By playing ugly rugby, the spirit of the game is lost
Roar Guru
By Rickety Knees, 2 Oct 2009 Rickety Knees is a Roar Guru
- Tagged:
- Rugby Union, wallabies
There was a time once when Australia produced rugby players with such silken skills that in the twinkle of any eye they could mesmerise the opposition.
There was a time when Wallaby forwards targetted winning 40 percent of the ball, knowing that their backs would weave their magic and win the day.
2009 has been annus horribilis for Australian rugby.
The game has become one dimensional, with the new mantra of “winning ugly.” The Waratahs and the Wallabies have played mind-numbing ugly rugby.
Randwick played the last quarter of the recent Shute Shield grand final trying to bash and barge their way to victory – and failed.
It is an indictment on the game when the once famous Galloping Greens resort to trying to win a grand final by playing ugly rugby.
And it is an indicator on how far the game has regressed.
Professionalism has brought many things – greedy players monopolising the revenue at the expense of junior development, greedy merchandisers constantly producing new strips, administrative fat cats cashing in on the gravy train.
But worst of all, a fear of failure leading to playing low risk one dimensional ugly rugby.
The costly purchase of Rugby League backs has sent a message to Australian rugby backs that they are not good enough. Flowing on the coaching staff have adopted the Rugby League one dimensional defence oriented style of play, which has resulted in the term “ugly rugby”.
The spirit of the game in Australia was to play the game hard but enjoy it in the process. The after-game camardarerie was to be savoured.
Now days, the professionals are not concerned with enjoying the game, and after-match camaraderie is a thing of the past.
The game has produced the emotionless robotic professional more interested in self-image and promoting his capital. And coaches hell bent on playing low risk ugly rugby.
The combination of these two does not add to very much, and that is exactly what we have got – not much!
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? (201)
- Will South African rugby force a Super 21 by 2018? (173)
- The real story of how John O’Neill turned Manchester City down (70)
- Dan Parks and the unsolved questions of expat rugby (65)
- Australian teams at Super disadvantage (58)
- Pocock set to be named new Force skipper (56)
- Can the ‘Tahs win the battle after losing the Waugh? (51)
- France turns to Parra and Trinh-Duc
- Rebels look to lift for formidable Blues in rugby trial
- Mr Fix-It Lucas wants to nail down No.10
- Force roost loses ‘Mother Hen’ Sharpe
- Victory beat Mariners with Kewell winner
- Waratahs romp to 83-5 trial win over Samoa A
- Quade Cooper’s return to the Reds goes up a gear
- Wales show Southern Hemisphere how to play running rugby (29)
- What opening matches of Six Nations taught us (19)
- Will Super Rugby crowds continue their slide? (202)
- 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, wallabies
Knives Out said | October 2nd 2009 @ 1:45am | Report comment
Rickety, do you know why a try is called a try?
Knives Out said | October 2nd 2009 @ 5:39am | Report comment
Actually, ignore the above. I wasn’t paying attention. This article appears to be about post-match hi-jinks.
Justin said | October 2nd 2009 @ 6:36am | Report comment
KO – that was 100 years ago where a try was to get a try at goal. It has no relevance in the modern day…
Knives Out said | October 2nd 2009 @ 6:38am | Report comment
It was 100 years ago, thus if it has no relevance there can be no ‘spirit of rugby’. To suggest that rugby should be played in any specific way that evokes a mythical ‘spirit’ is very elitist not to mention inaccurate.
sheek said | October 2nd 2009 @ 8:26am | Report comment
Justin,
Are you kidding….. ?
There are people all over the world, rugby union types, working to ensure that a try remains exactly that – a try for goal!
Knives Out said | October 2nd 2009 @ 8:31am | Report comment
Like whom, sheek?
sheek said | October 2nd 2009 @ 8:38am | Report comment
KO,
You know them – ‘they’ !
Paley said | October 2nd 2009 @ 4:41am | Report comment
“Flowing on the coaching staff have adopted the Rugby League one dimensional defence oriented style of play”
You’d have thought a three dimensional attack would have the edge there
sheek said | October 2nd 2009 @ 8:29am | Report comment
For being portrayed as a one dimensional game, I have found rugby league very entertaining lately.
