The Usual Suspect just can’t stop himself trashing Super 14, the best and most attractive provincial rugby competition in world rugby. There was Stephen Jones using his bully pulpit of the prestigious UK Sunday Times last week trashing, for umpteenth time, Super 14 rugby.
He used the bewildering Lions (RSA) – Chiefs (NZ) match two weekends ago at Johannesburg, where 137 points were scored with each side scoring 9 tries, to launch an equally bewildering attack on Super 14 rugby: ‘I’ve often written of the dangers of chasing the concept of entertainment in rugby. It made a complete joke of Super Rugby and it is in grave danger of doing so all over again.’
He called Super Rugby ‘tripe’ ‘sickly’ ‘a shambles’ and ‘pap rugby’.
The culprits are the dreaded SANZAR administrators (code for John O’Neill, the ARU CEO that Jones frequently rants about). The Super Rugby referees, Jones pontificates, fear ‘their paymasters would be on their backs if the game did not yield around 15 tries minimum.’
The problem with all this ill-informed ranting is that encourages die-hard British officials to resist any reforms to make rugby a fast, skillful, hard-tackling spectacle.
Moreover, it does not stack up with the reality of the hard facts about Super Rugby. In the first round of the 2010 Super 14 tournament there were 15 tries fewer than the first round of the 2009 tournament.
In their first two matches, also, the NSW Waratahs scored exactly two tries.
And when the Chiefs played a side that tackled in the third round, the Western Force, even though that side was without a number of its best players, the Chiefs were able to score a grand total of four tries.
The Lions were only able to score two tries against the Hurricanes (NZ).
Where were the 15 tries a match in all of this Jones is claiming is mandated for Super 14 matches by the SANZAR officials?
Jones is so determined to trash Super 14 rugby that he is prepared to make an elementary mistake of logic. It was obvious to everyone that the Lions-Chiefs result was an exception to the usual Super Rugby matches where strong defence plays a major part in deciding the out-come of matches.
Exceptions do not create their own rule, as Jones seems to believe. They prove the rule, as the old and true adage maintains.
The Lions – Chiefs match was a one-off match played at altitude with a South African referee, Marius Jonker who was not on his game (his poor form afflicted the NSW Waratahs this weekend, as well, with different results), and by two sides who decided that tackling was not part of their rugby requirement for this particular match.
The fact is that you can have a high-scoring match and still have much more ferocious defence than any Six Nations side is able to replicate (with the possible exception of France).
There were 86 points scored in the terrifically exciting, fast-paced match between the Bulls (48) and the Waratahs (38). But each side had to earn their tries.
The Waratahs played a wonderful first half but were unable to clear out on the Bulls, mainly because they lost the penalty count 5 – 3.
In the second half the Bulls smashed their way into the lead. They were extremely lucky to get some fortunate decisions from the referee. Joel Stransky noted twice in his commentary that kickable penalties that should have gone to the Waratahs and would have given them the lead towards the end of the game were not given to them.
The Waratahs showed enough, though, against the Bulls to suggest that they should be a force in this year’s tournament, provided they continue to play the running game they attempted against the Bulls.
Luke Burgess was designated Man of the Match, a strange decision in my opinion. He ran strongly occasionally. But he almost always takes the wrong option. His passing remains poor. It would be interesting to see how Josh Holmes would go as a starter for the Waratahs when they are in their running mode.
Rob Horne came on towards the end of the match and made a tremendous break. It’s time for Tom Carter to give way to Horne to give the backline some pace and penetration in the centres.
The ACT Brumbies, too, were impressive with their 19 – 17 (points not tries, Mr Jones) against the Stormers (in RSA). The two tries in this enthralling, fast-paced and hard-tackling match came in the last 3 minutes.
The week before the Brumbies had been leading the Bulls before they conceded 7 straight penalties from the local referee, Mark Lawrence. For long periods of play against the Stormers, with the South African referee Craig Joubert officiating, the Brumbies did not bother to contest the rucks and mauls.
