- Video
-
Club Roar
Captured a great grassroots sporting moment? We want to see it!Content Collections
The Roar Community
- Join
- Login
I have read a lot of articles over the past month in relation to the opinions of coaches and players, and the scandals they had found themselves caught up in. But, the one common theme that keeps surfacing is just how different Test rugby is to Super Rugby.
In all reality, I just can’t get my head around it.
The differences that I can see at Test level is that Southern Hemisphere teams sometimes play Northern Hemisphere teams. Yes, I agree that this is different.
Referees from the Northern Hemisphere will ref a match between two Southern Hemisphere teams, or one with a Northern Hemisphere team versus a Southern Hemisphere side. Yes, I agree that this is different too.
The venues are also different, which makes the fan base – and the atmosphere – different for the players. If these are the differences, then I get it, and writing it down has made it plainly obvious.
But this is not the sentiment expressed by punters and journos when describing the intensity of Test level rugby, versus that of Super Rugby matches. This is what I don’t get, and this is why.
If you analyse coaches such as Jake White, Robbie Deans, Ewen McKenzie and Michael Cheika, they have all coached very successfully at Super Rugby level and have also posted periods of coaching at a national level with mixed results.
More intriguingly, the players that they coach at national level are more often than not bred out of the Super Rugby gene pool. In years gone by, a few elite players were plucked from obscurity and put straight into the national team, but this is a very rare event.
So, every year when the Rugby Championship is held, the same teams play each other over and over again.
They play at familiar Super Rugby grounds and in front of similar crowds. What is different is the colours they are wearing and maybe this is the very essence of why Test level is claimed to be a higher level than Super Rugby.
But, I still don’t get it.
At the end of the day, the game is still played for 80 mins. The ball has not changed. The ground is not bigger. The same amount of players and coaching staff are present. The referee is familiar.
So why is the game claimed to be played at a higher intensity level?
Wearing the national colours should come with an intense amount of pride and for some players, and it certainly does.
But a lot of players are simply over paid and too young to appreciate the unique position they find themselves in.
This is why we get the problems with the young professional player in the modern era. So, sadly the ‘pride’ angle of intensity needs to be ruled out.
And so I can’t see a difference between the intensity of Test rugby compared with that of the Super Rugby competition.
I see the intensity of training, travel, planning and coaching to be the same and money certainly rules the heart, in most cases.
It seems that punters and journos alike tend to describe the intensity level as being higher when they are frustrated by a loss.
Rugby is only a game with the same amount of players and professionalism whether it is played at Test level, or Super level.
The real issue is very simple. Bad coaching decisions and errors made by players is what causes a team to lose, and nothing else.
For what it’s worth, I predict that Ireland will win against the Wallabies this weekend. They have a very good side and the atmosphere in Dublin will get them over the line.
Of course I want the Wallabies to win and I will get up early with eagerness to watch, but the Wallabies should go into this game against the six nation champs as underdogs.
And with underdogs, there is only one way to go… up!
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.