The Roar
The Roar

Advertisement

A reply to Brett McKay: What kind of players develop from constant losses?

Roar Pro
8th March, 2017
Advertisement
Can we maintain the 18-team format in Super Rugby? (AAP Image/Richard Wainwright)
Roar Pro
8th March, 2017
62
1579 Reads

Brett McKay’s article this week reminded me of a First World War general rallying the troops to make one final charge up the hill.

Of course, after the speech was over, the next step was a discussion of strategy and tactics; the question of how exactly the men were supposed to knock out the fortified machine gun nest blocking their path.

Unfortunately, the men in question have been repeatedly beaten back already, and their morale is low. The soldiers are of low quality compared with the enemy. No amount of strategies and tactics, and certainly no rousing speeches, will help.

But this is an alternative history. In this version, the higher-ups make an uncharacteristically wise decision: they consolidate the best soldiers from each of the units, and attack a narrower stretch of enemy trenches. A proven winning strategy, and not only this, a way for a smaller army to beat a larger one.

The soldiers of the disbanded divisions are unhappy, but when the new, smaller army started to chalk up victories, the memory of what was lost quickly fades.

It should be clear by now that the five Australian franchises have neither the morale nor the player quality to be consistently successful in Super Rugby. Much can be made of the player development opportunities within the squads, and of the work being done by the organisations, especially by the Force and Rebels, to grow the game outside of traditional heartlands.

But I pose a simple question: what kind of development is constantly losing?

Reece Hodge of the Rebels

Advertisement

I recently read Peter FitzSimon’s book about the disastrous battles of Fromelles (in case this isn’t obvious). One general remarked of the decimated Australian fifth division in the aftermath of the battle – one that had literally killed half of them – that the fighting had done them “a great deal of good” or something to that effect.

In other words, the thinking was that the survivors were better for the experience of fighting, even if it had come at a terrible cost, in an unwinnable situation. Of course the truth was far different. It could be said that the fifth division never recovered.

Losing in the way Australian Super Rugby franchises have been losing is terrible for the team, player, coaching, and supporters. Without morale, can we even hope to win?

There are players who can shine and develop confidence in a losing environment, but they are far outnumbered by those being stifled by the constant sapping of their confidence.

The National Rugby Championship was in many ways designed to increase the quantity of Super Rugby-quality players available to the five franchises. I would argue that the establishment of the NRC is an enabling factor for dropping a franchise, not keeping all five.

It means that more players can not only experience professional rugby, but experience winning and successful rugby. The cream of this crop could then advance to Super Rugby and have a better chance of building confidence.

Brett McKay argued that the loss of 30 Super Rugby professionals – if you will, the disbanding of a division – will be detrimental in the long run. But I draw your attention back to morale and the army analogy. Which side would you favour to win a battle, the side with five low-morale and lower-quality divisions, or the side with four or even three quality, divisions with plenty of belief?

Advertisement

Of course you would favour the army with fewer, superior troops. The idea that the larger army, by blooding more solders, would win the war sounds a bit like Frommelles, doesn’t it?

A counter argument to my claims is that the Waratahs and Reds’ Super Rugby victories in 2014 and 2011 did not lead to Wallaby glory, an absolutely critical component in the overall health of the sport in the country.

Arguing the counter-factual is always hard, but in this case there is evidence.

As frustrating as the Wallabies of 2011 and 2014 were, they exceeded what we put out in years when the Super Rugby sides did worse. Furthermore, having one winning side is not what I’m talking about. It is a matter of enabling all our franchises to have the kind of environment where players can develop confidence (as well as skills of course) and sample a winning environment.

It is not good to have one good division, and four poor divisions; it is better to have four solid divisions, all – or at least most –with a realistic prospect of victory.

Rugby in Australia is a boutique sport at the elite level (as distinct from the grassroots). But boutique also infers quality. We can of course be concerned that a boutique sport cannot be competitive at a global level, particularly as the game expands, but surely there is a middle ground?

Four teams instead of five and the continued investment in the National Rugby Championship as a development pathway is that middle ground. It’s one of more wins and more confidence.

Advertisement

Or should we send the men up the hill again without changing anything?

close