I rarely agree with the The Times‘ chief rugby correspondent, Stephen Jones. In particular I argue with his views on the haka, southern hemisphere rugby, and the experimental law variations. Yet I respect him as a rugby writer.
When I don’t agree with his perspective, I appreciate the analysis and understanding he has for the game and its players, even if sometimes I believe it can be misguided.
I like Jones’ style. The way he recounts games is unmatched by rugby scribes in Australia. He recognises talent and eloquently praises it. I remember reading my first Stephen Jones article and was unsure whether he was recounting a game of rugby or describing an artistic masterpiece.
For better or worse, Jones is an influential rugby identity.
Peter Bills is my second favourite writer. He rarely bothers with the quotes of other people, instead preferring his own analysis.
Will Greenwood, Brian Moore, Paul Ackford, Brian Ashton, Stuart Barnes, Hugh Farrelly, Vincent Horgan, Tony Ward and Mick Cleary engage with the issues in the game.
These gentlemen write articles that generate discussion. They criticize and offer solutions.
I cannot say the same about Australian rugby journalists.
Perhaps they are expected to do too much. They write articles on the players during the week, give an overview of sorts on Fridays or Saturdays, recount games on Sundays, and analyze on Mondays.
Give staff writers the midweek stuff so that those considered to be our best can produce quality on Friday, Saturday or Monday. Get rid of the garbage.
My criterion is simple: give me your opinion.
I don’t really care about feature articles, nor quotes dressed up as articles. I want to know who is good or bad and for what reasons. I want to know a team’s strengths and weaknesses, and why. I want to know how we can improve the game.
Spiro Zavos is the best analyst, and my favourite. I regard him as the game’s best writer. His research, analysis, contacts, sources and exclusives are unsurpassed. He engages with the game’s issues and shrewdly assesses them.
I found his recent contributions on the election of the IRB’s new president, and on Manchester City’s approach to John O’Neill, were both original and insightful. I am somewhat biased as I rarely disagree with his opinions, but as a writer I’d give him a 9 out of 10.
Wayne Smith, who now writes on cricket, is or was my second choice. 7.5 out of 10.
I give Mark Ella, David Lord, Bret Harris and John Eales a 7. Ella is happy to be controversial; Lord’s history and statistics are fascinating; Harris engages with a variety of issues; while the similarities between life and rugby are not lost on Eales.
Adam Frier has potential but is too colloquial. Matt Burke, my childhood hero, is too positive and not balanced. This confuses me as I enjoy his radio analysis. For those gentlemen, 6.5 out of 10.
Greg Growden is not enjoyable to read. I don’t care about the politics of the NSWRU. An ‘article’ should not be 80 percent comprised of a quote. That is lazy journalism. His occasional good article bumps him up to a 5.5 out of 10, but those are the exception rather than the norm.
During last year’s World Cup, my major criticism about mainstream rugby writers in Australia was their failure to make readers aware of the key players in northern hemisphere sides. In contrast, the northern writers had been doing exactly this since 2009.
The Australia versus Ireland pool match was always going to be crucial. From the week leading up to their draw at Croke Park in 2009, right up until the day of the pool match at Rugby World Cup 2011, the Irish rugby writers identified key Australian players, strengths and weaknesses.
Analysis on Six Nations games in 2010 and 2011 would include insights into parts of the game that needed to be won in order to build toward the Australia game.
The Irish rugby public went into the pool match educated about the Wallabies. The same did not happen here.
The coaches and players are aware of the opposition, but the public was not. Sean O’Brien, for instance, was the European Player of the Year on the back of his form in Leinster’s 2010-2011 Heineken Cup winning season. He was brilliant against Australia in the World Cup. Yet many fans had never heard of him, largely because the major newspapers writers don’t seem to care about or follow what happens in the north.
Brian O’Driscoll’s age is referred to before Australia versus Ireland tests, implying the Blackrock man is passed his best. But Northern Hemisphere writers do not make the same mistake.
They see him frequently enough with Leinster and Ireland to know he is still devastatingly good. He will sit on the sidelines for the entire 2012 Six Nations, but none have written he will not be seen again.
Former England international Mike ‘the doormat” Catt played in a Rugby World Cup Final at the age of 36. In 2003, at the age of 32, some argue Catt’s performance in the quarterfinal versus Wales saved England the World Cup. Jonny Wilkinson struggled with his kicking that day, and Catt provided the necessary stability.