Infinitely more entertaining than the trite offered almost ad nauseum by rugby union.
Campbell Watts said | October 2nd 2009 @ 4:33pm | Report comment
You should be watching a bit of the Air New Zealand Cup then skeek!
High scoring, entertaining rugby!
Invictus said | October 2nd 2009 @ 4:47pm | Report comment
Have enjoyed most of those that I’ve seen so far, although Auckland vs North Harbour was a bit dour.
Lee said | October 2nd 2009 @ 11:41am | Report comment
Jeez – I wonder what football is doing wrong – you’ve all seen their games , only a max of 4 goals a game, how the hell do people stay entertained when that is the “product”.
Rickety Knees said | October 2nd 2009 @ 11:51am | Report comment
Lee – I am missing your point – what has football got to do with this thread?
Lee said | October 2nd 2009 @ 1:19pm | Report comment
I was trying to say that tries scored is no reflection of entertainment value, and you can see that from football, where scoring opportunites are generally less so than in rugby but the game is still hugely popular, all in spite of professionalism.
The issues to me are not around tries scored but around the administrators of the game. The entire structure of world rugby(particularly Southern Hemisphere rugby) is pretty much unique in International sport, and has led to franchises with whom people very little connection to replacing provinces with obvious tribal connections.
We keep hearing stories of how the game is growing in the north, and their structure there is much more akin to football, domestic comps based around local teams who then compete in a “european cup” competition. Currently the only thing stopping the SH from doing this is the Australian Rugby Union. The Currie cup, Air NZ Cup and a local Australian comp need to act as local comps played in the same time frame the CC and ANZ cup are played now. The following year, the top 4 teams from each countries previous years domestic comps play in a SANZAR cup. Internationals would continue as normal, and if Aus can’t do a domestic comp then their 5/6 Super 15 teams play each other in a comp whilst the CC and ANZ cup are on.
Rugby has always been about different game plans, read this article from Dan Retief for examples of complaints happening many years ago: http://www.supersport.com/rugby/columns.aspx?id=7992&headline=The%20more%20things%20change%e2%80%a6
PastHisBest said | October 2nd 2009 @ 1:33pm | Report comment
Lee
“where scoring opportunities are generally less”
You’re kidding right? I say significantly less 99% of the time.
“The entire structure of world rugby(particularly Southern Hemisphere rugby) is pretty much unique in International sport, and has led to franchises with whom people very little connection to replacing provinces with obvious tribal connections.”
And how connected did the Arse fans feel when they had zero Englishmen in their run on side in the recent past?
It’s really no surprise that England haven’t won a soccer world cup since the 1960′s and English rugby will go down the same plug hole.
Lee said | October 2nd 2009 @ 3:25pm | Report comment
I was trying to be diplomatic but you are right scoring oppourtunites are very slim in football.
Besides its not how many more oppourtunities there are to score in fotoball compared to rugby – its that even though there are less oppourtunities to score in football than rugby, the teams are still supported strongly and that football is the most popular sport in the world.
As for how Arsenal fans felt, I don’t know but when I lived in the UK teams were still supported regardless of the number of foreigners in the team by the majority of fans and I would say this is because of the tradition that those teams have and their history. It’s not so much who plays for the team but what the team represents to the fan – thats what Super 14 is missing that the Currie Cup, Air NZ cup, Guiness Premiership, Top 14 etc have.
Campbell Watts said | October 2nd 2009 @ 4:36pm | Report comment
Perhaps click on the “Footbal” tab at the top of the page and find some like-minded posters Lee
Leave this one for those of us trying to discuss RUGBY eh?
Lee said | October 3rd 2009 @ 12:50am | Report comment
I ‘m sorry but when discussing what is “wrong” with rugby why not compare it’s competition structure to that of a professional sports code that actually does vey well around the whole world?
I love rugby and find most football matches boring as hell, but there are millions and millions of people who love football, so why not look at how their administrator have run teh sport and see if rugby can learn anything from it?
Nice underhanded tone though, how about reading an entire post or thread before dismissing it as only concerning football.
