Ella’s tirades at Rebels a case of sour grapes
Roar Rookie By Neville Howard, 23 Mar 2010 Neville Howard is a Roar Rookie
- Tagged:
- Brian Waldon, Herold Mitchell, Mark Ella, Melbourne Rebels, Rod Macqueen, Rugby Union, Super 15, Super Rugby, Victoria Rugby Union, vru
1984 Grand Slam Wallabies Mark Ella, Steve Williams, current coach Robbie Deans, Alan Jones, Roger Gould, Simon Poidevin and Andrew Slack arrive at the John Eales Medal Awards in Sydney, Thursday, Oct. 22, 2009. AAP Image/Sergio Dionisio
Mark Ella was a dynamic player on the field, and many fans, like myself still follow him closely, and respect his opinion and insights on rugby. Recently, though, I have found his comments and opinions a bit stale.
This is mainly due to the fact that he looks to be out to sabotage the efforts of the good people currently looking after and managing Super 15′s newest franchise, the Melbourne Rebels.
After Harold Mitchell and his group was nominated to be the primary Victorian Bid, Mark Ella, who at this point already distanced himself from any association with the Rebels bid, found himself in no-man’s land.
He issued a short statement on his VicSuper15 site noting “Vic Super 15 wish them all of the best in establishing and operating the team in the Victorian market”.
One would think that this was the time to reconcile efforts, and if there was a genuine passionate interest in growing Victorian Rugby, this was the point in time at which egos were left at the door. Had I been in his shoes, I would align myself with the winning franchise and add value where possible.
Yet Mark decided to contradict even his own ‘best wishes’ to the Rebels Management group.
On Saturday, 20 March, Mark published an article on his “The Australian Blog”, titled ‘Where are the big names the Rebels promised’. This article, possibly his own ‘Coventry Blitz’ on an unsuspecting city in the middle of the night, starts off by noting that he’s not sucking sour grapes, but merely pointing out the facts.
Now, if this is true, could Mark please tell us when the coaches, managers, or even Harold himself provided the said ‘big names’?
Thus far not a single targeted ‘big name’ was made public, and anything else is merely speculation.
He noted that the only players signed are Laurie Weeks, and Adam Byrnes, branding them ‘at best fringe players’ and how people (the fans) overestimate Rod MacQueen’s pulling power.
Although his concerns might have some justification, what I’d like to know is, what was his motivation for asking these questions? Is he genuinely frustrated about the progress of signing players, or is he just really happy for his very speculative point to be proven?
Due to the fact that Mark has withdrawn any interest in The Rebels, he has no insight into the motivation of the powers that be. Mark would not know if, or why, some players have not been signed or are yet to sign.
He does not know the reasoning behind Rod overlooking some ‘marquee’ signings, and to be quite frank, he does not comprehend what their strategy is moving forward.
At this point in time, Mark is happy to sit on the sideline and shout comments at the third man on the boundary – hoping for a dropped catch.
Recommend this story.
The Turkey 10
The Turkey 10 teams have now been selected, as Wild Turkey Bourbon's sport sponsorship kicks into the next exciting phase.
Choose which side you're going to support and get in the running to win $2,500!
Simply visit Wild Turkey Australia on Facebook for your chance to win.
Find out more.
March 23rd 2010 @ 6:17am
Frank O'Keeffe said | March 23rd 2010 @ 6:17am | Report comment
Mark Ella is the best journalist, with regards to rugby union, that Australia has.
His comments have sometimes ruffled feathers, which is patently obvious if you read Simon Poidevin’s autobiography ‘For Love Not Money’, but what I love about his columns is that he backs his points up very well. He might say something about James O’Connor’s defence, and then use a moment in a recent game to demonstrate this point. It sounds simple and something all journalists do, but many don’t! Many journalists just state what they think without really expanding on their point. I’ve read journalists say certain in-form players should be dropped and you ask yourself ‘why’ And quite often they don’t give a good reason. It’s just controversy.
Ella isn’t like that. His comments are definitely controversial, but they’re always so well thought out. He’s actually not too different to Campese in the way he speaks his mind, however he backs his points up far better than Campese. Sometimes you read Campese’s column in the Daily Telegraph and it sounds as if he’s just running his mouth and trying to say something controversial. I don’t think he is doing that, it just comes off that way because he doesn’t back his points-up as well as Ella. Unfortunately for Campo whenever he makes a terrific point many people seem to throw the baby out with the bathwater. I think people underestimate how knowledgeable Campo is. But Ella isn’t like that. Sure he’s upset a few people. Perhaps the most recent one was John Connolly, or perhaps his little tiff with John Muggleton. But he does actually back his points up very well.
