- Video
-
Club Roar
Captured a great grassroots sporting moment? We want to see it!Content Collections
The Roar Community
- Join
- Login
In recent years, the political divide in this country, and the USA, has become a major stumbling block to progress.
In the US, senate gridlock holds the world’s economy to ransom, and in Australia, Labor has been guilty of voting against legislation in opposition that they actually drafted while in government.
But it isn’t only politics, where entrenched positions have become immutable. In rugby – and I will concentrate on union but the same argument could be raised for league – the divide appears to be between NSW and the rest of the country, but correcting for my Queensland bias, I am prepared to concede that it might be that the Tweed River is now flowing through a Grand Canyon of disagreement.
Why is this so? I don’t know. Growing up, we always hated NSW rugby.
Queenslanders, players and fans alike, were brought up on the legend that NSW refused to play us in the 60s because they didn’t think Queensland had a competitive side.
I was at Ballymore on a famous day in 1982 (I think), when revenge for that slight was extracted, ultimately fruitless chants of “We want 50” rung from the McLean Stand, as Queensland went on to win the centenary match 41-7. Queensland always felt that NSW dominated the decision making in the ARU, and we forever got the wrong end of the pineapple, so to speak.
But recently, the difference of opinion seems to have grown into a feud. Perhaps the advent of anonymous internet comment (like this!) has opened us up to a rabid discourse that always existed, but had hitherto been hidden.
Perhaps the introduction of professionalism to rugby, and the advent of big money for players and administrators, has raised the stakes to a point where politicking and Machiavellian behaviours are now the norm. I don’t know.
But in recent months and years, it seems that every comment piece on rugby that expresses an opinion is immediately categorised by readers as biased, or “agenda” driven.
There are myriad examples of these accusations, including several recent ones from The Roar‘s own David Lord and Spiro Zavos. Scott Allen wrote a piece on November 12th about some of the Wallaby weaknesses, and within 20 minutes of it being up a Roarer had labelled it agenda driven.
However, I am not trying to say that there are not instances of “agenda journalism” in rugby. The Australian earlier this week published a cracker. Bret Harris, bless his soul, decided to take on the various criticisms of Michael Hooper and refute them all at once, by just saying the opposite. The article is worth a read if you can get past the paywall, but for those of you who prefer the highlights, this is the offending paragraph:
“Still, it was senior Waratahs players who led the way in Cardiff. Captain and openside flanker Michael Hooper was herculean. His ability with the ball and over the ball is unrivalled among flankers in world rugby. His infectious enthusiasm and boundless energy are critical to the Wallabies, and he is becoming Richie McCaw-like in his leadership, which is better than the All Blacks skipper’s at the same young age of 23 years.”
Now, as you can see, I am treading on dangerous ground. Being a Queenslander, if this was a perfectly just article, I would have given an example of state bias that came from a one-eyed Reds supporter, promoting Nick Frisby as the country’s best halfback, or Beau Robinson as the solution to the Wallabies scrum woes… but try as I might, I couldn’t find anything to that effect.
So let me put it this way. If I was selecting the Wallaby team to play France, Hooper would be the first name on the sheet. He is a great young player.
But surely, really, anyone who has ever watched David Pocock, Liam Gill, George Smith, or Matt Hodgson play “over the ball” would have to realise that Hooper is not even close to the best in Australia at this particular aspect of the game, much less the world? And don’t even start me on McCaw, Robshaw, Brussow, Coetzee, O’Brien, or even Sam Warbuton, his opponent on the weekend.
Statistics that are accurate are hard to find, but there are a couple of sources that show that in 2012, Pocock had the most pilfers in Super Rugby.
In 2013 Hooper had five pilfers, according to rugbystats.com.au, behind the winner Liam Gill, and nine other players. Hooper had 15 in 2014, compared to Matt Hodgson’s comp leading total of 26.
As Hooper’s awards show, he is well respected by his peers. He is a great runner, fearless and enormously mobile. But he is not great over the ball.
I won’t profess to know how good a captain Hooper is, but there is a lot of noise to suggest he is still learning. However Harris’s claims are irrefutable, but not for the reason he may have us think.
McCaw was appointed captain of the Crusaders in 2004, aged 23, and captain of the All Blacks at 26. So the statement that Hooper’s leadership is “better than the All Black skipper’s at the same young age of 23” is a pretty safe one.
I always suspected Harris was close to the ARU, but throughout the Beale affair, he was a staunch critic of the handling, so I don’t know where that relationship stands, if I ever had a club. And I don’t think there is an observer anywhere in the game who thinks Hooper’s outspoken public support of Beale was wise, no matter how strongly he felt it.
So the question becomes – why would Harris, a person who is paid to write about rugby, produce something which is so glaringly, inarguably false?
And when will these people realise that disunity is death? Why can’t we just enjoy the Wallabies “one-in-a-row” winning streak and hope for an extension this weekend?
Join The Roar rugby editor Christy Doran, former Wallaby Matt Toomua and a cast of regular and special guests as they look at the biggest issues in the game on The Roar Rugby Podcast. If you’re looking for great odds on the next game check out Aussie bookmaker PlayUp. Chances are you’re about to lose. Set a deposit limit.