Baa Baas v Wallabies - lambs to the slaughterhouse

"I think only those who appreciate the value of tradition could understand the appeal of the barbarians. Those who see nil value in tradition will be mystified" I reckon that most of the people who took an interest in this game did so because of the tradition and history of the Barbarians. It takes a while for traditions to die out but die out they most certainly do when they become irrelevant. Don't get me wrong. I'm all in favour of tradition and am passionate about preserving most of what makes rugby's tradition a great one. But we have to recognise what is worth preserving, or what is possible preserving, and what it is time to let go. Traditions are only worth preserving as long as they are relevant. Otherwise they become a focus for resentment and ridicule. Let's take two examples. There is still a tradition in Ireland (and probably still in Britain, although its years since I lived there) of each team giving three rousing cheers for the opposition at the end of the game. Now this is an old-fashioned upper-crust gentleman's-club hooray-henry like ritual but we insist that the kids playing mini rugby keep it on. Even though, cool 21st century dudes that they are, most of them balk at it initially. But it remains relevant. It's important. Because ours is a physical contact game where hard knocks can be given and received, sometimes inadvertently. It's vital that what goes on the pitch stays on the pitch and is then forgotten about. The "three cheers" tradition embodies that sentiment. It's still relevant and that's why it endures. Now take another example: There is by now a widely ridiculed ritual, confined to the upper classes of society, that at the end of a formal evening meal a bottle of port is passed around the table; the direction in which it is passed must be rigorously maintained, cigars are served and most importantly ladies must leave the room. In the 1990s in England there was something of a controversy in the Conservative Party, the toffs party, when the wife of a leading politician dug her heels in and said she was no longer going to tolerate this nonsense. Why should women repair to the drawing room to talk about children and sewing while the men stayed behind getting pissed and talking about important things they didn't want their wives to hear about? "Tradition!" trumpeted papers like the Daily Telegraph. What was the Conservative Party coming to when the wife of a former Chancellor was behaving like a stroppy socialist? A letter writer to that paper shone some light on the history of the tradition. Back in the day, after a long meal with several courses of wine, it became very necessary to pay attention to, shall we say "output" as well as "input". Most fine dining rooms had a piece of furniture containing a large chamber pot. This was fished out at the opportune time, namely when the port was passed. The port bottle went in one direction atop the table; the chamber pot went in the other direction underneath. In these circumstances, the ladies were usually only too pleased to be given an excuse to leave! This tradition became unnecessary once Mr Crapper's fine flushing device and the associated indoor plumbing became commonplace. So the tradition mutated from one supporting natural necessity, to one enforcing unnatural social control. It lost its relevance. And its respect. Who today would insist that such a tradition is worth preserving? No Sheelagh worth her salt would put up with it. Now the question is: what is the relevance of the Barbarians today? Who are the Barbarians? They are an invitation team steeped in the tradition of amateurism. The phrase I used "messing about playing rugger" comes from a verse written by a former player whose identity I have forgotten. Google failed me in my attempt to find the full text but I do remember that one of its couplets rhymed "messing about playing rugger" with "For training we don't give a bugger" That was the attitude of the players who took part in the mainstay of the Barbarians' early existence: namely the annual Easter tour of Wales. It's a fine tradition, but one that doesn't belong in the modern professional era. It is a tradition that would best be continued by fun-loving amateurs. Today's professionals have to find a window in a crowded schedule of commitments to club and country. They have to receive clearance from their contracted employers who have an interest in "player management" to get the best out of players for their own team's end, not that of an invitation squad however legendary. Hardly surprisingly, the Barbarians side was largely made up of players on the cusp of retirement (Matfield, Shaw) or who are not currenly flavour of the month with their clubs or countries. (Stringer, Cipriani) or who are "in the shop window" with regards to their future career (Tomkins). One great tradition worth persevering with in rugby is the notion that international competition is paramount. That is a notion coming under huge threat in soccer where the big clubs now have so much sway. My fear for the Barbarians is that the concept could be viewed by some moenybags as the most likely one to succeed in "selling the game" into new areas. By which he means "Selling the audience for the game" not the game itself. It would be a professional "circus" of mercenaries with no particular ties to any location or community. And if the money was right, it could suck much of the cream of the world's players out of the game. Is that what we want? Another great tradition of rugby is that the game was the thing. Here's the game. you play it. Adapt it to your particular strengths and then we'll come along and give you a match. That "globalised" the playing of the game rather than the businessman's dream of globalising an audience for a few fabulously wealthy teams. Three cheers for the traditional strengths of rugby: dedication to local competition, veneration of the international game as the pinnacle of the sport, and a hearty respect for the enduring amateur game. But the fine tradition of the Barbarians is in danger of becoming a sordid pawn in the unwelcome vision of some "entrepreneurs" for the future of the sport. Well, this "lady" ain't leaving the room!