Knives Out said | October 2nd 2009 @ 10:38pm | Report comment
‘English rugby will go down the same plug hole.’
What plug hole is that, and why?
Bay35Pablo said | October 2nd 2009 @ 2:44pm | Report comment
English rugby won’t go down the plughole because they are actually starting to put money into developing the grass roots. Unlike the bozos in charge here.
I watched the Shute shield GF, and didn’t think the Wicks played that badly all up in the last 20. The commentators criticised them early on for remaining in tight where Uni were always going to dominate. However, there was as much throwing it around in the last 20 as there was in tight. Randwick just made errors when they couldn’t afford to. One less, and they may have scored a try that would have won it. Personally I thought it was a great game, and great to watch. I wanted the Wicks to win (as a Woodies fan), but in the end they weren’t quite good enough.
The question is this, why can’t any other Sydney club be as good as Sydney Uni? it’s pretty damning.
As for negative rugby, it’s a cycle. We all hoped the ELVs would fix it, but it didn’t happen. Eventually a team will win playing unbeatable running rugby, and all will be right with the world again (briefly).
Harry Wombat said | October 2nd 2009 @ 4:26pm | Report comment
I prefer to think of the other clubs in Sydney as better than Sydney Uni. After all most of the other clubs are prepared to help develop junior (read grass roots) rugby whereas Sydney Uni find it easier to poach/pinch/attract call it what you will players to their team. Do away with Sydney Uni or better still get them to develop a proper junior rugby program and not the claytons one they have now and we might see a greater improvement for all. Perhaps grants/handouts from ARU and/or NSWRU could be based on the type and size of the junior program each team has.
Invictus said | October 2nd 2009 @ 4:33pm | Report comment
Why not make it a criteria (junior development) for remaining in the shute shield competition?
Working Class Rugger said | October 2nd 2009 @ 4:43pm | Report comment
Invictus
I’d support that. My club Randwick has turned a $1.5 million profit for the past two years. The establishment of The Randwick Club has helped greatly. They should be pooring those funds into getting local schools onside and helping out there junior base. They only have four teams.
Invictus said | October 2nd 2009 @ 4:45pm | Report comment
Yes, all is not well in the world of Shute Shield.
I hear there is a chance that Southern Districts and West Harbour may be dumped from the competition. Can you verify that?
Working Class Rugger said | October 2nd 2009 @ 5:04pm | Report comment
This is the first I have heard of that. Souths have been having a number of lean years but this year their 1st’s did show signs of becoming competitive. West Habour well they don’t support any juniors. To be frank that cluib was always a mystery to me.
Rickety Knees said | October 2nd 2009 @ 4:47pm | Report comment
It is indeed a further indictment on the game that junior development is largely an after thought. Rightly so Sydney Uni should be penalised in some meaningful form for being the poachers that they are
Invictus said | October 2nd 2009 @ 4:55pm | Report comment
How many juniors should a shute shield side support? Or how many junior clubs should they be affiliated with?
Working Class Rugger said | October 2nd 2009 @ 5:02pm | Report comment
Invictus
Ideally 12 should be the minimum. Like I have said Randwick only have 4. This number isn’t near enough to ensure they can produce quality juniors. Look at the Colts. They tend not to dominate like they do in Grade. They simply don’t have enough quality in their catchment area. I was part of the last truly competitve Randwick junior Rep side back in the early part of this decade. Since then the quality of player has been questionable. If they had 12+ teams their pool would strengthen greatly.
Working Class Rugger said | October 2nd 2009 @ 4:56pm | Report comment
Rickety
Syd Uni actually does have two junior clubs. They had to adopt them in order to compete in the Shute Shield a few years back. But I doubt they actually draw there player’s from these clubs.
Rickety Knees said | October 2nd 2009 @ 5:14pm | Report comment
Guys here in lies the most fundamental of the games problems and that is next to no infrastructure. I have never been a fan of the NSWRU but this is shameful. The Shute Shield clubs should be tied at the umbilical cord to their junior clubs in their districts. The junior clubs should be at the grounds cheering for the seniors in the afternoon. The program should mutually sustaining. This is not rocket science!