The Roar
The Roar

Advertisement

By playing ugly rugby, the spirit of the game is lost

Roar Guru
1st October, 2009
56
1762 Reads

There was a time once when Australia produced rugby players with such silken skills that in the twinkle of any eye they could mesmerise the opposition.

There was a time when Wallaby forwards targetted winning 40 percent of the ball, knowing that their backs would weave their magic and win the day.

2009 has been annus horribilis for Australian rugby.

The game has become one dimensional, with the new mantra of “winning ugly.” The Waratahs and the Wallabies have played mind-numbing ugly rugby.

Randwick played the last quarter of the recent Shute Shield grand final trying to bash and barge their way to victory – and failed.

It is an indictment on the game when the once famous Galloping Greens resort to trying to win a grand final by playing ugly rugby.

And it is an indicator on how far the game has regressed.

Professionalism has brought many things – greedy players monopolising the revenue at the expense of junior development, greedy merchandisers constantly producing new strips, administrative fat cats cashing in on the gravy train.

Advertisement

But worst of all, a fear of failure leading to playing low risk one dimensional ugly rugby.

The costly purchase of Rugby League backs has sent a message to Australian rugby backs that they are not good enough. Flowing on the coaching staff have adopted the Rugby League one dimensional defence oriented style of play, which has resulted in the term “ugly rugby”.

The spirit of the game in Australia was to play the game hard but enjoy it in the process. The after-game camardarerie was to be savoured.

Now days, the professionals are not concerned with enjoying the game, and after-match camaraderie is a thing of the past.

The game has produced the emotionless robotic professional more interested in self-image and promoting his capital. And coaches hell bent on playing low risk ugly rugby.

The combination of these two does not add to very much, and that is exactly what we have got – not much!

close