By Garth Hamilton
October 14th 2009 @ 12:29am
The ARU should stop deriding English rugby
England's Phil Vickery, center, tries to muscle his way through the Italian defence during the Six Nations rugby union international match at Twickenham stadium in London, Saturday Feb. 7, 2009. AP Photo/PA, David Davies
Rugby is a game defined by its lower levels, and in terms of basic hygiene, few bathroom facilities would rate lower than the gentlemen’s restroom under the Charles Wells stand at Goldington Road, the home of the Bedford Blues.
Airing an odour similar in my imagination to Anchorman’s notorious fragrance Sex Panther, these restrooms and the well worn wooden stand under which they ferment, have withstood many a game of rugby.
Far from the endless walls of Twickenham troughing that handle the Guinness-fuelled callings of 80,000 odd spectators with scarcely an overflow, these sanitary remnants of the amateur era are completely undeserving of any further description but serve as a perfect place to begin my tribute to one of the least recognised tributaries of the great running river that is English rugby.
The Blues can trace their history into the 1870’s and rugby, in some early form or other was played at the Bedford School for a long time prior to this.
Perhaps it is this long held attachment to the game that allows Goldington Road some liberties for, beyond the plumbing obscenities faced by its patrons lies a rather more substantial cause for concern for players on the field; from the north-west corner flag to its diagonal opposite in the south-east there is a slope of some five metres.
This potential impairment has been overcome for over 120 years as the ground has seen continuous use since the club’s inception.
To my Australian eyes, accustomed as they are to the shiny and new, this situation seems beyond belief but what further extends it into the ridiculous is that Bedford is one of a handful of clubs with a genuine chance of promotion into the Guinness Premiership next year.
I shudder to think what Chris Latham’s boot would do with that slope and a small wind behind him. Equally I shudder at the thought of what a Premiership sized crowd would do to that restroom but let’s not get too far ahead of ourselves.
Bedford, according to Sam the endearingly optimistic game-day announcer, is proud to be one of the largest towns in England without a league football club and although it has been some time since the mighty Blues battled it out in the nation’s top competition, rugby is the sport closest to the town’s heart.
Entry into the Premiership would, of course, change, in a very literal sense, the fortunes of the club and there is a palpable sense of hope at Blues’ home games this season.
Bedford has descended into something of a feeder club in the professional years and it is a situation that sits rather unhappily upon the rugby-loving folk of this rugby-loving town.
The club has played its part in nurturing the early careers of England’s Paul Sackey and Scotland’s Scott Murray and provided the revelation of last weekend’s Heineken Cup in the form of Billy Twelvetrees who made a thrilling debut for Leicester against the perennially disappointing Ospreys.
Even Australian rugby fans owe a debt of gratitude to the Blues for their work in hardening the promising young prop Ben Robinson.
Another Australian scrummager, Marco Cecere, is currently on their books although only time will tell if the former Under 21 representative will go on to join the long list of Bedford players such as Martin Bayfield and Rory Underwood to earn international caps.
But time, it would seem, is on both Cecere’s and Bedford’s side. At 27 the player is but young for a prop and at 123 the club is hoping it is about to re-enter its prime.
On this particular weekend, the Blues ran out rather convincing, if a little complacent, winners over the cash-strapped diehards of Birmingham-Solihull. With an unseasonably blue sky and a good bead of condensation dripping from my beer glass, running rugby ran out the winner as both sides shunned the hoof, preferring to play the game at pace and with width.
In previous years, promotion has gone to the team at the top of the table at the end of the season, usually the newly relegated likes of Leeds or Northampton.
However, this year, for the first time, a playoffs series will be introduced. The knockout post-season will give clubs like Bedford and Exeter heart as their chance of promotion could come down to a one game do-or-die scrap against this season’s prized scalp, Bristol.
Again returning to the view from my Australian eyes, I can’t help but marvel at the strength of English rugby.
As I began, rugby is not defined by the well-manicured and occasionally pampered top tier that shines over the game but rather it is defined by its rough and sometimes shabby underbelly, and on this count I feel Bedford stands as a great pillar of rugby in England.
It is exactly the type of town and the type of club that the ARU has sadly ignored. When last did the ARU throw its weight into the heart of Toowoomba or Orange, those great bastions of country rugby?
I sincerely hope that the good people tending the groundswell of goodwill that is Rugby Australia can look without affront to ego or pinch to pride at how rugby prospers in the UK and find something of value.
Perhaps it could start by turning its back on the anti-English sentiment preferred by the ARU and, like Australian soccer, promote a genuine appreciation of all international competitions.
By constantly deriding the quality of northern hemisphere rugby and the integrity of its administrators as it did during the ELV trials, the ARU has taken one of rugby’s great strengths, its international appeal, and suffocated it beneath silly, petulant, nationalistic tosh.
I have a feeling this is not a mistake that grassroots rugby supporters will want to be made again.
Garth is the secretary of the London branch of Wooden Spoon, rugby's charity for disadvantaged children. If you would like to know more about Spoon please visit the website.
Going to the Waratahs v Brumbies blockbuster at ANZ Stadium, Saturday 24 April? If you're keen to meet up with other Roarers, register you interest and we'll keep you informed on the place to meet. Register now.
Get Australia's best Rugby opinion emailed daily.
Like this content? Buzz it up!
Free Email updates:
Our daily emails are only sent if there is content for the sport or that author. You can subscribe to multiple daily emails; or get the daily Roar email with all our content in it. We value privacy. More...
(121)
Mr cheese said | October 14th 2009 @ 4:09am | Report comment
A pro-English article on an Australian website ??? I thought Mr. O’Neill had accurately taken the nation’s egg-chasing pulse in 07 when he told the world that everyone hates the English.
It is, I think, interesting that people insist on using the strange and fragile word “grassroots”. I think we are invited to see any sport which pats its own “grassroots” on the back as morally and spiritually superior.
Why don’t you just call them supporters, or players ?? In England, Rugby people have spent more than a century attacking Football, in part because of Rugby’s “grassroots” ( code for “we are middle class, and your lot come from council estates, where there is no grass. Except the stuff you smoke” ).
The Rugby people no longer attack the Football people as much, after scandals involving joke shop blood, and a little bit of drug-taking too. If Australian Rugby also decides to be less criticial, this too is something to celebrate.
Alex said | October 14th 2009 @ 8:58am | Report comment
Where as in football scandals are so regular they are hardly even worth reporting in the UK anymore.
Yikes said | October 14th 2009 @ 8:47am | Report comment
Hmmm. When was the last time rugby supported Orange? Like the education day that was held there with coaching and refereeing courses for the Central West. Or the State U14 Championships that were held there in the beautiful Orange fog. Or the S14 trial that will be held there in 2010 between the Waratahs and Fiji. Yes, Orange really is neglected!
This is a ludicrous article. The ARU should not have argued for the ELVs because the toilets in Bedford are dilapidated?
Have you seen any Guinness Premiership or Heineken Cup match lately? The rugby is just as poor as the Southern Hemisphere rugby was this year, most probably even duller. It is a crying shame the NH didn’t come to the party in trying to make some positive changes before RWC2011.
Answer me this – have the Northern Hemisphere brought any radial innovation to the game? Or are they dragged kicking and screaming into modernity? A Word Cup? No! RWC to Japan? No! Television Match Official? Never! ELVs? No.
Colin N said | October 14th 2009 @ 9:33am | Report comment
“Have you seen any Guinness Premiership or Heineken Cup match lately? The rugby is just as poor as the Southern Hemisphere rugby was this year, most probably even duller. It is a crying shame the NH didn’t come to the party in trying to make some positive changes before RWC2011.”
The Guinness Premiership’s been disappointing, but the opening weekend of the Heineken cup was excellent. Even the low scoring Leinster-London Irish had intensity and excitement about it. Then there was Northampton-Munster, which was high scoring and some quality rugby was played. The same goes for the Leicester-Ospreys match, which was game of the weekend. Even then we saw the Top 14 champions, Perpignan being beaten by an Italian side.
Knives Out said | October 14th 2009 @ 8:05pm | Report comment
Even LAS has been talking fondly of the opening HC matches. There’s been some excellent rugby in the NH this season.
Justin said | October 15th 2009 @ 5:44am | Report comment
KO – you may have not read it but I asked on another thread why the crowds in the GP are so low. I appreciate the smaller stadiums but many of the clubs are lucky to be more than 65% full in a 12k stadium. Any reasons for such ordinary crowds?
pothale said | October 15th 2009 @ 6:01am | Report comment
1. Too many SH players being fielded in the teams instead of local talent.
2. Players keep passing the ball instead of kicking it.
3. Players keep scoring tries instead of kicking it.
4. Not enough penalties being blown up by the NH refs.
5. Introduction of ELVs that speeded up the game too much.
Knives Out said | October 15th 2009 @ 6:08am | Report comment
Justin,
As far as I’m aware only 4 clubs are struggling for crowds: Sale Sharks, Newcastle Falcons, Leeds Carnegie and currently Saracens. Sale and Newcastle have the problem of having to contend with hugely popular soccer teams, and thus host their home games on cold, wet and dark Friday nights. Leeds are newly promoted and are struggling to make an impact in a league area, and Saracens fans seemed to be turned off by the horrific (yet successful) style of Brendan Venter. A continuous problem has been old stadia, but Northampton, Leicester and Harlequins have all recently added or extended their grounds. Anyway, I’d be intrigued to see what figures you are looking at because a slight dip during the 07 WC aside attendances have risen every single year in the GP.
You might find this link informative.
http://www.guinnesspremiership.com/rugby/index.php
Justin said | October 15th 2009 @ 9:20am | Report comment
KO – they are the figures I was using. Thanks for the info, I will get back with a more detailed response tonight.
Mr cheese said | October 15th 2009 @ 10:21pm | Report comment
“soccer teams” ??
Don’t use the word soccer in Streatham. They won’t like it there.
I think you’re right, though. Did you see that article on the BBC website about Manchester RU club ? It’s getting battered every week. The boss said “in the NW of England, Rugby U is a pretty strong participation sport, but it isn’t a spectator sport at all”.
Difficult to change that, really.
Justin said | October 18th 2009 @ 12:55pm | Report comment
KO – I will take your word for it that crowds are on the rise in the GP, thats god news. But lets face it they are coming off a very low base judging by the crowds so far this year.