On top of that I really don’t believe there are many journalists that appreciate the structure of the game like Mark Ella does. Despite changes in the modern game and improvements in defensive patterns etc, you really get the sense Mark understands every little aspect of the game. I can honestly say every now and then I learn something new about rugby from Mark Ella’s columns. He’s able to pinpoint just where teams are going wrong and how they can score tries. One gets the sense reading his columns he’d be a fantastic backs coach, and in that sense it’s a great shame he hasn’t been utilised by coaches around Australia.
If I were to rank the 10 best rugby books I’ve read on Australian rugby, Mark Ella’s ‘Running Rugby’ and ‘Path to Victory’ are two books that would make my top 10. I lent Running Rugby to a rugby coach not too long ago and he thought it was one of the best books he’d ever read. I always find it interesting how people have different ideas on how players should operate in different positions, and Ella’s ideas are the most facinating of them all. Further, in that book while he talks about the requirements of each position, he’s able to analyze what strengths certain players had and what they brought to the position. For example, he talks about Tim Horan’s physical courage and ability to take the crash-ball and how if you could combine that with Lloyd Walker’s ball skills and vision you’d have his idea of the perfect inside centre.
Path to Victory is another great book, and my favourite chapter is when Ella is talking about the best rugby players from other nations. I like how he justifies his opinion that Murray Mexted was a better player than Mark Loane, and how he felt Didier Codorniou (spelling?) was the best centre in the world, and the way he compared Hugo Porta’s game to Paul McLean’s.
He just understands the game so well. His last column wasn’t his best, but I don’t think Ella would have ‘sour grapes’ over this ordeal.
The only thing I can criticise him on is his criticism of Alan Jones, because he has shown inconsistencies there. For example, he said that Cutler and Rodriguez were the difference between the 1981/82 Wallabies that toured the UK and the Grand Slam Wallabies. Further he has said that Bob Dwyer and Bob Templeton could have won the Grand Slam if they were still coaching the Wallabies by 1984. Now that shows inconsistency. Firstly Cutler’s career was over before Alan Jones came along. Cuts performed terrible in 1983 in France and lost a lot of confidence. He was cosigned to the scrapheap. Dwyer would not have picked him. Dwyer ever said in his first autobiography that he regrets he didn’t realise how low on confidence Cutler was, and that it’s a credit to Alan Jones for picking him. Secondly, Ella has said numerous times that the 1981/82 Wallabies were a more talented side than the Grand Slam Wallabies. He may be right, and if that’s the case you have to ask how Templeton could have won with the 1984 team as Ella claimed, when he couldn’t win the Grand Slam with a more talented side? Templeton, Shaw, and Shehedie made so many selection errors on that tour it’s not funny. Playing Paul McLean at inside centre against Scotland, what was that!? You could probably list 20 stupid things they did on that tour that have been publicised by the media.
I honestly could mention other instances where Ella has shown inconsistency in the way he criticised Alan Jones. Simon Poidevin once said he felt somebody got in Ella’s ear and told him to say some of the things he did because apparently they did get on well in 1984 after Ella lost the captaincy. Ella is on record saying what a great experience in 1984 tour was and what a great job Alan Jones did, and then he comes back after a holiday in Europe in 1985 and announces his retirement, and writes that ridiculous article (that was ghosted) criticising Jones.
But other than that he has tremendous credibility with me. As I said, he’s the best rugby writer in Australia and I love reading his columns. His stuff is always well thought-out, backed up with great points, and he discusses the issues I care about most.
That and if he’s not my favourite sportsman of all-time (which he may be), he’s top three (with Campese and Warne).
March 23rd 2010 @ 9:52am
Bay35Pablo said | March 23rd 2010 @ 9:52am | Report comment
But I thought Growden was the best!?
ROFLOL
(wipes tear from eye)
I kill me!
March 23rd 2010 @ 1:58pm
sheek said | March 23rd 2010 @ 1:58pm | Report comment
Frank,
Wow, this is awefully off-topic, but love it.
I agree Ella has a blind spot regarding Alan Jones. While Ella might have disliked losing the captaincy, it was the best thing for him. He wasn’t a natural captain. But then again, Jones was smart to leave him in charge of backline on-field tactics.
