- Video
-
Club Roar
Captured a great grassroots sporting moment? We want to see it!Content Collections
The Roar Community
- Join
- Login
Most people who watched this year’s Super Rugby final would have happily used the words “exciting” and “entertaining” to describe the Chiefs’ thrilling come-from-behind victory. However, one man you won’t find saying that about his own team is veteran Brumbies winger Clyde Rathbone.
A former Super Rugby winner from 2004, Rathbone knows what it takes to win a championship, and he was quick to point out that this year’s Brumbies – of which he was a part – didn’t have the attacking potency required to win in 2013.
Pulling no punches, the veteran winger went on to say that too many coaches opt to play “smart” football rather than gunning for points, and that that’s having a negative effect on the notion of entertaining rugby.
“You can choke teams out of games to the point where you can potentially win the championship… but I don’t think that’s healthy for the game,” Rathbone said. “We’re in the entertainment industry, we’ve got to score tries.”
“The rules allow teams to play that way; we need to force teams to have to play more. To the purists, that’s OK. But we need to do more than that, we need to thrill crowds.”
While Rathbone wasn’t attacking his coach Jake White for playing smart rugby in line with what wins matches, his comments certainly aren’t the first time that rugby has come under fire for being “boring”; fans have either shared (or defended) similar sentiments for years now.
However, the question (and no doubt debate) shouldn’t be about whether rugby is boring or not and whether attacking rugby is as prevalent as it should be.
The real question – which is the key in Rathbone’s comments – pertains to the current rugby climate and whether the rules and nature of the game are conducive to attacking rugby.
For if the current rugby context doesn’t suit or even allow for attacking rugby to have success, then it is difficult to start pointing the finger to blame players and coaches for not playing attacking rugby.
That’s like try to fault Steven Bradbury. You can only play as to what’s in front of you, and if the current environment doesn’t allow for attacking rugby, then we shouldn’t expect it in return.
It’s no game-changing revelation to say that it’s easy to score a penalty that it is score a try. And with players like Christian Lealiifano—whose boot almost won the Brumbies the Super Rugby final—such prolific goal-kickers, it’s very easy to take the three points that are on offer.
Take them twice and you’ve essentially got yourself a try for half the effort.
It’s hard argument to make, then, to start blaming players for taking the points.
In fact, it’s a very dangerous road to go down if we’re going to start criticizing coaches for encouraging their teams to take penalties, especially when so many games are decided by one straight kick. For if we do that, then we must be prepared to not blame the players when they fall short in their quest for tries, and potentially lose the game by one or two points.
If we’re going to blame players for taking three, then we can’t fault them when they don’t. They’re just playing to the rules, and trying to best utilise the points-scoring system.
The problem becomes when everyone starts doing it.
When taking the three becomes the norm (which it has), and opting to score the try is the bold, adventurous option, then teams are caught in a difficult place in terms of playing attacking rugby. They might want to run the ball and get their backs into open space, but if their opponents aren’t playing like that, then they don’t want to risk going for broke and losing it all.
We need look only to the recent Super Rugby final to see that where the Chiefs – who Rathbone labelled the more attacking side — kicked three straight penalties after trailing 9-0 early. The Chiefs obviously would have loved to run the ball and get their strong outside backs in motion, but given that so much was at stake, they couldn’t afford to walk away without any points.
And therein lies the truth—attacking rugby isn’t dead, per se. It just isn’t working.
The rules (and points-scoring system) have allowed for “non-attacking rugby” to gain an upper hand, and the current context has shown that success is more often than not found by taking the points. You can’t fault the players, you can’t fault the coaches; you can only blame the system that has left those with an attacking mindset with no option but to follow along.
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.