I think only those who appreciate the value of tradition could understand the appeal of the barbarians. Those who see nil value in tradition will be mystified as to why the BaaBaas continue to get fixtures against top-10 sides, and why fans continue to go to their matches and watch them on TV. But the undeniable fact is that they do and they will continue to do so. You may be right that the number of fans is less, but if they are paying their own way, does that matter? "The game was a comparitive rarity and pulling an all-stars team together, from a fairly tight pool of players, had a certain excitement about it." I don't think this was ever the aim of the Barbarians, although I agree they often are entertaining. "In thse days of Heineken Cups, World Cups, Super 14s or 16s or whatever it is now, the allure is dimming." I can't comment - but assuming that is true, does it matter? By comparison, the Bledisloe Cup is now somewhat overshadowed by the Tri-Nations, but it remains of great importance to fans in both Aust and NZ, and I can't see that changing. "Let’s say the Australians DIDN’T thnk they had beaten a world class team of stars taken from the pick of the players around the world. What the hell was the point of the game in that case?" A fair question. But I would be suprised if the Australians ever thought they were playing a top team. Firstly, Barbarian FC has never made it a priority to choose the pick of world players. Secondly, the Australians knew when they negotiated the match that Euro clubs probably weren't going to release their players, and they also knew it was straight after RWC. But they went ahead anyway.

As the French general said when tasting margarine for the first time: "C'est magnifique, mais ce n'est pas le beurre!" Barbarians games are not real matches. They are exhibitions. And why we need "exhbiitions" in these days of saturated coverage is beyond me. I sound a note of caution that the powers that be see such events as the future of the game because they will kill much of what is great about it. The Barbarians used to be a great concept in years gone by. But that was in a completely different context. That was when the game was amateur, there were relatively few international matches. There were no international club competitions. The game was a comparitive rarity and pulling an all-stars team together, from a fairly tight pool of players, had a certain excitement about it. In thse days of Heineken Cups, World Cups, Super 14s or 16s or whatever it is now, the allure is dimming. Let's say the Australians DIDN'T thnk they had beaten a world class team of stars taken from the pick of the players around the world. What the hell was the point of the game in that case? At least when they wup Scotland or Ireland by 30 odd points (like they used to be able to do :) ) they could say "Well. We beat the best that another country could put out against us" But the Barbarians? What are they for? What's the point? I don't know any more.

Always a dangerous thing to try and "out-anorak" the Sheek but just a minor point: Phil Bennett whose twinkling toes set up the movement that led to that marvellous try by Gareth Edwards had already won a few caps for Wales by the time of that match. Granted he was not then the established Welsh Fly Half, although he would make that position his own over the subsequent years but then Barry John had only retired the previous season. I think Bennett made history in the then Five Nations by becoming the first player in that tournament to be capped as a replacement in 1969. Such people hadn't been allowed hitherto. I think Tommy David won a few caps for Wales as a flanker later on, although he had some tough competition in the Welsh back row at the time. Not sure if Wilkinson ever got a cap for England.