With respect to the 1981/82 side, when Ella says they were more talented, he means the backline. Certainly not the forwards, not even the loosies. While I’m a huge fan of Loane, Shaw & Cornelsen, perhaps only Corny could mix it with the 1984 loosies.
Loane was a wild monster like Buck Shelford, but didn’t have Tuynman’s all-round game. Shaw was also tigerish, but not as complete as Codey. Corny was a freak who could play 8, 7, 6 all equally well. Poidevin & Roche were of course part of both teams.
The tight forwards is a ‘no contest’ win to 1984. That’s the difference. It doesn’t matter how good your backs are, forwards decide victory, backs only the margin!
Like the 71 Lions backs & 74 Lions forwards, if you picked the best 81 Wallabies backs with the best 84 Wallabies forwards, you would go close to picking the ultimate Wallaby team.
But then the 84 backs included Campese, Lynagh & Farr-Jones, so perhaps it’s not so cut & dried in the backs…..
March 23rd 2010 @ 6:55am
Frank O'Keeffe said | March 23rd 2010 @ 6:55am | Report comment
Actaully I’ll also note that Bob Dwyer’s columns on his website are fantastic too, and they might shade Ella’s columns a bit for me. It’s interesting because I’ve been critical of Dwyer in the past for many things, but his columns really are terrific.
March 23rd 2010 @ 8:55am
Neville Howard said | March 23rd 2010 @ 8:55am | Report comment
All valid points, and thus the reason I noted I do follow his articles. In this situation though I just feel, it was all done with an aim to unsettle the progress we’re making in Victoria. He was really shooting from the hip, especially since he didn’t give much chance for Rebels Management to get their ducks in a row with regards to negotiation and announcments.
If anything, Mark should know getting players on the field is only half the battle won. What about investment in in the longevity on Victorian Rugby? What about creating a legacy of player with character, players who go beyond just performing on the field? Sometimes a person’s character is more valuable than the points they score on the field, and I would rather have a ‘fringe player at best’ as Mark branded them, develop into tomorrow’s Rebels leader, than have a leader in the team only looking after himself.
March 23rd 2010 @ 9:17am
Frank O'Keeffe said | March 23rd 2010 @ 9:17am | Report comment
Those are some good points Neville, and I really do hope this Melbourne Rebels franchise takes off too. However, Mark is asking a very legitimate question.
The Sydney Swans struggled for years in terms of membership, and few of their players were marketable stars. But look what happened when Tony Lockett went there. Lockett brought a sense of legitimacy to the club – people sensed they were a serious force. Likewise the Melbourne Rebels need a big-name signing.
To be fair to the Rebels, there aren’t many players in Australian rugby that could capture the imagination of the public. Using my Tony Lockett example, when he played for Sydney he was well-known for being a goal-kicking machine and one of the greats. He really sparked interest in that club. He was one of the few players who had name recognition all around Australia. Who in rugby has that recognition?
I suspect most Aussies would know who Matt Giteau is – although he wouldn’t be enough to spark a franchise. Loti Tiquiri (I probably spelt his name wrong again) is another with huge recognition, and he’s gone. I guess that is a problem not just for Melbourne, but for all of Australia right now: who are the marketable characters that people want to see?
March 23rd 2010 @ 9:42am
Justin said | March 23rd 2010 @ 9:42am | Report comment
He asked a legitimate question that the Rebels never had the answer to. They never said they would target specific name players. It has come out that they have chatted to big name players but they never sat in a press conference and said we are after Elsom, Gits, Barnes etc etc.
That I think is Neville’s point in Ella’s latest article.
It’s no doubt been difficult for a number of reasons to get the cream of the crop. I think people were expecting more because it is privately owned (which no one has stated why that is an advantage by the way or what it actually means in the cold light of day).
The Rebels are slowly but surely putting together a squad they feel will be competitive.
I think there is a little dig in Ella’s comments. There is no question there was ill feeling between the parties but the right party was chosen in the end.
March 23rd 2010 @ 9:57am
Neville Howard said | March 23rd 2010 @ 9:57am | Report comment
Also, with next year being ‘world cup’ year, most of the ‘big name’ international players will be hanging their hopes on making the squad and representing their country. And we all know Rugby, unlike Soccer frown on players not playing in their country of origin, thus making it even tougher to spin the recruitment ball. With that said, the last thing you want Rebels to be is a retirement village for players who see it as a healthy alternative to Japan/Europe.