My summation of each clubs attendance is –
Bath – Very good in relation to capacity, full houses so far
Gloucester – Pretty good, getting about 75% of capacity
Quins – Pretty average – getting around 66% capacity
Leeds – Atrocious, only around 30% capacity.
Lecister – Very good, 90% capacity
Irish – Very average, just over 50%
Wasps – prety good, 80% cap
Newcastle – very very ordinary, just over 50% cap
Northhampton – doing very well with 90% cap
Sale – pretty decent with 70% cap
Saracens – difficult to judge with 2 matches at Twicks (doubleheader) and Wembley. Normal home match terrible.
Worcester – pretty reasonable at 80% cap.
The subjective rating I have given is in relation to the home ground capacity, thats not really a true reflection to some degree of how poorly attend the GP is. The incredibly small capacity of some of the grounds defies belief for a pro competition.
From those stats on the GP site there have only been 3 sellouts at true home grounds. The double header opening weekend was well attended as you would hope as was the Saracens match at Wembley.
How many matches a week are shown on TV?
Are the costs of renting Twicks/Wembley or other large stadia too prohibitive to do any more than a couple of times a year?
I wont even comment on the pathetic crowds in the Magners League, goodness me, how do these teams not go broke? TV obviously keeps them afloat but the figures are scarily poor.
Do supporters prefer to go to the HK matches instead?
In all honesty I have heard the game is going from strength to strength but on these figures there is a long way to go before any can so the game is flourishing I would have thought.
Yikes said | October 14th 2009 @ 9:46pm | Report comment
Of the games I know about the following were dreadful: Gloucester v Dragons, Cardiff v Harlequins, Leinster v Irish (excitement?), Glasgow v Biarritz, Stade Francais v Edinburgh. The Toulouse v Sale and Northampton v Munster games were great.
Knives Out said | October 14th 2009 @ 10:01pm | Report comment
So you sat through 80 minutes of every single game? The first half of the Stade game was excellent. The Leinster game was exciting and tense, and so three games you list were ‘boring’, and all that from a list of how many games, and in the first week. Pretty bland response, Yikes.
Yikes said | October 14th 2009 @ 10:33pm | Report comment
Knives Out – My original comment was “The rugby is just as poor as the Southern Hemisphere rugby was this year, most probably even duller.” Sure there are good moments, just as there were with S14 and 3N this year.
But overall, at this point in my opinion, the NH is suffering similar issues as the SH. Are you arguing that the overall standard is markedly better? If not, what exactly are we arguing about?
Surely the ARU had rights to argue its opinion on what it felt (rightly or wrongly) were issues facing the game, and this has/had nothing whatsoever to do with Bedford’s victory over Birmingham (in what, ironically, the author himself deems a desirable fashion: “running rugby … at pace and with width”).
ThelmaWrites said | October 15th 2009 @ 2:00am | Report comment
The Leinster v London Irish was full-on and instructive, with excellent skills, refereeing, and commentating. (Cf my post in Spiro’s Last Throw of the Dice for the Robbie Deans Wallabies.) Bath v Leicester, Bath ? v Harlequins, Cardiff v Harlequins, Leicester v Ospreys were well-contested. Glasgow v Biarritz was dull. The France Top 14 is something else.
Knives Out said | October 14th 2009 @ 8:10pm | Report comment
‘Answer me this – have the Northern Hemisphere brought any radial innovation to the game? Or are they dragged kicking and screaming into modernity? A Word Cup? No! RWC to Japan? No! Television Match Official? Never! ELVs? No.’
Actually… the 5N and now the 6N has been far more inclusive than the 3N. England, for example, voted for Japan to gain the WC that is going to NZ. Scotland has always been keen to experiment with rugby, and the ELVs were idiotic inventions pedalled by know-nothing fans as the saviour of the game when not even the SH utilised in their entirely. Further, if you think of Europe’s attempts to develop rugby – the 2nd 6N competition, and the way in which English rugby has ‘entertained’ the smaller nations over recent years then it is pretty clear that rugby in the NH is a forward moving rugby entity. Your rant, Yikes, is just like the style of play we see from the SH, insular, boring and one-dimensional.
True Tah said | October 15th 2009 @ 7:30am | Report comment
“Scotland has always been keen to experiment with rugby”
KO the Scots did their best to scuttle the World Cup!
Knives Out said | October 15th 2009 @ 7:37am | Report comment
Let me rephrase: over the past two decades Scotland has been a nation very open to change. The tried rules which involved only 13 players, they trialled the ELVs in their lower leagues and they also voted for the ELVs (rightly or wrongly). One bad call from 1987 doesn’t mean that much in 2009, Tah.
Knives Out said | October 14th 2009 @ 8:11pm | Report comment
–
‘Answer me this – have the Northern Hemisphere brought any radial innovation to the game? Or are they dragged kicking and screaming into modernity? A Word Cup? No! RWC to Japan? No! Television Match Official? Never! ELVs? No.’
Actually… the 5N and now the 6N has been far more inclusive than the 3N. England, for example, voted for Japan to gain the WC that is going to NZ. Scotland has always been keen to experiment with rugby, and the ELVs were idiotic inventions pedalled by know-nothing fans as the saviour of the game when not even the SH utilised in their entirely. Further, if you think of Europe’s attempts to develop rugby – the 2nd 6N competition, and the way in which English rugby has ‘entertained’ the smaller nations over recent years then it is pretty clear that rugby in the NH is a forward moving rugby entity. Your rant, Yikes, is just like the style of play we see from the SH, insular, boring and one-dimensional.
Yikes said | October 15th 2009 @ 8:40am | Report comment
So you responded to my point with the following evidence that the NH is innovative:
- England voted for Japan (any other countries in the NH?)
- Scotland has trialled some Laws (any other countries in the NH?)
- There is a 2nd 6N comp (what that has to do with anything is anyone’s guess but you must have been struggling for ideas at this point).
I think my argument still stands, both about the quality of the play, and the history of the hemispheres.
pothale said | October 15th 2009 @ 9:09am | Report comment
It depends on what you mean by radical innovation, Yikes.
A World Cup? Saints preserve – how on earth did people come up with that idea? Hugely innovative. It must be one of the last World Cups to have emerged in sporting history.
Yes other countries in the NH did trial the ELVs – you do the research since you made the assertion to the contrary.
Yes other countries did vote for a RWC in Japan. See above. Others didn’t – see NZ.
If one wants to make a real effort to develop the game and want to grow it, then you bring into existence a second 6 nations for smaller countries to help that occur – that is innovative and stimulating.
On the other hand, if one wants to keep draining the resources of smaller nations around you who can play the game rather well, so that your stature remains good in the game, well you can do that too. And kill off the local comp by not participating in it. I wouldn’t call it innovation though, more like starvation and manipulation.
Innovating the ELVs – hmmm. If someone wants to own that, I won’t stop them. Making the corner flag part of the playing field has changed my viewing of the game forever. Honestly.
Television Match Officials – strewth – enough of this innovation – you’re killing me. Can’t wait to hear who came up with that.
Bringing in the TV technology so that they could actually do their job – that was innovative.
RWC Japan – NZ voted for itself, and bribed other countries with matches to vote for them. I wouldn’t call it innovative – bribery started with the Egyptians – but it has a certain subterranean political cunning though.
Starting the game and giving it its name – that’s fairly innovative. Radical even.
Starting a tournament over 100 years ago, and it remains as popular as it ever was – in fact more so – that’s innovative.
Starting and fostering a club tradition that stays true to its roots, and reaps the benefits from regular and continued attendances at games despite the many advances of technology.
The All Blacks innovated how the modern game of rugby could be played – and have set a standard ever since that others want to match. (Except in World Cups admittedly.)
Scotland, Wales and Ireland created the IRB – bless their little socks – we’ve a lot to thank them for.
Ireland are also responsible for the Garryowen – an innovation that the SH saw a lot of this year.
Yikes said | October 15th 2009 @ 9:23am | Report comment
You’re right. It does depend on what you mean by innovation.
And you know exactly what I mean, but choose to ignore it in favour of as wide a definition as possible such that the word loses meaning and you can write a long post. Bravo.
Colin N said | October 15th 2009 @ 9:37am | Report comment
“Answer me this – have the Northern Hemisphere brought any radial innovation to the game? Or are they dragged kicking and screaming into modernity? A Word Cup? No! RWC to Japan? No! Television Match Official? Never! ELVs? No.”
Was that you original ‘argument?’ Pothale has answered your somewhat rheutorically intended question, but you come up with a childish and stupid response. Why?
pothale said | October 15th 2009 @ 9:51am | Report comment
Yikes do enlighten me with what you actually meant by innovation. I responded to your original statement point by point, and you seem to have ignored it in favour of drumming up a spurious accusation that seeks to blame me for the specificity of my answers. Is that short enough for you?
Yikes said | October 15th 2009 @ 10:59am | Report comment
Colin N, pothale. By innovation I meant something that changes what has been established in new and different ways for the betterment of the game.
Establishing the RWC totally changed the way rugby is played internationally, with teams focussing on 4 year cycles. It gave us an international showcase event to stand with soccer, Olympics, etc. This is totally different from starting up the second tier 6N, which is great to see but setting up a comp for teams to play in who need to play is hardly groundbreaking innovation. I might add you seem to argue it was a “no brainer”. Why then was it strenuously opposed by the NH nations?
Sending the RWC to Japan would have opened up new markets to rugby and massively changed the profile of the game in a way that sending it to NZ will not. I still believe that if the IRB was voting on just the next RWC and not the next two, Japan would not have been given the nod for 2019 when the voting came around.
TMO was trialled in the SH and met resistance from the NH. You again seem to think it was a “no brainer” but it was 3 years before being agreed to at 6N and International level.
I will not start on the ELVs because we clearly don’t agree.
In response to that I was told that “Starting the game and giving it its name” constitutes innovation. Starting the 6N a 100 years ago is innovation. Starting “club traditions” is innovation. This is what I meant by “as wide a definition as possible such that the word loses meaning”. I think this criticism is fair and hardly childish.