I suggest you look at the names they picked originally. Adam Jones and Bakkies Botha would have made a huge difference to the Barbarians, plus the Crusaders Freuen + SBW combo that caused havoc in the Super 15 with Jamie Roberts, there is their strike power end of. Freuen tried hard running at the weak Wallaby midfield defence, throw in Roberts the form centre in the RWC and SBW that would have been a scary threat.

No this way way understrenghth. It's ok to have Matfield as a token old lion, but he is way off what he used to be, as is Botha. Mortlock is nothing as a player now (ok SBW was out, but Kahui instead of Mortlock should then have started), Habana almost nothing. Then Bergamasco, Stringer, the front row, are nothing like the best in the world. Although the Barbarians couldn't have been expected to know the New Zealanders would be so flat. Next time they should select from the hungrier teams that were elminated. So it was nowhere near world XV strength which is what's needed to be to beat a top three team taking it seriously, when the Barbarians have only had a week together.

oh ok lol sorry my bad

Hi mfree, I think you may have misunderstood me - i was quoting someone else. You and I are pretty much in agreement.

MIKE - where does it say that wallabies fans are saying how good are we? dont go putting words in our mouths, most of us are expressing the poor performance G henry displayed with this team, and whenever the wallabies play poor most of the allblack fans are quick to shoot down rob deans so how different is it reallly when G henry has a poor performance? and dont use the poor excuse of we didnt have enough time to prepare cause i could understand that if we won by a smaller margin but it wasnt it was a flogging and it gave the much respected ba baas a really bad name.

It was hardly an understrength team, they had a few pullouts . Bakkies Botha was selected and withdrew due to injuries. The Wallabies did a number on the Baabaas pack and Matfield wasn't effective without him. I have never seen the Wallabies get so much go forward ball. Jamie Roberts, Sonny Bill Williams, Adam Jones (the Wallabies smashed their scrum) were also selected. That's a fair amount of talent not available.

Graham Henry is not a coach that seems to gel a side from scratch. See the 2001 Lions and the issues some players had with him. He was a complete pain on the tour DVD in team meetings in comparison to McGeechan and Telfer in 1997 and 2009.

They played the Boks after the 2007 RWC and beat them convincingly. They seem to play better with a few Aussie players. Giteau would have given them more spark.

"Only one side cares when the Barbarians play now: namely, the opposition. Who are the Barbarians’ “Fans”? Who cares whether they win or not? What was it about the Barbarians’ team that gave someone like me, say, any reason to have an interest in their fate?" Or the 51,000 fans who went to the match, or the many many more who watched it. You don't like the concept - we get it. That doesn't mean that others don't. "Sure, the Aussies can say “we took on a team of star players and wupped them! How good are we?” But the wiser among them will know they are kidding themselves if they think that." Do you have the slightest skerrick of evidence that the Aussies think that? No, didn't think so. So why are you making up fantasy stories? "Either the Barbarians go back to a more narrow representation for these big matches or they die." There is a third alternative, that your sour comments are seen for what they are. No concept turns on one game, and the barbarians are no different. They happened to lose this match - big deal. They happened to win their last six matches, all against top-10 sides. In each case they got respectable crowds (or better), and good TV figures as compared to any other match. They are doing fine.