A problem for the Brumbies is that they although they are well-coached and have some star players, they lack a mongrel, dominating pack and great speed out wide.
As for the Reds and the Western Force: the Reds have improved this season so they should be off the bottom and somewhere near the middle of the competition. Former players like Brendan Cannon claim that the last placed Western Force are well-coached. But …
With Scott Staniforth back, why didn’t Mitchell play him at inside centre with James O’Connor at first-five? The Highlanders moved Jason Shoemark, a similar player to Staniforth, into inside center with great effect.
Any coach who buys Sam Harris for his squad and then plays him twice at first five-eighths is in pixie land, in my view.
You can’t help feeling, as well, with the Western Force that there are still major issues between the coach and his players. The squad is playing like a team that is not prepared to do and die for the cause.
So far, after three rounds the Bulls are leading the tournament and look like far and away the best balanced, best-coached side in the tournament.
But they are yet to play out of Africa and we will see then if they are the force they are at altitude.
Cliff
Guest
Dear, oh dear... This article smacks of self-justification and defensiveness and quickly degenerates into a stat-fest to which the simple retort is that 'people watch games of rugby, not compiled stats'. I find it deeply ironic that Zavos is bleating about Jones being unfair in regard to S14 style considering he's been one of the more one-eyed SH commentators over the last decade - be it England bashing or just a general 'NH rugby is inferior' drum he beats to death. Something about glass houses here Spiro me old mate...
Diarmuid O Connor
Guest
Tony Buckleys attempt for a try was the best imatation of a sponge with legs I have seen in quite a while.
Shamone MOFO
Guest
Pajovic and Dirty Rotten Scoundrels POHMs is totally incorrect, never was this Prisoners of His/Her Majesty ever used. Pom is generally considered (Oxford English Dictionary and Australia Museums section on Australian language in Canberra and info at Port Arthur, Tasmania) to refer to Pommegranate and contrary to Dirty Rotten Scoundrels input it did originally refer to all British people and Irish people (as it has nothing to do with the British Royal family) because of sun burn. Nowadays it does generally refer to English people though. •The most convincing suggestion for the etymology of the term 'Pom' is to be found on Michael Quinion's World Wide Words website. "It is now pretty well accepted that the pomegranate theory is close to the truth, though there's a slight twist to take note of. HJ Rumsey wrote about it in 1920 in the introduction to his book The Pommies, or New Chums in Australia. He suggested that the word began life on the wharves in Melbourne as a form of rhyming slang. An immigrant was at first called a Jimmy Grant (was there perhaps a famous real person by that name around at the time?), but over time this shifted to Pommy Grant, perhaps as a reference to pomegranate, because the new chums did burn in the sun. Later pommy became a word on its own and was frequently abbreviated still further. The pomegranate theory was also given some years earlier in The Anzac Book of 1916. "Whatever your beliefs about this one, what seems to be true is that the term is not especially old, dating from the end of the nineteenth century at the earliest, certainly not so far back as convict ship days".
Dirty Rotten Scoundrels
Guest
English are the only nationality that POM (POHMs) relates to. Please do not confuse British (UK) and English as they are not the same. ; English folk are indeed British., but the English (born or naturalised) are the only Engerlanders >>> Therefore Poms. Australians, Scottish, Irish and Welsh are not English.
Wavell Wakefield
Guest
As far as I am aware Jones has always been an attention seeker. I recall reading of his anti-NZ "They're all professionals!" rant against Wayne Shelford years ago. I think the problem is that, like a lot of older rugby 'journalists', Jones has no real comprehension of the modern game. His writing is generally misinformed and mistake riddled, and he doesn't seem to recognise a good rugby player.
jus de couchon
Guest
Jones used to be a good rugby journalist. Hes lost his objectivity now and is probably in the wrong job.
dunc
Guest
Let the English and Jones have their style of game. I still can't believe it when 60,000 English fans cheer madly when Wilkinson pots a drop goal ....so boring. I am worried that the contest for the ball has been sidelined - until I saw Richie McCaw grab a player off the floor, flip him over like wrestling a crocodile, and turn the ball over for the Crusaders. Yes i am a New Zealander - but the good players will adapt to the new rules. And yes I am loving seeing the ball go out wide more often...