If for the best examples of NH innovation you have to reach to the 19th Century, I think you have made my point for me.
pothale said | October 15th 2009 @ 11:34am | Report comment
Fair enough Yikes.
Who exactly of the NH nations strenuously opposed the RWC? The 6 Nations, whole of Europe?
The RWC is without doubt a great event. However, I would also argue that the RWC has benefited very few countries since it started. It is perceived by some commentators as belonging effectively to the SH nations, with the NH getting the occasional look-in. It is likely to be tied to 4 or 5 counties for a long time still – and that attitude pervades both players and fans. The gaps are so great, that the chances of another nation – even Ireland ever making the finals are slim. As for nations outside the top 10 – forget it. A second-tier 6 Nations I would argue is almost of more importance and more relevance to bring emerging rugby nations along.
Putting 7s rugby back into the Olympics has been heralded from on high. I’ll wait and see what it does for the 15 man game. I know you didn’t raise this, but I have.
Japan lost the vote the last time – which was the point you raised – by the direct intervention of NZ – which was the point you seem to ignore.
“Met resistance from the NH….” is very general phrase – who specifically? And are you saying that the proposal of TMO was fully agreed to by all the SH countries? I wasn’t saying TMO was a no-brainer. I’m saying it wasn’t innovative – it was copied from other sports and I have reservations about its use since its introduction – but that’s my personal view. I find it tedious and at times I think refs get enjoyment out of drawing little squares in the air, instead of going with their instinct. (The TMO TV technology was a NH innovation by the way.)
The ELVs were not particularly innovative. They were trialled in full in Scotland and a lot in France. (The more I see it, the no pass back into the 22 rule has ruined the game. Again, my personal view.)
I included the examples I gave partly as tongue in cheek, but also to say that some innovative things had been introduced to the game by some NH countries – and they still work well today. You seem determined not to acknowledge them. The constant harping and chirping for change to makes things, faster, better, more exciting, entertaining for the punter is – at times – painful. Innovation isn’t always as good as it’s held up to be. Some of it’s good, some isn’t. Your black and white portrayal of N v S as a ‘four legs good, 2 legs bad’ argument is somewhat cliched – hence the response.
But it’s late now, so…..
Yikes said | October 15th 2009 @ 1:06pm | Report comment
Perhaps we can agree that to our respective ears “the constant harping and chirping for change to makes things, faster, better, more exciting, entertaining” from the SH is EQUALLY as painful as the constantly obstructionist, conservative, head-in-the-sand approach of the NH.
Also – while we are finding points of agreement, I concur that the no pass back into 22 change is a disaster.
katzilla said | October 16th 2009 @ 6:53am | Report comment
‘RWC Japan – NZ voted for itself, and bribed other countries with matches to vote for them’
An Irishman complaining about the Kiwis sending out Bribes to win WC votes!??!
Who exactly took the bribe Pot? Hmm?
The very next northern tour done by NZ the NZRU added an Irish game to the schedule, how did that come about?
pothale said | October 16th 2009 @ 7:08am | Report comment
Katzilla – I don’t condone what happened. It was a bribe to the IRFU – and the IRFU should have had their arses kicked. Who wants to play bloody New Zealand anyway? Watching paint dry would have been better than the last match against them – and New Zealand weren’t much better.
Now if the IRFU had done a deal with the Aussies – at least I’d have applauded that.
Knives Out said | October 15th 2009 @ 8:42pm | Report comment
France trialled the full ELVs in their A league and the full ELVs were also trialled around various leagues in England. I say ‘full ELVs’, but of course there were no full ELVs as the SH rejected the hand in the ruck law thus bastardising the whole project.
The 2nd 6N competition highlights the willingness to allow the second tier of European rugby a platform.
The SH has a far more successful rugby history but currently the best rugby is being played in the NH, and the NH is far more open to the idea of spreading rugby union and helping the smaller nations.
Yikes said | October 15th 2009 @ 11:34pm | Report comment
A small correction – the full Laws including hands in the ruck were trialled in our ARC competition. It was universally agreed by players, coaches, referees etc that it did not work. I believe that’s part of why it was not adopted further at SANZAR (I believe it was also trialled in SA and they agreed).
Knives Out said | October 15th 2009 @ 11:44pm | Report comment
I shall keep that in mind, Yikes.
katzilla said | October 16th 2009 @ 6:58am | Report comment
KO, the best rugby is Succesful rugby. Im sure your viewpoint in 2003 was that England played the best rugby.
Of course it wasn’t the best looking but it was the best. Whether the NH is playing better rugby remains to be seen in November.
‘and the NH is far more open to the idea of spreading rugby union and helping the smaller nations’
A quick question, how much of the gate takings did the RFU share with the Pacific Islands team after their sell out game at Twickers?
Knives Out said | October 16th 2009 @ 7:06am | Report comment
I’m playing Devil’s Advocate, Katzilla. Having endured various lectures on dull British rugby I don’t think it’s unreasonable to (not entirely seriously) applaud rugby which has recently been far more liberal than that seen in the 3N recently. England were so appalling during the last Autumn series because they tried to run too much. In the 6N they found a compromise. The Lions also found that compromise, and for the first time in years and years the best backs are European. The 3N was conservative and dull. Suck it up. The out of date stereotypes are still being aimed in the direction of Europe.
I don’t know about the gate keepings, however I do know that England played Argentina at Old Trafford for a reason. A New Zealander has no room whatsoever to make implications about the treatment of Pacific rugby players.
katzilla said | October 16th 2009 @ 7:32am | Report comment
Oh you mean those 80-90% of pacific island players who earn a living in our national competition and then are released without fail to represent their country in all test matches?
Those same teams who get a large chunk of the gate takings when they play the ABs in NZ?
What ever are you referring to KO when you say a NZer shouldn’t talk about the treatment of the PIs?
Although i could say the same thing about the English and the Argies.
We all know the 3N was dull and boring, but that doesnt mean the rugby isnt better.
The lions played better looking rugby, but the saffas played better rugby, hence the result of the series.
therealalekid said | October 14th 2009 @ 9:09am | Report comment
Have you seen any Guinness Premiership or Heineken Cup match lately? The rugby is just as poor as the Southern Hemisphere rugby was this year, most probably even duller. It is a crying shame the NH didn’t come to the party in trying to make some positive changes before RWC2011.
I suspect that I watch more GP and Heineken cup rugby than you (especially as I am British based). Before the ELVs came in we iin Britain had the best rugby that had ever been played up here. The best rugby recently were last years 6 nations lions tours and more recently this weekend Heineken cup especially Northampton and Munster.
Answer me this – have the Northern Hemisphere brought any radial innovation to the game? Or are they dragged kicking and screaming into modernity? A Word Cup? No! RWC to Japan? No! Television Match Official? Never! ELVs? No.
Well, we bring most of the money to the table, the last world cup in France brought a windfall for the IRB. Having said that some of your accusations are unfair it was the English alongside the Australians who voted for the Japanese. The only reason the world cup didn’t go to them was because New Zealand succesfully lobied the Celtic nations with back door dealing.
Mr cheese said | October 14th 2009 @ 9:13am | Report comment
I am reliably informed that rugby in Japan has a very small following. Most people, it is said, will greet their world cup with bemusement. I have nothing against rugby, but why don’t they have the thing in Italy ?
Presumably many Football stadia can be adapted to the needs of Rugby ( I once saw the All Blacks play at Anfield, Liverpool ), and you’d get the chance to hang around in Milan, Rome, Florence etc. etc.
QC said | October 14th 2009 @ 4:34pm | Report comment
Yeah funny that how the Brits want to pay big bucks to see Southern Hemisphere lads pick up a super fund at the expense of local players gaining any experience.
The fact that the Northern teams very rarely sit in the top 3 nations in the world is another reason why I believe that the southeren competition is a stronger competition. The fact that to play for either NZ or Australia you must play in the local competition is another indication that the strongest compettion in the world is downunder.
As for backroom deals what a laugh funny that how whenever NZ wins something in this case the WC hosting rights, there is always some mitigating factor. Can you tell me what was in it for the Celtic nations? ah thats right they will get a game against the strongest team in history one of if not the biggest money spinner world rugby has. Oh and can you tell me why the South Africans voted for NZ???
It’s about time the Northern Nations started winning and doing it consistantly, one win every few years(england – france) isn’t anything to holla about, and as has been pointed out elsewhere in this thread Scotland and Ireland have never beaten the ABs.
Mr cheese said | October 14th 2009 @ 11:40pm | Report comment
why would scotland beat the ABs
it is only played in silly private schools
most scots have never heard of it
Knives Out said | October 15th 2009 @ 2:21am | Report comment
‘Yeah funny that how the Brits want to pay big bucks to see Southern Hemisphere lads pick up a super fund at the expense of local players gaining any experience.’
Actually, there are fewer foreigners playing in the Guinness Premiership than there was when England won the WC. Further, there are plans in the Top 14 to place a bulwark against too many foreign players. Certainly no coaches pick foreign players to spite local players, so I guess it’s not that funny whatever you are suggesting it is that is meant to be funny.
‘The fact that the Northern teams very rarely sit in the top 3 nations in the world is another reason why I believe that the southeren competition is a stronger competition.’
Actually, since the advent of the rankings in October 2003 the NH has always had at least one team in the top 3 for 63% of the time.
‘It’s about time the Northern Nations started winning and doing it consistantly, one win every few years(england – france) isn’t anything to holla about, and as has been pointed out elsewhere in this thread Scotland and Ireland have never beaten the ABs.’
Winning what exactly, and why has the Scottish and Irish record against NZ got to do with anything whatsoever?
pothale said | October 15th 2009 @ 2:41am | Report comment
Cos it’s Hemjay and that’s all that fits on the broken record he keeps playing. Over and over and over and over…. Ireland and Scotland have never beaten the ABs……so there, we’re the greatest….nyah-nyah-na-nyah-na. I can just picture him sticking his tongue out before he runs to hide in the girls toilets.
Knives Out said | October 15th 2009 @ 2:45am | Report comment
Or the warder’s toilets…
pothale said | October 15th 2009 @ 3:43am | Report comment
Now that’s just plain bold.
But funny.
