rugby from the IRB for the Packer media empire.
First, though, Fitzpatrick’s comments.
He told interviewer Phil Gifford that, compared with the Super 14, the Premiership and Heineken Cup rugby is better played and more enjoyable to watch.
‘What’s happening in Super 14 is lacking in structure. The teams that are doing well, the Bulls and Chiefs, are the teams that are playing with structure. Unfortunately, with the short-arm penalty, it encourages teams and players … to cheat. The Chiefs Vs Blues game was probably the worst and most disappointing game of rugby I’ve seen.”
Enough already.
You get the drift of the diatribe. It is straight from the Uusual Suspect’s manual of nonsense where ‘structure’ is a code word for the scrum/drive/penalty/kick game and where a scoreline of 9 – 3 is the desired outcome.
It also endorses the constant refrain that Northern Hemisphere rugby is better rugby and more entertaining than Southern Hemisphere rugby. This refrain is being challenged now, even in the Northern Hemisphere, with England being accused of being the most boring team in world rugby to watch.
These issues that the slow-plod game is great to watch, that the ELVs take the structure out of rugby, and that the Southern Hemisphere game is ‘helter skelter’, are so phony they could only be invented in a Fleet Street pub.
Do the Crusaders or the Highlanders play ‘helter-skelter’ rugby?
Ask the Bulls, a team that Fitzpatrick praises. Both these sides got on top of the Bulls in the scrums and forced an even contest in the lineouts in a show that New Zealand teams can play structured rugby with the best of them.
If any New Zealand team plays ‘helter skelter’ rugby it is the Chiefs. But Fitzpatrick has rather bizarrely suggested that they are the only New Zealand team that plays structured rugby.
The point here is that early in the Super 14 season, the Chiefs scrum and lineout were a mess.
Fitzpatrick tries to give a responsible gloss on rant by suggesting that New Zealand’s obsession with ‘free-flowing’ play will “eventually undermined the All Blacks’ supremacy.”
Although New Zealand is the direct context, it is clear that Fitzpatrick is spouting the tiresome anti-Southern Hemisphere rugby rhetoric that passes for analysis in much of the rugby commentary in the United Kingdom.
The answer to this nonsense is that if Northern Hemisphere rugby is so superior in tactics and play, why is it that the Southern Hemisphere sides dominate Northern Hemisphere sides, and that Southern Hemisphere players and coaches are recruited to play and coach in the Northern Hemisphere and not the reverse?
What Fitzpatrick did in 1995 in an attempt to sell out New Zealand rugby and the world game for $300,000 was totally unacceptable behaviour from a man whose stature, reputation and subsequent living were created by the rugby organisations he was trying to destroy.
If readers think this is a bit harsh, I’d like to take them back to the Bledisloe Cup Test in Sydney at the end of the 1995 season. The Wallaby captain, Phil Kearns, made an enigmatic speech after the Test asking the crowd to stick with the players.
I was standing beside the great All Black captain and coach Brian Lochore as we listened to the speeches. “This might be the last Bledisloe Cup Test ever,” I said to him.
With a look of infinite sadness of his face, Lochore replied: “You might be right.”
That night the All Blacks were driven to the home of a Packer executive to sign up with the rebel rugby organisation. Jeff Wilson, Josh Kronfeld and Jonah Lomu held out.
Afterwards, players like Zinzan Brooke were so angry with Wilson and Kronfeld that they threatened to boot them when they played against them.
Later that night there was a Bledisloe Cup dinner.
All the living Wallaby and All Blacks captains were the guests at the dinner. Most of the old-timers spent time trying to talk the players out of their rebellion. One All Black captain told me the players were as tight “as shit on a blanket.”
The Australian ring-leaders were as determined as the All Black leaders to get the rebellion moving.
John Eales was called “jelly back” because he resisted the breakaway calls. He was not allowed into some of the meetings the players held to discuss tactics.
In the end, the rebellion collapsed when Pienaar and the World Cup winning Springboks were bought off by South African rugby interests. There are suggestions that the price was $1 million a player.