Pajovic
Roar Rookie
All British citizens are generally referred to as Pommies, or POHM's in the original sense of the word. Prisoners Of Her Majesty. The cizizens of the Republic of Ireland are not POHM's as they are a repblic and don't have a moarchy. They head of state is an elected President. Ironically as the Antipodes have retained the monarchy, they too are technically POHM's so things get a little muddled.
Colin N
Guest
Stephen Jones is also Welsh, so can people please stop refering to him as a pom, or calling him 'pommie.'
Wavell Wakefield
Guest
Firstly, the English media ha actually been quite critical of Wilkinson and secondly Stephen Jones is actually very, very pro-Cipriani, and in his usual arrogant and misinformed manner. England do have various 10s who play on the gainline, however I am assuming that Johnson feels the need to plump for experience in what is generally a callow team. Personally I would rather see Wilkinson out, as would most English commentators, so you're assertion is incorrect, Glenn.
Wavell Wakefield
Guest
'The bottom line is that when the SH teams go to the NH at the end of season, they dominate. Why? Superior fitness, more mongrel, willingness to have a go and run it.' Pardon? I'm sure that isn't a sound analysis. 'The NH teams (with one or two occasional exceptions) play stodge' I don't think that's really the case, is it? SA play 'stodge' and under Deans Australia has played 'stodge', so please don't confuse the SH with NZ AND SA and Australia. There is a difference.
Gatesy
Guest
The bottom line is that when the SH teams go to the NH at the end of season, they dominate. Why? Superior fitness, more mongrel, willingness to have a go and run it. The NH teams (with one or two occasional exceptions) play stodge, but that is quickly forgotten because in the run-up to the 6 Nations, the SH games are completely forgotten and they begin singing the praises of blokes who played very ordinarily against the SH teams. Stephen Jones' platform is a Q and A in which he always gets the last word - he's a basic bully-boy and loves to wind us all up, so don't expect him to change anytime soon, Spiro.
Worcester Warriors
Guest
I was thinking exactly the same thing.
Brian
Guest
It's "nth" degree, not "ninth degree"
Glenn Condell
Guest
These fearless Pommie commentators seem to have one blind spot, one topic they tiptoe gingerly around, and that is the sainted Jonny Wilkinson, who is a demonstrable drag on any chance England have to improve their attack. He was pants again on Saturday and the virtually complete absence of penetration in the midfield cannot be papered over by the odd field goal. I actually found myself feeling sorry for them, all obviously trying their best, trundling away pointlessly. Surely to God England have someone prepared to play 10 much flatter and take a few chances. They will want to make that call soon if they are to threaten next year. They might regret snubbing Ciprianio sooner rarther than later.
katzilla
Roar Guru
Badaboomtish ;)
katzilla
Roar Guru
Graham Lowe?
katzilla
Roar Guru
Lol Robbie I was thinking the same thing. Although whenever i hear his voice i always think of those Dust up videos he hosted back in the day.
Sportym
Guest
Neither are some of the Six Nations teams ;)
counterruck
Guest
It amazes me how much attention Stephen Jones articles get in the SH. He's treated as if he is the voice of the NH rugby establishment which (as a southerner living in the north) I really don't think is the case. this is the third piece (after ones in the Australian and NZ Herald) i have read criticizing last his column last week, and in each case professional journalists seem unable to grasp the concept of sarcasm! And all of this criticism is playing directly into his hands, generating more attention!