QC said | October 15th 2009 @ 6:19am | Report comment
The Scottish and Irish record prove that once again your competition is not as strong as the Southern competition are you really that simple KO? Surely if your competition was stronger your teams would beat the Southern teams and do it consistantly as is two of the top 6 European Teams and one the current champions haven’t managed to beat the All Blacks very indicative of not only the competition but also the mental toughness of the two teams. Oh so you’ve had one team in the top three I’d like to see you break that supposed 63% down into individual nations. Your mathmatics only highlight further how awful your teams are so your 6 teams have a shared 63% in the top flight rather ingloriious don’t you think? Hmm I wonder what the sole representaion would be for the SANZAR teams, Collectively it would be much higher than your supposed 63% for one spot. for all three spots going by your math SANZAR would have occupied the top three 237% of the time would they not? After all going by your account each spot is worth 100%
As for the foreign players I see its another desperate attempt to save face. Reality is KO and Pothale the majority of the SANZAR top players stay downunder because to represent the best nations in the world you have to be playing here in the strongest competition. SA are an exception but it doesn’t take a genius to work out that not many play outside of the S14 and then in turn play for the test squad. I’m sure you could count them on one hand who have played NH then in turn been selected for the Boks.
It’s not the money that keeps them here no but the desire to play in the best competition in the world and to wear their national colours. 95% of players only head north once they know their days in the national team are numbered, or they realise the will never crack the squad, therefore heading north to boost ones bank account and take the place that could go to some local. You can derive as much excuses and insinuations as you like lads but reality is your competition isn’t as great as you like to think it is. If it were you would be getting the results internationally but your not pretty simple really
It’s about time you accepted reality your competition isn’t as good as the south but it is improving I’ll give you that.
Knives Out said | October 15th 2009 @ 6:48am | Report comment
Firstly, do not be so rude to me. Secondly, I can’t respond to such an indecipherable, erratic rant until you sensibly break it down into coherent and sensible points. I’m sorry that you feel the need to be so very hostile. It isn’t my fault that you keep making wild incorrect statements and I keep having to correct you.
pothale said | October 15th 2009 @ 8:39am | Report comment
QC
Here’s what is wrong with your argument. The last time SA and Aus played Ireland away – they lost. And the time before that. Thankfully, Ireland have never beaten the All Blacks. (Cos God knows you won’t get as much enjoyment saying Scotland have never beaten us – doesn’t have quite the same ring to it.) But when they do, it’ll be a case of next game please. The notion that you see the ABs as some kind of fantastic money spinning entertainers like some rugby equivalent of Harlem Globetrotters is a bit sad really.
You also tend to see the game of rugby in fairly childish terms – Us against Them, North vs South, ‘you northerners, ‘your competition’, ‘your game’, ‘your teams’. This is 6 year old playground talk, not adult discussion.
The reality is that SA Rugby is much more closely aligned with European rugby – culturally and stylistically. As the ABs and Australia found out this year. That’s why so many SA players like playing in Europe. Your assertion that 95% of players only go North when they cannot hack it in their home test squads is so much hogwash. Carter, Elsom and McAlister are recent cases in point. And I suspect many of the players from Fiji, Tonga and Samoa would disagree with you too. The reality is that players of this calibre enhance the competition and make it more cosmopolitan and diverse. And that’s what makes it more compelling to watch than the S14.
Why don’t you go look at the IRB table and check out the facts. (You might also spot that Argentina have been in the Top 3 as well during the period – which cuts a bit of hole in your bizarre mathematics.)
237% !! I realise you may not have covered this in school yet, so here’s a little help and a test.
When you use percentages, it means literally out of 100. When KO said “63% of the time”, he meant 63% of the period from when the rankings started, not ’supposed 63% for one spot’ as you put it. See? Geddit? By the way, during 2006 and during 2007, two of the top 3 places were held by teams other than SANZAR. So that would be two spots – see?
So as an example, let’s say that NZ have been in the Top 3 all of the time since IRB started rankings; And SA have been there 81% of the time and Aus 76% of the time. Now, how often have SANZAR teams collectively been in the top 3 based on those example figures? Hint: the answer is not 257%.
And in case you’re still struggling, here’s another helpful hint – the answer to how often SANZAR have had at least one team in the Top 3 is 100%.
For your homework, you can work out the percentages of the individual teams, and then come back and let us all know.
QC said | October 15th 2009 @ 2:11pm | Report comment
Pothale if you noticed I said I guess he is taking the occupation of one spot into account in his summations because I can’t recall if ever the NH teams have occupied more than one spot in the top 3. So using his guidelines which is basically cherry picking and therefore equating one spot to 100 percent one easily does the math and works out that each spot is worth 100% so in turn that gives a total percentage ratio of 300% this in turn is not exactly the right format so we would in turn then break down your 63 % to 21% of the possible 3 spots since the inception of the rankings.
One can do anything to bolster numbers to make your team look better than they actually are.
One can also try all they want to be a keyboard hero and spout of statistics in the hope of boosting once argument but reality is. The GP and Magners League Top 14 aren’t producing the desired results for the end product which is your national team. Rankings are given on the prowress of the National not club/franchise results. The domestic competitions can be judged on how their best in turn go on to play for the Final Product.
Yes Kiwis and Aussies have a strict criteria for selection however if they were able to be selected for country whilst playing for money elsewhere you could sure as hell bet that due to the huge influx into the North of the SH players the Norths talent would greatly dwindle due to the fact that these Southern Players would demand a huge salary and positions in a team and league that could otherwise have been filled by locals. In turn the rankings of the Northern teams would come to a grinding halt or even still slide.
So before you start being a hero Potty get a grip of the keybopard with both hands and stop diving blindly into something that you think you know what your talking about.
The Northern Hemisphere teams are inconsistent and their respective domestic competitions are not producing quality teams year in year out.
pothale said | October 16th 2009 @ 6:15am | Report comment
QC – you really are a dimwit at maths.
Here’s what KO said: “Actually, since the advent of the rankings in October 2003 the NH has always had at least one team in the top 3 for 63% of the time.”
You then reply: “I said I guess he is taking the occupation of one spot into account in his summations because I can’t recall if ever the NH teams have occupied more than one spot in the top 3.”
Well clearly he wasn’t when he said ‘at least one team’. And if you checked your facts before sounding off, you’d have understood.
You then reply: “So using his guidelines which is basically cherry picking and therefore equating one spot to 100 percent one easily does the math and works out that each spot is worth 100% so in turn that gives a total percentage ratio of 300% this in turn is not exactly the right format so we would in turn then break down your 63 % to 21% of the possible 3 spots since the inception of the rankings.”
Archimedes would have been proud of your ability to break the Laws of Mathematics and Logic and totally re-write them.
“SANZAR would have occupied the top three 237% of the time would they not?”
Since you failed to work out the basic question I set you, the answer is no they wouldn’t. The answer is an average of 78% of the time for SANZAR teams.
I’m going to have to start charging you for all this consultancy…
PS The Southern Hemisphere teams are inconsistent and their respective domestic competitions are not producing quality teams year in year out. Sound familiar?
katzilla said | October 16th 2009 @ 7:04am | Report comment
‘The notion that you see the ABs as some kind of fantastic money spinning entertainers like some rugby equivalent of Harlem Globetrotters is a bit sad really.’
I dont think QC is alone in that regard Pothale, maybe you should talk with your games administrators who obviously agree with QC on that one. Hence why they gave up their WC vote for a home game against the ABs.
pothale said | October 16th 2009 @ 7:19am | Report comment
Katz – I already said that I agree with you. It’s sad. However, hopefully the IRFU noticed that in the last game the crowds were leaving Croke Park just after half time, the game was so dull.
Give me a game against Argentina, Oz, England, France, Scotland, Wales or South Africa any day.
Colin N said | October 15th 2009 @ 9:15am | Report comment
Can you please put a coherent sentence together, or at least split it up into more paragraphs? It is very difficult to read. And use more commas for christ sake.
Anyway:
“SA are an exception but it doesn’t take a genius to work out that not many play outside of the S14 and then in turn play for the test squad”
Because, there are rules in place for New Zealand and Australia. However, I’m sure New Zealand would love to have Carl Hayman right now. I would also look at Luke McAlister, who was inconsistent for Sale, but despite being injured for three months, managed to walk straight in the New Zealand 22. It’ll also be interesting to see if Francois Steyn is selected in the South Africa squad for the Autumn.
“The Scottish and Irish record prove that once again your competition is not as strong as the Southern competition are you really that simple KO?”
No it doesn’t. Various regional and club sides will contain players from different countries, meaning this may make them stronger. Certainly, on paper, De Villiers makes the Munster team look stronger, but obviously isn’t Irish. Therefore, you can’t use the Irish and Scottish records to compare the club and provincial competitions. You compare by looking at the quality of the play, tight and loose, and other similar factors. The record of a specific nation shouldn’t come into it.
If it were you would be getting the results internationally but your not pretty simple really”
Again, wrong!!
katzilla said | October 16th 2009 @ 7:10am | Report comment
‘but despite being injured for three months, managed to walk straight in the New Zealand 22′
Only due to a heavy injury toll Colin.
You know as well as I do that had just 2 of either Carter, Kahui and Smith not been injured he would not have seen the black jersey for at least a few more months. As it was he was recognised star who had proven his worth with the current coach so had a bit of luck to get back in.
Colin N said | October 16th 2009 @ 10:45pm | Report comment
“Only due to a heavy injury toll Colin.
You know as well as I do that had just 2 of either Carter, Kahui and Smith not been injured he would not have seen the black jersey for at least a few more months. As it was he was recognised star who had proven his worth with the current coach so had a bit of luck to get back in.”
Well, it depends. McAlister’s the only other natural 12, unless the selectors wanted to call-up someone like Bateman or Brett, so he may have got into the 22 on that assumption, as well as his versatility, as he can cover 10, 12 and 13. Possibly wing also.
katzilla said | October 16th 2009 @ 11:25pm | Report comment
There were already two high profile injuries before he returned home, yet Henry was still happy for him to play Juniors. It wasn’t until the third that he got desperate enough to call him up. The next cab off the rank with Toeava also being injured at the time would have been Tuitavake. McAlisters history in black gave him the advantage.
Henry would never have blooded the two younger players outside Donald duck.