Those of us with long enough memories can’t forget what the leading players of the day tried to do to rugby in 1995. If they had got their way there would not be the world game for them to pontificate about.
The moral authority that they might have gained from their marvellous playing careers has been compromised fatally by their behaviour during the Packer take-over crisis. They were prepared to sell out the game, against its short and long terms interests.
Sean Fitzpatrick, in my opinion, has lost the right to speak for rugby.
His comments (which are unfounded in their own right, anyway) deserve to be booted into the trash can of history, along with his misguided attempt to Packerise world rugby.
Enjoy sports? Enjoy a bargain? All Sports Online has your favourite sporting brands at up to 70% off. Online only, premium quality sporting goods and merchandise at discounted prices. Get a deal now.
Do you have what it takes to become a sports writer? Write for the roar
Rugby Union articles
- Will Super Rugby crowds continue their slide? (198)
- Will South African rugby force a Super 21 by 2018? (172)
- Brumbies 2012: New coach, new players, new attitude (128)
- Dan Parks and the unsolved questions of expat rugby (61)
- Pocock set to be named new Force skipper (56)
- Can the ‘Tahs win the battle after losing the Waugh? (51)
- What does the future hold for the Six Nations (50)
- Wales show Southern Hemisphere how to play running rugby (28)
- What opening matches of Six Nations taught us (18)
- Will Super Rugby crowds continue their slide? (201)
- Clinical Chiefs cost rusty Rebels in Corio (9)
- Six Nations shows rugby is a parochial game at heart (5)
- Goose’s Super Rugby up-and-comer XV for 2012 (29)
- What does the future hold for the Six Nations (50)
- Explore:
- Rugby Union, Sean Fitzpatrick
Hammer said | April 8th 2009 @ 8:45am | Report comment
For the first time in long while I agree 100% with everything you’ve written ….
Terry Kidd said | April 8th 2009 @ 9:15am | Report comment
I agree, rebellion issues aside, I can’t see any justification for Fitzpatrick’s comments and Spiro has argued them nicely.
On rebellion matters, seeing I don’t know much about what happened, were there any overtures made to NH players? Was the rebellion to be SH only?
Colin N said | April 8th 2009 @ 9:16am | Report comment
I think Northern Hemisphere rugby is more entertaining to watch than Southern Hemisphere rugby at the moment. Quite a few of the Super 14 games have been disappointing. Every GP game I have seen for the last few months have been exciting. If you watched the Leicester-Sale game, then that’s how rugby should be played. It was played with structure, intensity and intent. Both teams capitalised on the other teams mistake and it was just a brilliant spectacle.
The question regarding the Chiefs-Blues game is was it competitive? It seemed as thought it was over as a contest after half-an-hour.
Bay35Pablo said | April 8th 2009 @ 9:22am | Report comment
The “moral authority” argument is a separate one to whether what Fitzpatrick says is right or not (in which regard he is wrong).
The fact is Fitzpatrick was a great player, and does has good knowledge of the game. As such, his opinion must carry some weight. Your point appears to be that whatever he says carries a stain from WRC days so it can be ignored. However, if he says “the sky is blue”, he may be and is probably right. If he attempts to justify arguments with points about what is best for the game, then I agree the response will almost invariably be he has no moral weight to say such things given his history.
The points he is raising can be argued against on reasons separate to his moral authority. I.e. he is wrong for other reasons. Raising the bad old days of WRC is not necessary to prove him wrong, and in fact distracts from the main point of the debate. It risks the argument becoming about him and the WRC, rather than the current game. It also reeks of playing the man not the ball.
Leave aside the WRC shot, and the above arguments still blow Fitzpatrick’s points away. As you say, it is more blather than proper argument.
rob mccourt said | April 8th 2009 @ 9:27am | Report comment
Spiro
A strongly felt view point and i agree with most of what you say.