O’Driscoll just turned 33. Catt isn’t half the player O’Driscoll is. But if Brian O’Driscoll is fit for the next Ireland v Australia test, I’m anticipating Growden’s usual “aging warrior” chat. The subtext: O’Driscoll is past it.
Wrong.
Yet the fans are none the wiser. We expect a chief rugby correspondent to know what he is talking about.
Wrong again.
For me, The Roar is where Australia’s premier rugby analysis is being generated. Whether it’s professional writers or punters, this is where I come for the rich rugby chat I crave.
Conor
Guest
I might be only seeing this now. AS an Irishman, I tend to agree with most of what you say. I try to read as much nzherald and smh and foxsports as I can, and you all seem to be very dismissive of NH teams. The gap isn't what it used to be. I would also suggest reading Gerry Thornley's articles in the Irish Times.
Jon
Guest
I just think Stephen Jones is wrong alot. He makes sweeping generalisations without the support of facts, jumps to conclusions and makes glaring ommisions. I do like reading his stuf,, it's very entertaining, and as you say always designed to provoke opinions and discussion, which can be a good thing. But I read his stuff thinking "what crazy crap is he going to say now", not "what an insightful and even handed appraisal of the situation". So he's funny and entertaining and always good for an outrageous statement, but I find him rarely on the mark, and usually disagree in some way with what he's saying.
Bakkies
Guest
Australia needs more rugby reporters and writers that compile articles on the game as a whole rather than the negative bile that you see written at the moment. A lot of the journos only are interested in Rugby being played in particular style
Ben S
Roar Guru
I like his stuff too. Is there nothing Eales can't turn his hand to?
Ben S
Roar Guru
I think all rugby pundits are basically pretty terrible, and I genuinely wonder how many games they do actually watch. Rugby journalism is essentially tabloid across the hemispheres and utterly agenda driven. It's dire.
Snobby Deans
Guest
So, mate, you agree with Stephen Jones regarding the Haka. Is it his myopic view of the All Black haka in particular, where he ignores the haka's performed by Samoa, Tonga et al (presumably because they're not successful like the All Blacks), to bring up the same stuff each time? Stephen Jones is not anti-Haka; he's anti All Blacks when he singles them out for his bullshit rants. If he was against all teams performing the haka, then I'd be more inclined to read what he has to say and see if I agree with it. Can anyone post a link where he does this, to prove me wrong? Jones does make some salient points at times, but he is too one-eyed and unbiased at times (usually against the Sth Hemisphere teams, more often the All Blacks and Wallabies) for my liking. If he was a bar of chocolate, he'd lick himself to death. So given my view, it's hard for me to empathise with your comments especially with that heading - when a blow-hole like Stephen Jones does look out of his own backyard, with one eye, simply to write bullshit. If this guy wins articles in England, then they're clearly not being awarded for objectivity.
jeznez
Guest
I thought that Cully's extracts from other papers during the RWC were a ridiculous waste of time. During the Super Season and his own actual stories during the RWC cup were sensational. Was my favourite read of the southern hemisphere writers last year.
jeznez
Guest
I thought that was KPM and that Sheek was more in favour of tweaking Super Rugby to allow a fully functional ARC to develop
Scotty
Guest
Having read (at a geuss) about 350 of Stephen Jones columns in the Sunday Times since 2003 I can say he does his job superbly well. And his job is to inflame, not inform. As an Aussie living in England since 2000 I think I have a faor veiw of his spread of work, and as has been said above he approach is simple; Super Rugby is "basketball rugby" and somehow not real NZ and Australia can only win by cheating, Australia particularly so because for the Wallabies to win is an affront to the natural order of the universe. South Africa are the only "real rugby" nation in the SH The RWC was terribly important in 2003 - all others have been less important than the Heineken Cup. Start on the basis that Ireland and Scotland are rubbish and go from there. No matter what games they win or the size of thier player base. Worship at the altar of thugs. England are the measure of all things. And are eternally granted the right to the toughest forwards in the world. If England forwards are bested - clearly the other side was cheating! Old and slow and big is ALWAYS better than small and young and fast. Always. Shane Williams was a particular pet hate IIRC. Now you would think - "Why does Scotty read his column nearly every week?" The answer is, like Everest...because its there.
bazza
Guest
Growden's hatred of anything South African borders on racial hatred. Not sure how the Sydney Morning Herald is allowed to publish his ignorant ravings.
soapit
Guest
johnno all this accusing/misdirection makes me start to think you probably work for the roar and are just trying to cover your tracks
soapit
Guest
what is your opinion of english rugby after watching their games against scotland and italy?