Colin N said | October 17th 2009 @ 12:15am | Report comment
“The next cab off the rank with Toeava also being injured at the time would have been Tuitavake”
Hang on, first you say if Carter, Kahui and Smith had been fit, he wouldn’t have been selected, now you add Toeva to the list. However, the argument still stands, all those mentioned are 13’s, McAlister was your only other natural 12.
Although, having said all that, Smith played in the second test, with Toeava on the bench and Toeva started in the first game, so your argument doesn’t really hold up. Either that, or you haven’t done the research.
Colin N said | October 15th 2009 @ 2:33am | Report comment
“The fact that the Northern teams very rarely sit in the top 3 nations in the world is another reason why I believe that the southeren competition is a stronger competition.”
The Super 14 stronger than most Northern competitions, generally, people acknowledge that. However, I also believe the Heineken Cup is of equal or possibly better than the Super 14. This weekends games have shown that, and the games such as Northampton-Munster and Leicester-Ospreys, will probably be remembered alongside the 2004 semi between Wasps and Munster, or the time when Leicester went to Munster and won, etc.
“Yeah funny that how the Brits want to pay big bucks to see Southern Hemisphere lads pick up a super fund at the expense of local players gaining any experience.”
I don’t know anyone who wants that. Fans get excited by signings such as De Villiers and Elsom, which is understandable, but if they don’t play well, then they deserve to be dropped. It’s interesting to note that McAlister played most of his rugby for Sale at 13, because of Lee Thomas’s form.
“ah thats right they will get a game against the strongest team in history one of if not the biggest money spinner world rugby has”
I don’t get that quote. Explain. Are you talking about the Autumn internationals? The June tours? Or something completely different.
westy said | October 14th 2009 @ 2:07pm | Report comment
Given the overwhelming number of registered players in England they should always be at or near the top of world rankings. They rarely are. To be lectured by people who are basically not very good at the game is the real irony.
Knives Out said | October 15th 2009 @ 6:51am | Report comment
It could be worse, the article could be a lecture from an Australian.
Invictus said | October 16th 2009 @ 10:15pm | Report comment
KO, you just come on here to pick fights with people, don’t you? Doesn’t the UK have any rugby blogs for you to lurk on??
Knives Out said | October 16th 2009 @ 11:10pm | Report comment
Yes, the rugby threads on the Roar are full of my argumentative anger. Absolutely jam packed. That’s why Colin N and Pothale are admonishing me and not QC.
Invictus said | October 17th 2009 @ 10:16am | Report comment
Then why not answer westy’s assertion with something other than a cheap shot at an entire country?
Knives Out said | October 17th 2009 @ 10:35am | Report comment
Firstly, a glib response to a glib statement does in no way confirm a tendency to ‘pick fights with people’. Such a response highlights the absurdity of the original comment. Please gain some clarity and stop making cheap shots yourself. Secondly, I don’t think the comment is worthy of something lucid or adult (especially as it commits the very sin that you accuse me of), but here goes: the article is hardly a lecture by the English ‘people’. It is an article by one man. Spiro Zavos seeks to lecture on rugby and specifically with jibes towards the Springboks whilst his nation is by far the weakest Sanzar nation who the Springboks beat with ease. I doubt that westy sees fit to condemn the nonsense of that repetitive scenario.
In any case, England has appeared in 3 WC finals, won 1 and is one of only 3 nations to have held the 1st place IRB ranking. Australia is not one of the other two countries. Not only that but England has a domestic competition with increasingly rising attendances, a history that effects tribalism and passion, and which also allows the test side to play a running brand of rugby that Australian supporters used to lecture was the preserve of their test side (but which in fact was only seen in 1984 and inconsistently since then). Whilst Australian rugby has long been geared toward professionalism English rugby has achieved just as much success (in fact probably more) with a system that has been geared toward holding them back. Currently, Australian rugby has a host of crapulent Super sides who play crapulent rugby, and a test side which has just picked up a 3N wooden spoon whilst playing the most boring rugby of all the top tier rugby nations. That doesn’t strike me as a position of strength and I guess the Australian fans agree which is why they are shunning the game.
JamesB said | October 14th 2009 @ 2:55pm | Report comment
Why not? It’s fairly ordinary and back-ward looking by nature, and they hardly beat the big three from down under. Respect must be earned, and until they start beating these teams on a regular basis, its hard to take it too seriously. Scotland and Ireland have never beaten the All Blacks, and Wales did once or was it twice? And England wins can be counted on one hand. And they keep on bleeting on about a game played in 1973. It does serve one purpose, and that’s to top up the super funds of aging players from down-under, so yes, it probably shouldn’t be derided from a commercial perspective.
True Tah said | October 15th 2009 @ 7:33am | Report comment
James
Wales have beaten NZ three times, the last was in 1953.
Bedford Bear said | October 14th 2009 @ 8:09pm | Report comment
He’s got his Ben’s mixed up, it’s Alexander not Robinson – us Bedfordians know.
brad said | October 14th 2009 @ 9:19pm | Report comment
Most Australian rugby followers yearn for a game that is played exactly the same accross all countries. Rather they should appreciate that rugby is a complex sport that can be played in a number of different ways. Australians would do well to appreciate the diversity.
Pete said | October 14th 2009 @ 9:40pm | Report comment
Thank you for enlightening us you pompous prat. OK boys, Brad has spoken, lets do as he says.
Viscount Crouchback said | October 14th 2009 @ 10:42pm | Report comment
This article is simply splendid. The formidable resilience of English rugger is truly something to be envied. The ARU needs to stop talking about “markets” and “brands” and start talking about ancient rugby principles, for it is these principles that keep the game in England strong even during the tough times. I suggest that some of these principles are:
- Beef
- Mud
- Beer
- Biff
- Decorum
- Clubbability
- Provincialism
I am quite serious. All this might sound faintly anachronistic to brave new world Australian ears, but it is precisely what keeps people flocking back through the turnstiles each week to watch what is often pretty mundane rugger. The on-pitch stuff is an irrelevance: O’Neill needs to focus on strengthening the pillars of the rugger community. It’s simply a question of identity.
pothale said | October 15th 2009 @ 2:25am | Report comment
VC – what can I say? Ditto.
Franchises are simply franchises; clubs are communities.
Knives Out said | October 15th 2009 @ 2:28am | Report comment
‘Franchises are simply franchises; clubs are communities.’
Are they really? Northampton Saints definitely, Leicester Tigers, yes! .. But are the London clubs (Harlequins aside)?
pothale said | October 15th 2009 @ 3:17am | Report comment
Fair comment KO.
One could argue that London Irish now has two identities – one rooted in the London Irish community and who still head to Sunbury for the amateur, the other more cosmopolitan as required of a professional Premiership team. Indeed, some might view LI moving to the Madejski and professionalising made them more of a franchise that separated away from the club proper, particularly after the merger.
London Wasps – I would have thought fairly fanatical – but you may have a more jaundiced eye. They had a similar split to Irish and their move to Wycombe?? was controversial but I thought they managed to keep home support and even grow it. However, I don’t know enough about the distances travelled in their various moves, so the fan base may have changed substantially.
I’m sure you’ll find a few more exceptions…
Knives Out said | October 15th 2009 @ 8:46pm | Report comment
Stop trying to be a keyboard hero!
ob said | October 15th 2009 @ 11:06am | Report comment
Words of wisdom count!
katzilla said | October 16th 2009 @ 7:18am | Report comment
Spot on Viscount. I for one would love to see the end of the S14 Franchises as abhorrent as they are and see a chance for the battling teams in the ANZC to rise into the s14 on a promotion relegation process.
Anyone thats watched the ANZC lately will see the teams stacked with ABs getting a pasting from the provincial teams that have all the attributes you mention above.
My team, the Might Hawkes Bay (BLACK WHITE! ALRIGHT!) were just barely stopped by a Canterbury team with 10 past/present All Blacks and with arguably the best player in the world to bail them out. Him and the lack of video referrals in the ANZC which saw HB denied a try in the corner.
John Ryan said | October 14th 2009 @ 11:40pm | Report comment
Very Droll
CHRIS said | October 15th 2009 @ 2:20am | Report comment
Icouldn’t agree more with the viscount. Rugbys beauty is that it is so diverse in the way it is played. I personally love the 8 man blood and guts game – but also enjoy the more expansive version. Rugby starts at grassroots. In SA at present, even schoolboy rugby is now being televised and it is not uncommon for 30 000 to be drawn to a Saturday schoolboy game….
If you don’t support it at these levels – how can you expect to get the players into the game?
Amband said | October 15th 2009 @ 2:56am | Report comment
radio announcer Mike carlton called the IRB “gin soaked colonel Blimps” LOL!
O’Neill should stop having a shot at the Poms and look at his own performance
ob said | October 15th 2009 @ 11:05am | Report comment
This is a fine article that points to one of the big problems with Australian rugby. While there is certainly a passionate core of rugby supporters in Australia and at least two strong club rugby competitions, the great majority of rugby fans focus on super 14 teams and the Wallabies. Most of this bunch would be hard pressed to name the extended super 14 squad of the team they support or the full starting side of any other team, let alone comment intelligently on the lower rungs of rugby in the country. This amounts to vapid fandom. Rugby here is increasingly a shimmering, superficial entertainment product rather than a part of everyday life.
The contrast between English and Australian footy couldn’t be starker. I’ve played in all the major club comps in Australia and I’ve also played at national two level in England (three rungs down from the premiership), and the cultural and material depth of English rugby is far superior. This is not to say that rugby there is perfect, or that our rugby isn’t better in other ways. But our strengths – innovation, progressive attitudes, a strong tradition, etc. – are increasingly spoilt by our weak foundations.
The broader context here is that beyond the English example, none of the other major rugby nations have our problem. In the six nations, SA, and NZ, the rugby public is much more engaged from the local through to national levels of the game. Whatever other affects this problem may have (people seem focused on our ability to produce wallabies) the game will never grow in Australia unless the grass roots grow first. It’s conceivable that visible, attractive, and successful state and national teams will help get people interested, but this interest will be passing if it isn’t nurtured at the community level.
Anyways, that was a bit of rant so my apologies – I’ll put my soap box away now. Thanks for the article.
Viscount Crouchback said | October 15th 2009 @ 12:36pm | Report comment
Super post.