Well done David, I support you wholeheartedly, especially against those concepts "brand", "exposure" & "global expansion". The Babas were like rugby's version of the Harlem Globetrotters I suppose, but a bit more serious. Although I got to see the HGs close up as a young guy, & despite the fun, they could really, really play some awesome basketball. The Babas provided very stiff opposition to touring sides from Australia, New Zealand & South Africa, playing against one of the 3 every 2-3 years or so. The first 'traditional' Babas international game against the tourists was against the Wallabies in 1947/48. Nick Shehadie, the Wallabies lock come prop, made tours in 1947/48 & 1957/58. He made history in 1957/58 being honoured with a place in the Babas against his own team, after playing on the opposite side 10 years previously. Apart from Shehadie, the first time the Babas invited players from outside the 'home unions' occurred in 1978, when the brilliant French flankers Jean-Pierre Rives & Jean-Claude Skrela were invited to play against the touring All Blacks. Against the 1984 grand slam winning Wallabies, Frenchmen Serge Blanco (at fullback) & Jerome Gallion (at scrumhalf) added Gaul flair to the Babas in an enthralling contest. The Wallabies won this enticing encounter 37-30 (6 tries to 5) which featured David Campese's famous "in-out, zig-zag" run against the hapless Welshman Robert Ackerman. There was a tradition of the Babas to always select one uncapped player in their team, usually someone of the verge of national selection. In the famous 1973 Babas team, all the players had toured NZ & Australia the previous year, bar the uncapped Englishman lock Bob Wilkinson, flanker Tom David & flyhalf Phil Bennett. For posterity, the team was: JPR. Williams(W), D.Duckham(E), J.Dawes(W-c), M.Gibson(I), JC. Bevan(W), P.Bennett(W), G.Edwards(W), D.Quinnell(W), F.Slattery(I), T.David(W), WJ. McBride(I), R.Wilkinson(E), S.Carmichael(S), J.Pullin(E), R.McLoughlin(I). The Babas won this famous encounter 23-11 (4 tries to two). I love the concept of both the Barbarians & Lions, & may they both survive the ravishes of the marketeers & carpetbaggers.

Ok the problem is simple, the Barbarians just need to select a World XV as much as possible when playing the top 3 teams in the world, and this is basically what they have done in recent years and why they have been competitive. So they can't repeat the mistake they made this time of selecting an under-strength team.

Like Robbie Fruean.

Dublin Dave, Great analysis - couldn't have expressed it better myself.

The Barbarians are an anachronism in modern rugby. And I say this as someone who is keen to preserve from its amateur days as much as possible of what made rugby a different and special sport. I despair of those whose vision for the future of the game is framed by concepts like "brand" and "exposure" and "global expansion". The Barbarians were originally formed as an all-stars touring team for usually wealthy young men to spend their Easter Holidays "Messing about playing rugger" in the heartland of Welsh rugby. Selection was by invitation and reputation. Typically, the players came from the national sides of the Four Home Countries but there was always a commitment to include uncapped unsung heroes as well. When International Touring sides like the Wallabies, Springboks or All Blacks toured these islands, there soon developed the tradition of the Barbarians playing the "Fifth Test" at the end of the tour. But until the 1980s the Barbarians team was always made up of players from the four home nations. The Baa Baas were in effect the Lions taking on the visitors in a one-off test at home. That gave the fixture some identity and some meaning. "We" were ganging up on "them", the visitors, in a way that typically was only possible every six years or so or however frequently tours down south used to be back in the day. Somewhere along the way some genius dreamed up the idea that there would be significant support for a general team of "All Stars" drawn from around the globe to play one off matches against major teams. By this stage, the idea is met with apathy if not hostility. Only one side cares when the Barbarians play now: namely, the opposition. Who are the Barbarians' "Fans"? Who cares whether they win or not? What was it about the Barbarians' team that gave someone like me, say, any reason to have an interest in their fate? Sure, the Aussies can say "we took on a team of star players and wupped them! How good are we?" But the wiser among them will know they are kidding themselves if they think that. Watching sport is a vicarious business. Spectators, or at least the vast majority of them, need an emotional attachment to a team. It's not a question of merit. It's motivation. Either the Barbarians go back to a more narrow representation for these big matches or they die.

graham henrys ba baas was absolutely second rate lol russia performed better than that against the wallabies in the rwc, shame shame shame. g henry blames the limited time they had for prep but a score line like that there is no excuse.

Where do you get this rubbish from? One result? Have you even bothered to check the results of Baa Baa matches against international sides over the past few years. Some people have no idea...