Gavin Fernie
Guest
Spiro Zavos is a constant source of engaging, provocative and informative writing on rugby and cricket. He is far and away my favourite sports scribe. Not onle is he a veritable font of knowledge on my two favourite team sports, but his long years of experience make him the 'Richie Benaud' of sports writers. Long may you continue to write, Spiro. We have three English speaking rugby writers in South Africa worth a toffee. Feisty Mark Keohane is always worth reading, and Gavin Rich is the only rugby writer contracted to Mr O'Reilley's print monopoly, who is not a toady to political correctness(actualy political toadiness) and is not scared to actually offer an opinion. Dan Retief is a writer who knows rugby but has been shunted aside by the TV and rugby hierarchy for not being sycophantic and subservient. The less said about the rest of the mewling, inept and inarticulate pack of journalistic nonentities who are allowed to toe the party line in various English speaking newspapers, the better. They are so poor, it defies description. Of course, South African rugby is ruled by politics, so that most of these clowns who masquerade as sports writers, are so useless that they 'interview' players for their opinions on everything from the game to come, the game that was, who twittered what, their favourite foods, fads and foolery. In short, they are so abysmally ignorant and inarticulate that they are incapable of any rugby opinion of substance That is what makes me open up The Roar eagerly late at night to wash away the rugby drivel we are subjected to in our print media.
Sharminator
Roar Rookie
Sheek works for a company called "SRTCECITWETIE¨ .... Super Rugby To Cover Every Country In The Word Except Those In Europe ... It dosnt matter what the issue is .. he always relates it to expanding Super rugby to his crazy dream of SANZAR taking responsibility for the development of rugby everywhere except Europe. I thought thats what the IRB was for ..
Sharminator
Roar Rookie
intersting choice of words "none of the rugby public in Australia would have thought that Italy would have world class players such as them" .... ironic you didnt say "Italy would have PRODUCED world class players such as them" not sure if the missing word was intentional or not .. both of them grew up in Argentina.
King of the Gorgonites
Roar Guru
i think they were sourcing cully's stuff from the uk tele. Fairfax is a dieing beast. they cant afford to many good writers.
mace 22
Guest
Not only in australia hog. Anywhere on the net period. Have signed up to other rugby discussion websites, but these have nearly always ended in slanging matches by one eyed supporters, with no real discussion on the subject matter.
gatesy
Roar Guru
Spot on, Crash Ball. have said the same myself in previous posts, though not as eloquently as you, and as much as it sticks in my craw, I agree with you re Stephen Jones. Those of us who care probably all have our dozen or so favourite Rugby sites, including overseas ones and get a good dose of Rugby on a daily basis. I also use Google Alerts. But if you relied on newspapers in Australia you would think the world revolved around Sydney Rugby!
mace 22
Guest
Agree Atawhai I used to read his articles before you had to pay for the privilage. I can't remember him writing anything complimentary about southern hemisphere rugby. But that could be my selective memory kicking in, The only time his philosophy on rugby had any credibitity was from 2000 to 2003 when england ruled the world, with their boring ten man rugby. when in the second paragraph he writes "I appreciate the analysis and understanding he has for the game and its players" and then says," even if sometimes I believe it can be misguided" What the writer is really saying is stephen jones is wrong in his analysis of the game of rugby is flawed.
S120
Roar Rookie
Agreed with most of what you wrote, particularly regarding this strange idea that quoting coaches and players should make up more than half of the article. Even if what they said was interesting analysis, I wouldn't care about it. I want to hear the writer's thoughts. In any case, players and coaches are trained (partly due to getting used to rubbish questions asked of them by journalists, partly due to them not wanting to say the wrong thing) to play all questions with as straight a bat as possible. It's completely uninteresting for me to read or listen to. The quality of writing in the UK about rugby is far and away better than what we get down here. I don't like Stephen Jones as he's an arrogant twat who wouldn't admit to being misinformed or wrong on any topic no matter the weight of evidence against him. He's interesting to read though as he has different opinions and that in and of itself is better than any of the writers here aside from Zavos really. I loved what I saw from Paul Cully (an Irish writer) on the SMH website in and around the RWC. Did anyone else see him? Clearly loves the game, puts in tonnes of time for analysis of the games and writes wonderfully well. Hope to read more of his stuff though he doesn't seem to be on SMH anymore.