Rusty said | December 3rd 2009 @ 12:35pm | Report comment
Totally on the money
Amband said | October 15th 2009 @ 1:10pm | Report comment
So, VC, what you are politely saying is, our Oz game is administered by morons? I would go as far to say they know exactly what they are doing and they are commercial charlatons
It was a perfectly good game before they interferred with it
Amband said | October 15th 2009 @ 1:13pm | Report comment
quote VC
” Rugby here is increasingly a shimmering, superficial entertainment product rather than a part of everyday life.”
BINGO! There is a lot of the trouble right there. You are right!
bob said | October 15th 2009 @ 9:11pm | Report comment
A first class article… and for once someone seems to understand that rugby union is a way of life, a culture, not just a sport, and certainly not just a spectator sport. It is made, built, defined, and saved by the kids and amateurs who play the game and support their local club… the people who make the meals for visiting players, the people who volunteer, and the people who do a lot more than sit down to watch sky. It’s the old fella setting the pitch and sweeping eh changing rooms… the sweat and blood of the guys playing for mateship…
The pro game is important and internationals are important, but the culture, the grassroots, the little fat kid trundling along in the mud, they are rugby.
And don’t be too quick to beleive the crowd figures in the Premiership… I know several clubs who charge £1 a kid if he/she is under 16 and they don’t show on the gate receipt… go figure.
It’s a shame that some so called rugby people are so quick to attack teh northern, and especially teh english game… but the attackers are not players, of that I’m sure… I have played with and against just about every nationality and if you wear my shirt you become my brother… if you have played the game, you respect the game, and the players of all nations.
Knives Out said | October 15th 2009 @ 10:05pm | Report comment
Testify bob.
OldManEmu said | October 17th 2009 @ 4:43pm | Report comment
I have seen you write that before KO; what does it mean?
Mr cheese said | October 15th 2009 @ 10:26pm | Report comment
Don’t be too self-indulgent with the pastoral melancholy.
RU has always had this strange self-regard, painting its own picture of a bucolic land of middle class self-sacrifice.
Lots of sports have “the old fellow” at the side of the pitch / court / road.
People in RU tend to think that this applies only in their case. Look at cycling: lots of local clubs; people helping out; everybody trying to help the less experienced riders etc.
Rugby Union isn’t the only fruit.
QC said | October 15th 2009 @ 10:29pm | Report comment
So the challenge was put out by one poster who thought he was somewhat intelligent.
Well here you go Potty and KO just for the two of you.
Since the IRB introduced rankings they have been released 314 times in simple terms for you lads that equates to once a week since their inception.
No Northern Hemisphere nation has appeared in the top three for 106 weeks and counting the last team from the North was France who occupied 2nd spot back in Oct 08, 2007.
The last Northern team to hold 3rd spot was also France 111 weeks ago Sep 03, 2007
The last Northern team to hold 1st spot was England 280 weeks ago June 07 2004
Knives just for you son, I think you might want to go into the IRB site and recalculate your percentages. The North has featured in the top three 57.96% since its origins in October 2003. This in turn is then broken down below
England featured 71 times with an overall percentage of 22.61%
France featured 97 times with an overall percentage of 30.89%
Ireland featured twice with a overall percentage of 0.6% barely worth talking about. Ireland were never in the top three for longer than a week at a time their first appearance was Oct 22, 2003 and they were dropped from the three the following week. Their next appearance wasn’t until May 22, 2006 and again they fell from the top flight the following week. So Pothale you hardly have anything to crow about sunshine.
Only 7 teams have cracked the top 3 spots in the IRB rankings and you can see the stats below.
Rank – 1 2 3 Total weeks (314) %
New Zealand – 227 (175 consec) 86 1 314 – 100%
South Africa – 53 (30 consec)* 98 45 196 – 62.42%
England – 34 (30 consec) 5 32 71 – 22.61%
Australia – 0 72 154 226 – 71.97%
France – 0 53 44 97 – 30.89%
Argentina – 0 0 36 36 – 11.46%
Ireland – 0 0 2 2 – 0.6%
So as you can see lads not once has New Zealand ever fallen outside of the top three since the rankings began. Wales, Scotland and of course Italy have never featured in the top three. It is a very telling statistic and is a great indicator on how tough the local competitions are. I believe the Norths problem is they have too many foreigners playing in positions at the expense of their own which in turn is diluting their stocks somewhat. but unfortunatley for you KO and Pothale your sadly deluded if you think your competition is tougher than the SANZAR nations.
Why is it the SANZAR nations consistantly get up and beat their NH counterparts?
How is it that both New Zealand and South Africas domestic competitions are revered around the world?
106 weeks lads and counting and the last NH team to do that wasn’t even your own national teams that really is sad.
192 weeks Knives since England rubbed shoulders in the VIP lounge and it has been 152 weeks Pothale since your beloved Ireland graced the same page as the aforementioned teams.
Look forward to more excuses in your reply.
The Super 14, GP, Magners, HC, and the top 14 are hugely influential in the makings of the respective national teams. The performances of these national teams is in turn are a reflection of the respective competitions and whilst the Northern championships are improving they still have a way to go.
Knives Out said | October 15th 2009 @ 10:48pm | Report comment
I can’t wait until Pothale reads this. Great stuff, Hemjay. Keep on going big guy.
I don’t think my percentage is incorrect, btw, but I shall have another look.
Incidentally, where does England have to go? England has won as many World Cups as NZ (that great and wonderful rugby nation that every team must be measured by), has appeared in 3 WC finals, and has won in NZ, SA and Australia this decade, alongside SA and NZ. What does England have to do? Surely SA and Australia has a lot to do? I would have thought that the rise of Argentina completely undermines your argument, as does the fact that both NZ and Australia were eliminated in the QF of the last WC, and the fact that Sanzar has hardly had a monopoly on the top 3 places. What has Italy and Scotland’s poor IRB record have to do with anything – they don’t claim to be superpowers. An extension of your ‘logic’ should therefore highlight the weakness of Fiji, Tonga and Samoa. Who is interested in the Currie Cup and NPC beyond South Africans and Kiwis? Don’t you think it’s completely juvenile to suggest that foreign players are the problem, when, for example, fewer foreigners currently play in the GP than they did when England won the WC? Don’t you think that the extended periods of time spent in camp and the short Super tournament has anything to do with the better record of the South? Why if the European domestic leagues are so weak have so few famous SH players actually done well? What do you even know about foreigners playing in Europe? If the European leagues are so weak then why did the Lions play the best rugby we’ve seen in years? I could spend ages unravelling your excellent research but I couldn’t be bothered. Pump up the volume, Hemjay!
QC said | October 15th 2009 @ 10:59pm | Report comment
That right Knives out I own both of you champs good luck proving me worng sunshine.
And funny how you are throwing up more lanme attempts to derail the argument and shift focus from the fact that you got served big time
Thats right boy keep it up.
As for the Hemjay accusations where’s your proof chump thats right you have none and its another futile attempt to save yourself some face. I totally wiped you and your mate Pothale off the thread you challenged me and there you go sunshine. Take your time knives out it will take you a while to read every single ranking realease.
Oh and funny how once again only world cup results count now that your previous arguments are smashed completely Nice to see you never ever stop changing the posts to suit your argument. So Australia and New Zealand went out at the last WC at the QF stage. Yet still the hapless English and Irish could not crack the top three. That is the lamest attempt at trying to gain some credibility I have seen to date from you KO.
try unravelling my research chump because you will find it all to be true.
What a total ass you are making yourself out to be.
You were wrong KO admit it its not that hard buddy.
Knives Out said | October 15th 2009 @ 11:16pm | Report comment
Actually, I only referred to the WC because you provided no context to frame your ‘argument’. You’re a goodun’, Hemjay. A real goodun’. Keep it up, champ.
Colin N said | October 16th 2009 @ 1:48am | Report comment
QC,
If you believe you are correct, argue the points, not the person, or else your already ‘thread dangling’ argument, could be about to fall off, if it hasn’t already.
pothale said | October 16th 2009 @ 6:50am | Report comment
“try unravelling my research chump because you will find it all to be true.”
Eh not quite Hemjay
” Ireland were never in the top three for longer than a week at a time their first appearance was Oct 22, 2003″
Wrong.
Dearie, dearie me, do I have to do all your homework for you? Your research missed out on when the rankings started – in the first week of the rankings for the IRB published on 8 September 2003, they read:
1. England
2. New Zealand
3. Ireland.
Australia moved into third spot on 13 October 2003, five weeks later.
Since you can’t even get those simple facts right, I really will have to call the rest of your research into question. Go off and do your homework again, there’s a good lad.
Honestly, kids these days…. what is the world coming to?.
Hermin said | October 18th 2009 @ 9:05pm | Report comment
I have just been through to the IRB website and their official rankings do start from October 13th 2003. I find it to be a little absurd that they would not publish the rankings from September 2003 so one would have to assume that Otober 13th was the start date.
The tension between some posters is very obvious here and I find it somewhat intriguing.
In this case I would have to say poster QC is right.
Heres the link for other posters who may be interested
http://www.irb.com/rankings/archive/year=2003.html
QC said | October 15th 2009 @ 11:15pm | Report comment
Scotland, Wales and Italy not making the top three in the world has a huge impact on this topic. Here you are claiming your competitions to be great yet when it comes down to the national teams which are products of your competitions these teams plus Ireland, england and France are extremely inconsistant. It therefore reflects poorly on your domestic competitions. You’ve been backed into a corner and your not used to having your logic questioned are you knives. Funny that when proven to be so wrong you try to alter the debate.
How does Argentina undermine my argument?
Argentina were never in the equation that was something you brought up chicken. Argentina have done very well lately where as England has fallen to the wayside. The fact remains New Zealand yes those two little Islands at the bottom of the world with barely 4 million people have never been outside of the top three really Irks you and you just absolutely hate it that you were shown up. Now you are also talking about the Lions please mate save yourself some dignity even the best of four couldn’t beat the Boks and they certainly couldn’t beat the ABs and nor did they beat Australia for that matter hmmm yup thats right they are great in your mind. The reason why SH players don’t do so well KO is because most of them head north once they are passed their used by date in the SH very few have left in their prime hayman being one who NZ could easily slot into the starting 15. But overall most are there for a super annuation pay check and the others are quite simply put guys who had shit show in cracking the National teams so they head north then change allegiance in the hope of gaining a test Jersey. Rikki Flutey a prime example played for NZ Maori now playing for England what a joke he had next to no show of ever playing for the ABs, if he had he would have stayed.