March 23rd 2010 @ 10:03am
Hammer said | March 23rd 2010 @ 10:03am | Report comment
Ella provides the only truly dissenting voice about Australian rugby in the mainstream media – and that’s a good thing … he continuely highlighted the limitations of the average Wallaby outfits under Connolly and has in the past been the only one to question Deans’ approach – when all around everyone falls into line with the bluff and blunder coming out from the ARU …
he’s correct to question the Rebels recruitment drive … at the moment they’ve secured nobody that will make any of the other teams sit up and take notice … that needs to change otherwise this Rebels experiment could prove to be a short lived disaster
March 23rd 2010 @ 12:43pm
Amateur Hour said | March 23rd 2010 @ 12:43pm | Report comment
Surely one answer is for the ARU to do what they can to ensure that Stirling Mortlock becomes the Rebels marquee signing, although I read an article on the Roar last week that suggested that they were instead being obstructive. Anyone have any updates on this?
Where can I find these Mark Ella articles that you speak of? I don’t recall seeing any of them in the Sydney Morning Herald or on Rugby Heaven. Thanks.
March 23rd 2010 @ 1:07pm
Neville Howard said | March 23rd 2010 @ 1:07pm | Report comment
Check out The Australian – He’s a regular over there!
March 23rd 2010 @ 1:24pm
Amateur Hour said | March 23rd 2010 @ 1:24pm | Report comment
Thanks. Will do with interest.
March 23rd 2010 @ 1:32pm
Amateur Hour said | March 23rd 2010 @ 1:32pm | Report comment
Also, you may have already, but John Eales article posted today on Rugby Heaven and printed in the SMH is worth a read, if only to highlight your points above. Only Eales could get away with this stuff and call it analysis.
http://www.smh.com.au/rugby-union/union-news/to-the-stirrers-go-the-spoils-20100322-qqoz.html
March 23rd 2010 @ 2:35pm
Neville Howard said | March 23rd 2010 @ 2:35pm | Report comment
Yup, saw that!
March 23rd 2010 @ 2:01pm
sheek said | March 23rd 2010 @ 2:01pm | Report comment
Amateur Hour,
In MHO, The Australian has the best collection of rugby writers (Spiro aside!). There’s Mark Ella, Wayne Smith, Bret Harris & Tim Horan.
March 23rd 2010 @ 1:59pm
sheek said | March 23rd 2010 @ 1:59pm | Report comment
Hammer,
I wonder if Ella advocates Sydney Uni dropping back to suburban rugby? Oops, that’s a bit sensitive….. !!!
March 23rd 2010 @ 3:30pm
Gary Russell-Sharam said | March 23rd 2010 @ 3:30pm | Report comment
The opinion of Mark Ella is just what we need in a quagmire of journalists all saying much the same. That he has his own opinions is to be commended. I care not a wit that he may be sometimes be out of kilter with the other of his ilk, just so long as he is true to his own values. He was a master when it came to playing the game and analysing the game and now he is a master commenting on the game and the prowess of players, he says it like it is and more value to him. In part he reminds me of Peter Fitzsimonds who has opinions that other don’t agree with but Viva la Difference. Not that I am putting Fitzy in the same catergory as Mark as a rugby player and analyst but there has to be that difference otherwise we would all be soooo booooring. I care less if it is sour grapes I just would like to hear his opinion as with others so that I can have a complete view of what’s happening with Rugby.
March 23rd 2010 @ 4:27pm
MyGeneration said | March 23rd 2010 @ 4:27pm | Report comment
Peter Fitzsimons is an analyst?!? Please. Opinionated, yes, analyst, no.
March 23rd 2010 @ 4:06pm
Honeybadger said | March 23rd 2010 @ 4:06pm | Report comment
I must agrre with sheek.
The Courier Mail is unbelievably biased to rugby league and union barely rates a mention. When it does, Tucker has no insight into the game at all and writes short, non-descriptive articles. You need to go to a site like planetrugby.com to get good analysis and previews of the super 14. Very sad indeed!
March 23rd 2010 @ 10:10pm
Melb Rebel said | March 23rd 2010 @ 10:10pm | Report comment
did anybody see Nucifora and Deans speak over the weekend in Adelaide. It certainly raises concerns if this is the super coach and the 2nd most powerful man in Australian Rugby.
I will declare my interest in the Rebels but after being at the Weary Dunlop lunch I actually agree with Mark’s comments. I cannot help but think that the the ARU are not being overly helpful especially with returning Australians and ARU top ups tp contracts.
By the way see the news re ARU AGM on April 15th. Get ready for a probable bad financial result.