However we all have the right to express a view. The opinions and positions which ultimately hold sway will be those which can be articulated persuasively. Playing the man politically is a tactic much used and often successfully. Successful tactics are not however always those which are right. If the moral high ground is with the Southern Hemisphere then i think we should stick with the objective facts. Let Fitzpatrick say what he wants. Remember this is a man who supported a rugby circus playing in Denver Colorado before 50,000 adoring fans. The Denver Blusterers v The Sydney Pirates.
And I played 150 Tests for Australia.
Regards
Rob McCourt
Brett McKay said | April 8th 2009 @ 9:31am | Report comment
Spiro, we certainly shouldn’t listen to Fitzpatrick based on his ill-conceived logic and reasoning (as you say, the Chiefs a structured team?!?), but by using your “moral authority” argument, we also shouldn’t listen to the likes of Ian Chappell or Ricky Stuart, and they’re both regarded as among the more astute thinkers in their respective games.
One other thing, just as World Series Cricket and Super League will always remain sore points for some, ultimately they pushed those sports to where they needed to be. The same can be said for the Packer-led WRC movement. If it wasn’t for the “rebellion”, would rugby have gone professional??
LL said | April 8th 2009 @ 10:03am | Report comment
Agree completely with this post. Sean disappeared up his own backside a long time ago. What superiority is he talking about when he talks about the AB’s? The same superiority that has won them just one world cup?
There’s a solution to all this rule chaging mess that’s so simple it’s passed over because rugby is obsessed with being the thinking man’s preferred brutality.
First class rugby is played on a field that’s too small.
Oh and a moment for Shawn Mackay. Respect.
Sam Taulelei said | April 8th 2009 @ 10:12am | Report comment
Spiro
In hindsight the best thing for rugby was NZ not winning the 1995 world cup. Apart from the three J’s (Jeff Wilson, Josh Kronfeld and Jonah Lomu) the All Blacks were all signed up to a man to the WRC and wouldn’t have hesitated in leaving the NZRU for richer pastures. There was an excellent documentary shown on ABC a couple of weeks ago called “Stealing Rugby” which detailed all the movements behind the WRC leading up to that fateful videoconference when the Boks failed to front up with the All Blacks and Wallabies. There was also suspicions in the first test on their 1996 tour at Newlands that certain All Blacks squared up with Francois Pienaar at the bottom of a ruck towards the end of the game resulting in him being stretchered off. Fitzpatrick and Zinzan Brooke were the suspected culprits. The same two were also quoted in an interview that Kronfeld and Wilson would be wise not to get caught in any rucks when the Blues played the Highlanders in 1996 which caused an outrage.
If Louis Luyt intervened in convincing the Boks to remain loyal to SARU, Richie Guy wouldn’t have had the same success with the All Blacks as we didn’t have the cash and it was obvious that they weren’t going to be persuaded to stay on the strength of the black jersey they had toiled so hard to earn, otherwise they wouldn’t have signed and forfeited their rights to play for their country in the first place.
Fitzpatrick’s comments can be taken with a grain of salt as everything he said last year about the All Blacks didn’t eventuate and he was also very critical of the British teams when he captained NZ from 95-97 because they weren’t moving the ball and obsessed with setpieces and made the same comments after the Lions tour in 2005. In Laurie Mains autobiography Fitzpatrick met with Mains in 1994 to discuss their tactics for the world cup and Fitzpatrick said that what he remembered most about their success in 1987 was that they had an edge over the other teams and if they played rugby the same way as other teams they would fail, Mains agreed and together they formed their high tempo, wide attacking gameplan they believed would achieve success.
I personally think he’s confused about how rugby is meant to be played by NZ teams after living in the UK for so long and that is not meant as a slight on British rugby.
Mart said | April 8th 2009 @ 10:18am | Report comment
Too funny ! I’m having trouble determining who the real or fake Usual Suspect(s) are ! Haven’t had so much fun since the Pink Panther moovies !
ohtani's jacket said | April 8th 2009 @ 10:56am | Report comment
Fitzy is full of it, but unless you listened to the radio interview with Gilford, you’re basing the whole thing on a shabby bit of reporting by rugby heaven.