So run along and come back with an argument a little more worthwhile.
Knives Out said | October 16th 2009 @ 5:31am | Report comment
Obviously Robert De Niro was right, you do get further with a kind word and a gun than you do simply with a kind word.
1. Please read all of the threads slowly… and then read them again. Your wild accusations and broad conclusions wastes everyone’s time, especially your own.
2. I didn’t claim any European competition was great. What has actually transpired is that you claimed the SH competitions were great, and also that the SH was a rugby powerhouse. That the Italians don’t rate in the top 3 or have failed to challenge to do so is completely and utterly irrelevant because they have their own domestic competition. Surely a rugby intellect like yourself would be aware of this? Further, neither Italian, Scottish or Welsh fans would claim they were rugby powerhouses which is obviously what this all boils down to.
3. What inconsistency are you referring to? How can anybody take you seriously if you can’t even define a context to frame your ‘argument’? If, by sheer chance, you are referring to the IRB rankings then I suggest you consider the fact that Australia and SA has dropped to 5th and 6th place in recent years. Such a record hardly resonates consistency and does little to boost your ‘great competition’ ramblings.
4. Of course I brought up Argentina. That Argentina rose to 3rd place highlights the fact that 3rd place was held by a non-Sanzar nation. The significance of that is blindingly obvious.
5. Who hates what about NZ? Are you really that unhappy that you think I, or any other European, has an anti-NZ agenda? Do you really think that? I have said this so many times that I am beginning to think you suffer from delusion – I have been pro-NZ on this website many, many times. I am a NZ rugby fan. However, you may have missed this given I reserve my comment for the intelligent and knowledgeable NZ Roarers.
6. The best of four couldn’t beat the Boks? The best of four did beat the Boks, and by a record score, and by playing rugby beyond anything seen by Australia and NZ this term, and if you think the best of four is such a simple concept then I can only conclude that you have a very nascent grasp of rugby union. Obviously you think it’s a simple task to take 30 odd players, 10 different teams in the shortest Lions tour ever and mould them into a winning team. Regardless, the point is that the best backs and some of the best forwards are clearly European who I imagine ply their trade in European competitions.
7. Chris Jack, Kees Meeuws, Greg Rawlinson, Justin Marshall, Dan Carter, Nick Evans, Marius Joubert, Brent Russell, Butch James, Percy Montgomery, Jean de Villiers, John Smit, Carl Hayman, Luke McAlister, Aaron Mauger, CJ van der Linde, Sam Tuitopou, Doug Howlett, Byron Kelleher… all past their sell by date?
8. Riki Flutey may not have represented NZ, but it took European coaching to turn him into the player he is, something that we saw on the Lions tour. That’s NZ’s loss.
So run along and come back with an argument a little more worthwhile.
bob said | October 16th 2009 @ 4:57am | Report comment
Mr Cheese, I wasn’t in any way suggesting that other sports do not have the same commitment from the grassroots, but it is strange that in union it is certain administrators who drive or atempt to drive changes on a massive scale, not the participants.
usually administrators are working to keep their games unchanged… or to limit change. In some union nations it is as if the administrators are concerned only with the elite squads. without a large player base, and fan base, and volunteer base, the grassroots have no power, perhaps that’s the issue?
Knives Out said | October 16th 2009 @ 7:37am | Report comment
‘Oh you mean those 80-90% of pacific island players who earn a living in our national competition and then are released without fail to represent their country in all test matches?
Those same teams who get a large chunk of the gate takings when they play the ABs in NZ?
What ever are you referring to KO when you say a NZer shouldn’t talk about the treatment of the PIs?
Although i could say the same thing about the English and the Argies.
We all know the 3N was dull and boring, but that doesnt mean the rugby isnt better.
The lions played better looking rugby, but the saffas played better rugby, hence the result of the series.’
When do those teams play NZ in NZ, and when does NZ play any of those teams play in their own country? That’s what I mean.
What could you say about England and the Argentines?
‘We all know the 3N was dull and boring, but that doesnt mean the rugby isnt better.’
That’s what the NH has been saying for years. However, regarding the last 3N, it was dull, boring and technically poor.
‘The lions played better looking rugby, but the saffas played better rugby, hence the result of the series.’
I think that’s debatable. SA won the series because the Lions lost two props and their centres in the second test. As soon as that happened SA scored 10 points. If you consider the first test and that the Lions made 6 line breaks in he 1st half and fouled up 3 tries then it is arguable that Lions lost due to poor execution and not the game plan of SA. Were the game plan of SA that damaging then the Lions would not have made those line breaks and scoring opportunities.
Knives Out said | October 16th 2009 @ 7:38am | Report comment
Incidentally, look at this PI squad from last summer:
Soane Tonga’uiha (Tonga)
Kisi Pulu (Tonga)
Census Johnston (Samoa)
Justin Va’a (Samoa)
Sunia Koto (Fiji)
Aleki Lutui (Tonga)
Ifereimi Rawaqa (Fiji)
Kele Leawere (Fiji)
Hale T Pole (Tonga)
Daniel Leo (Samoa)
Nili Latu (Tonga)
Semisi Naevo (Fiji)
Viliami Vaki (Tonga)
George Stowers (Samoa)
Sisa Koyamaibole (Fiji)
Finau Maka (Tonga)
Mosese Rauluni (Fiji)
Sililo Martens (Tonga)
Seremaia Bai (Fiji)
Pierre Hola (Tonga)
Vilimoni Delasau (Fiji)
Sailosi Tagicakibau (Samoa)
Seilala Mapusua (Samoa)
Seru Rabeni (Fiji)
Kameli Ratuvou (Fiji)
Isireli Naqelevuki (Fiji)
Isireli Bobo (Fiji)
Gavin Williams (Samoa)
Look how many players are based in Europe.
katzilla said | October 16th 2009 @ 8:55am | Report comment
How many of those players KO learnt their trade playing professional rugby in NZ?
They certainly weren’t developed by the english game, alot of those names come from NZ development systems.
That they were released by Northern clubs to play in a northern tour doesn’t say much.
Soane Tonga’uiha – Schooled in NZ. Played NZ u19s
Kisi Pulu – Mt Roskill Grammar Auckland
Census Johnston – Born Auckland NZ. Played in NZ until 2005
Justin Va’a – Born and Bred Wellington, NZ.
Aleki Lutui – Schooled in the Bay of Plenty. Represented BOP in the 2002 NPC
Kele Leawere – Represented the NZ divisional 15 after playing for East Coast in the second divsion.
Hale T Pole – Grew up in Otago, played NZ U21
Daniel Leo – Born in NZ. Played in NZ till 18 years old.
Nili Latu – Product of the BOP rugby development system. Played for BOP then the Canes, then the Chiefs
Finau Maka – Grew up in NZ. Played for the Canes
Mosese Rauluni – Grew up in Brisbane (not nz i know), played for OZ U19s
Sililo Martens – Auckland Born and Bred.
Seremaia Bai – First played professional rugby for Southland in the NPC
Pierre Hola – Grew up in west sydney, played for West Harbour
Vilimoni Delasau – More a product of the French professional system but a Crusader
Sailosi Tagicakibau – Born Auckland NZ. Wesley College
Seilala Mapusua – Born Auckland NZ. Wesley College
Seru Rabeni – Otago Uni. Highlanders s14
Isireli Naqelevuki -Sevens star for Fiji. 15s development with Western Province. SA
Isireli Bobo – Wellington NPC. Canes
Gavin Williams – Son of an AB great? I dont need to tell you where he learnt his rugby
What im saying, and what i said before is that whilst you may hire these players at the moment, but alot of them are products of OUR rugby system. Your system merely makes use of them now.
Where is your hand in their development though? Those spots in all our junior programs could easily be taken up by Kiwis.
And that is what we do for the Pacific islands and their rugby.
Knives Out said | October 16th 2009 @ 7:25pm | Report comment
You can’t say that by merely playing players your’e helping developing them and that’s that. That’s hardly a sustainable and malleable long-term development strategy.The majority of those players play in Europe and have developed in to excellent players in Europe. They are regularly released for their country when necessary, and the European unions have had more contact with their respective countries over the past few years than the All Blacks had, I would wager. Seilala Mapasua was interview recently and the interviewer recalled his time as a youth AB representative. Mapasua said the one thing he really wanted was to play NZ in Samoa.
katzilla said | October 16th 2009 @ 9:59pm | Report comment
Its not just playing in NZ. Most of those players went through the school boys system in NZ. They are products of our rugby system. That is a long term development situation because without it the Pacific Islands would not have a team to even consider going to the WCs, without it they would not get noticed by the cash rich Euro clubs who then provide the comfortable living these players deserve. Over 100 NZ born players played in the last world cup. We’re not helping the developing nations? Our Junior ABs/NZ Maoris play in the Islands every year.
When was the last time England played in Georgia? Romania? Portugal? Or any Northern Hemisphere country outside the 6N? Please let me know, I don’t want to make assumptions, but what has the RFU done recently to assist developing rugby nations? They took all the money from the Pacific Island teams game at Twickenham last year. You knew that though. The Pacific Island team didn’t get a cent.
‘The majority of those players play in Europe and have developed in to excellent players in Europe’
That is opinion only, maybe lesser opposition allowed them to dominate? Again merely a different opinion.
Like i said below, I think all the major unions look out for number 1 moreso then anything else and could do more.
But pretending like we’re the Black villians in all this and you guys are planting seeds in far off distant lands is stones in glass house mate.
Colin N said | October 16th 2009 @ 10:27pm | Report comment
“That is opinion only, maybe lesser opposition allowed them to dominate? Again merely a different opinion.”
But how do you explain the inconsistant performances by the likes of McAlister and Chris Jack? De Villiers has played very poorly since coming over, but we can’t make a judgement until he’s settled in properly.
Players that succeed in Europe are the ones who work hard and adapt to the style of rugby and the culture, not necessarily the ones who have the most natural talent.
katzilla said | October 16th 2009 @ 11:03pm | Report comment
Like I said Colin, merely an Opinion – I didnt say it was mine. Just a different way of looking at something thats almost impossible to measure.
KO implied that those players from the list had improved due to the development process in the North rather then being good players that merely transferred their skills.
There are players who have adapted and done well. The poor form of the guys you mentioned cannot be explained. There could be many personal factors as to why these guys havent adapted well. Some do and play well, some don’t and fall down on their face.
It has nothing to do with superiority of either Hemisphere.
I have not implied or commented that SH players are superior.
By the way you didn’t reply to my note that McAlister would not have seen a black jersey this year had we not been so decimated in the mid field this year. A guy with AB history is always going to be picked over new blood when trophies are at stake. His form was poor before he left the north and was poor when he returned. That says absolutely nothing about the rugby in either hemisphere.
Colin N said | October 16th 2009 @ 11:40pm | Report comment
“By the way you didn’t reply to my note that McAlister would not have seen a black jersey this year had we not been so decimated in the mid field this year.”
I have.
“It has nothing to do with superiority of either Hemisphere.”
That’s what I have been saying for months, but when you say:
“That is opinion only, maybe lesser opposition allowed them to dominate? Again merely a different opinion.”
You are therefore implying that you believe Southern Hemisphere players are better.
katzilla said | October 17th 2009 @ 12:25pm | Report comment
Colin you still dont understand, I was stating that there are two sides to every story, and that neither opinion is or could be proved correct.
Read it a bit slower. Neither that Opinion, which was not mine, or KOs could be proven correct so his earlier statement regarding players improving because of playing in the north is un quantifiable. I was proving a point not making an arrogant statement.
Read it again please.
Knives Out said | October 16th 2009 @ 11:08pm | Report comment
‘When was the last time England played in Georgia? Romania? Portugal? Or any Northern Hemisphere country outside the 6N? Please let me know, I don’t want to make assumptions, but what has the RFU done recently to assist developing rugby nations? They took all the money from the Pacific Island teams game at Twickenham last year. You knew that though. The Pacific Island team didn’t get a cent.’
What would the point be in England playing any of the minnow nations you mention? The teams would gain absolutely nothing from the experience, as we saw the last time that England played Romania. These nations are developed by the 2nd 6N tournament and financial assistance from England (Mr Broadfoot’s famous Romanian kit drive campaign springs to mind), and the fact that the Romanian teams are exposed to a lower tier of European rugby in the Amlin Cup. What has England done recently to assist developing nations? They played Argentina twice and allowed the first game to be played at Old Trafford so that the Argentines would recoup more money. In broad terms the European teams have had far, far more contact with Canada, Argentina and the Pacific teams over the past few years than any of the Sanzar nations.
The PI team didn’t get a cent? Then why would they play a game at Twickenham if they are rewarded with zero pounds. I don’t believe that.
The Pacific Nations Cup has only existed since 2006. Assistance to the Islanders would be having their own Super franchise, or being entered into the 3N.
katzilla said | October 16th 2009 @ 11:54pm | Report comment
The game was outside the official test window meaning the RFU didn’t have to share the proceeds.
It was merely a tour game.
Francis Baron discussing the fact that the PIs weren’t entitled to a slice –
“Any Test played outside of the IRB official tours window require a voluntary agreement between the two participating unions and all the issues of cost sharing come into it, so you have to agree a financial package.
“We are very proud of our record here. We always provide financial assistance to the Pacific Island teams when they come here. We have helped Samoa and Tonga.
“We haven’t had a request from the Pacific Islands yet but if we did get one we would listen to it sympathetically.”
Listen to it ‘Sympathetically’? lol. If Sympathy wasn’t free the RFU wouldn’t give that either.
The PIs were bascially told if they wanted a slice they needed to come to the RFU with cap in hand.
How noble. Do you think the PIs put money before their pride and went and begged the RFU for some of it? Nope of course not.
More contact? Last year the ABs played the Samoan team in Taranaki and they took the gate.
Its easy to have a game against Argentina in England when all their players are based in Europe.
A kit drive? are you serious? you think things as small as a kit drive to smaller nations is something limited to the north?
Im sorry KO, but the RFU are not the White Knight you think they are.
Like ive said over and over again, all the major unions are out there gorging themselves on the big dollars without seeing the big picture (NZ are one of the worst), but i dislike your holier then thou theme.
Copied my Baron quote from here -
http://www.rugbyheaven.com.au/news/england/england-to-play-all-blacks/2008/01/24/1201025043147.html
Knives Out said | October 17th 2009 @ 2:05am | Report comment
A kit drive is a specific example, and I repeat my stance, that the European unions have had far more contact with Argentina, Canada and the Pacific Islands over the recent years than the SH teams has. One game against Samoa in Taranaki does not make up for an attitude that is generally far more selfish than the Europeans. Incidentally, why would the PIs play if there was nothing in it for them?
katzilla said | October 17th 2009 @ 12:32pm | Report comment
For pride? For the love of representing their homelands so far away from home?
As alien as it may seem for somes teams its not all about the Sterling.
If you were from a small Island in the Pacific and someone told you you might be playing England at the home of rugby but you wouldn’t make any money would you go?
Im sure the PIs costs were covered so it wouldn’t have cost them anything, they were already in the UK for that time period.
Contact with? Thats a vague term.
We have everyday contact with Tonga and Samoa, their largest concentration of population is our largest city.
Justin said | October 18th 2009 @ 11:43am | Report comment
I dont think Argentina are a developing nation by the way, they are a major force in international rugby on the field.
katzilla said | October 16th 2009 @ 10:12am | Report comment
Look i can see you guys have been getting a bit of a roasting and are understandably upset by alot of the unfair critisim aimed the way of the north. But none of us are angels. All said the major unions could all be doing alot more for the development of the game, the RFU, NZRU, ARU, FRU, SARU all of em.
The theme of the Original Post was good and reminds of Hawkes Bays time in the lower grades after years being one of the old time dominant forces in NZ rugby. Yet here we are now back in the top flight and giving all and sundry and good working over.
Take that pretenders! Get into em Bedford!
westy said | October 16th 2009 @ 11:26pm | Report comment
Do the Bedford Blues use artificial blood to get replacements ? or is this another part of English club rugby culture ie. cheating.
Knives Out said | October 16th 2009 @ 11:29pm | Report comment
Lol, that’s a really good one, westy. Go the honest and sincere Wallabies!
westy said | October 16th 2009 @ 11:44pm | Report comment
The point is Knives Out I stand by the statement. Just as I and other Australians are guilty of lecturing to others some recent cultural trends in elite English club rugby lessen the moral impact of the argument.
I note the greater positive social benefit and aspects of village club rugby in England but I do not have to ignore the culture that has crept into the top tier club rugby.
That it does not reflect the base does not alter the fact it tarnishes it and reduces its perceived moral authority.
Knives Out said | October 17th 2009 @ 2:02am | Report comment
Far more eloquent. You should have said that in the first place.
Invictus said | October 17th 2009 @ 11:04am | Report comment
KO – the second part of your reply is the response you should have made, minus the inflamtory language. Under other circumstances I might try to elicit further info about the reasons for englands structure holding them back, as I have always been curious about this, but given the petulance of your reply I won’t bother.
I didn’t make a cheap shot. Based on your posts that I’ve seen it was a perfectly valid question.
My clarity is just fine. Yours needs work.
Knives Out said | October 17th 2009 @ 11:14am | Report comment
If you Google the word dictionary then you will find various options that should lead you to an online dictionary. In any reliable dictionary if you type in the words ‘irony’ and ‘hypocritical’ you might just have a Lazarus moment. Perhaps you should type in the word ‘inflammatory’ too.
Just out of curiosity, does the Roar Police have a high starting salary? Are there any fringe benefits beyond a misguided sense of self-satisfaction, and does the ego needed to sustain this high-end position clash with you antiquated Calvinistic approach to semantics?
Knives Out said | October 17th 2009 @ 7:41pm | Report comment
‘For pride? For the love of representing their homelands so far away from home?
As alien as it may seem for somes teams its not all about the Sterling.
If you were from a small Island in the Pacific and someone told you you might be playing England at the home of rugby but you wouldn’t make any money would you go?
Im sure the PIs costs were covered so it wouldn’t have cost them anything, they were already in the UK for that time period.
Contact with? Thats a vague term.
We have everyday contact with Tonga and Samoa, their largest concentration of population is our largest city.’
I’m pretty sure that the majority of the PI players have played at Twickenham, and given that the entire reason for starting the PI team was to make money I can’t imagine that the administrators simply allowed their players to turn up for a financial loss. I can’t imagine they simply had enough money and decided to play for pride. We’re talking about flights, food, hotel costs, kit bills etc.
By contact I obviously mean regular games against these teams. When is the last time that NZ entertained teams other than England, France, Ireland (and recently Italy) during their June tests? The crux of the matter is that the Sanzar attitude has been far mroe insular than the European attitude.
Parisien said | October 17th 2009 @ 11:15pm | Report comment
What is going on? The Roar used to be one of my favourite reads on rugby. Even if I often don’t agree with Pothale and Knives Out, or even Sheek and Leftarm Spinner to mention just a few of the regular posters, they usually make their points elegantly and provide a dose of realism against the hubris of many a SH rugby fan. The comments tend to be more enlightened than many of those found in mainstream media, in the South or North. Oh dear, it now appears we are back to the old “my rugby team is better than your rugby team “, or “my hemisphere is better than yours” slinging match. And I thought the results spoke for themselves…
pothale said | October 18th 2009 @ 7:32am | Report comment
Well they do. Up to a point. Thereafter you need a slanging match to sort the minor points of difference.
preciouspress said | January 28th 2010 @ 1:21pm | Report comment
I am afraid most Australians just don’t understand Rugby. They view the game through the spectrum of pay TV – we must have more tries and running rugby, more substitutes and yellow cards, less scrummaging and line-outs. Lets make it more like Rugby League where Australia rules the World (at least France, N. England and NZ).
In Europe the game is based on club rugby and this is and will be it’s strength. Australia’s top down system of Gold Coast retreats and special contracts whilst ignoring the club roots of Rugby will lead to our reservoir of talent drying up and quickly. Stop whingeing about ELVs, get out from in front of your plasmas and join a club.