RUGBY AROUND THE WORLD

Commodification

Sevens

Commodification started with the Hong Kong Sevens and now Wellington seems to be taking the lead as the ultimate in making rugby a commodity. I guess Olympic recognition will have the same impact at the other SWS venues so long as there is a middle class who can afford to attend them.

In the early years the AGM of the Federation of Oceania Rugby Unions (FORU) was held so close to the Wellington Sevens that cunningly, contentious items on the agenda were placed at the end so that they were rushed through with the delegates wanting to get to the Sevens.

Then it was across to the Cake Tin, into a private box and an endless supply of free booze and food. Unified by suitably tasteless shirts for the occasion, the regional delegates mixed with the luminaries and sponsors, all with their “mutton as lamb” wives in toe.

The seating was interesting. I was the lonely spectator in the outdoor seating in front of the box for much of the first day. Inside the wagons were drawn into a circle so that at least half were looking away from the game and others were too far back to see it.

And in many ways looking at each other, being seen to be seen, was a true reflection of the trend at the tournament itself.

There are times in which there are many vacant seats in the stadium. But don’t let this fool you into thinking that the tournament was not a sell out. The multiple outlets around the concourse enables the spectators to multi-skill while at the same time monitor play on the TV’s, ensuring they were seated for the big games.

The games are an incidental catalyst for what goes on, but they are largely irrelevant, in spite of the fitness, skill and athleticism being shown. The crowd is either on the concourse drinking or in the stands drinking and self promoting. It is not just the young, nor is it just Wellingtonians.

Somewhere in the reverse psyche of the New Zealand male is an exhibitionist trait and an egocentricity that exposes a temporary schizophrenia so that their moment of “fame” is more important than the event itself. It is the reason for the Hurricanes games being at 7:30pm on Friday night so that the Yups from the Terrace, from Government Ministries and Departments, Corporate Head Offices and, with the money to match, they can still attend the game and then have their week-end. The income they generate makes it worthwhile.

I tried to update the sevens manual by looking at play on Day 1. I use the games because they are the reality if you look hard enough. There is often space between the views of the guru coach and how things are or were.

This is an interesting point. Does the book by the coach about the great event truly reflect what happened? Was it that well planned? Was it that deliberate? Or did it come together, upon reflection after the event, when the coach had time to sit back and smell the roses?

Many are the players who say that, at the time, it was not as smooth or as well oiled as that or at least to them it didn’t seem to be. And the same applies to the way teams play. After a victory

“We played as we wanted to.”

After defeat

“We didn’t stick to the game plan.”

I would love to grab the coach’s notes and interview the coaches and players 10 minutes before the final whistle in a game in which the score changes between the 70th and 80th minutes. Grabbing the reporter’s notes would be interesting also.

The best of both are the few who don’t speak in cliches and go beyond the agreement demanded by the interviewer. For some reason sports reporters, often those trying to sustain their past glories, have to include in the questions their answer to their question. Their ego is that fat. This occurs when the interviewer asks closed questions for which the time limited answer need only be “Yes” or “No,” more frequently “Yes.” You are not going to disagree with the expert.

“ Wouldn’t it be true to say that your win was based on you dominating possession, although you had some problems on the tight head side of the scrum followed by Andy and Dan kicking to space with a strong chase by Zac, Sonny Bill, Robbie and Brent?”

“Yes.” But to this could be added a choice from the following:

“We are taking each game as it comes.”

“We knew they would come out strong. They are a good team and played well.”

“It was a game of too halves.”

You will know others.

Refreshing, it is, to have a captain who says something but maybe I am being unfair as they are not paid to be media people. Hang on a minute, what about the questioner, he wasn’t a media expert until a sparse employment prospect, a Peter Pan mentality and a burgeoning ego creates the rugby expert.

The threat of an intelligent reply from an open question would shock both parties.

But getting back to the Sevens the lonely vigil on the first day, frustrated by the mismatches, just tell you that they are faster, more powerful and more skillful than the other team. The odd even game at whatever level is very instructive. And now the decision has to be made, will I learn any more on Day 2? Will the TV camera take me in closer so analysis can be a couch potato art form?

Beer in mind that live TV litters the concourse and this gives the spectators a cue to join the party when the big games are on. The focus on the game determines the rise and fall of crowd noise. The real worry is when the crowd noise remains the same as they watching the game. I struck the eeriness of constant crowd noise in Japanese baseball with the cheerleader’s conduct crowd chants that bear no relation to the state of play. The same has been the case at the recent soccer World Cup and it can be the case in American football. It’s a strange environment in which good play is not applauded. The players could well be playing in a vacuum, even though the stands are full, but the noise consistent.

As the Olympics have become a reality we are seeing an improvement in the standard of play and rumours are rife that the non-traditional rugby countries will drop fifteens and focus only on Sevens to win a medal. China has apparently done this. Another rumour is the formation of a Sevens circuit similar to the IPL in cricket. The growing number of hugely wealthy entrepreneurs in Russia and the increase stadium construction there make it the likely venue especially when the recession has had relatively little impact. One worry is gambling at an international level and its links to organised crime.

USA

It was only the other day that I became aware of the significant differences between the USA on the one hand and Britain and the former colonies the British and Irish migrated to on the other.

In the former colonies, whether the migrants were either forced to go or went voluntarily, there has emerged a feeling for the common good, for the Commonweal, sometimes based on religion. The common good is to give each other a fair go, mate. It is recognized that while we want to be individually free to pursue life there are aspects of life that the best done together for the common good.

At one extreme there is the attitude that it is better to provide health care for all at the top of the cliff rather than at the bottom. It is better to educate universally, compulsorily and without religious interference to provide a quality workforce and avoid the development of the criminal underclass. It is better to give all those attending school roughly the same opportunity and not base education funding on the tax paid by those living in the contributing area. It is better to go without items of conspicuous consumption, if we are to ensure others are fed and housed to avoid ill health and provide a job to keep the populous off the streets.

Experiments in the private ownership of public utilities that lend themselves to monopolistic ownership has resulted in the export of profits and priority being in dividends to shareholders, the neglect of maintenance and the erosion of the service to the customer. I feel this is the New Zealand experience.

The movement away from the commonweal has been unsuccessful. The most logical policy is to work together to provide infrastructure so we don’t have to provide our own means of supplying electricity, clean water, sewage and waste disposal. I am aware that some of these have been privatized and that some could increasingly be obtained individually. The monopolistic situation is essential to avoid duplication. This means that they should not be owned privately as the situation can be exploited. Over charging, avoiding maintenance and using rationalization and labour layoffs to please the shareholder, usually from offshore, are characteristics of this situation.

The common good, collective responsibility is for collective gain also.

The essential difference with the USA is the cult of the individual borne out of the impact of large numbers of immigrants on those already there and on each other.

This individuality has been used to undermine the union movement by labeling it and individualizing the workers so that they lack collective bargaining power.

It suits those in power to create this competition and to leave some in the gutter as a salutary lesson of where your next destination might be. As each wave of migration arrived and leapfrogged over those who came before they went into an environment that demanded self-reliance as distance and the size of the country rapidly diluted previously held values. No wonder Social Darwinism had its appeal in justifying what was in effect, happening — the survival of the fittest.

This individuality strangely puts the USA at odds with the Executive Council of the IRB. Those in Rugby in the USA have been successful, and this success is individual, and frequently leads to self-promotion. The cult of Mr Big who politicizes the situation to “be there” undermines the development of the game as a mass participation sport.

This is demonstrated by the frequent attempts by the USARFU to be permanent members of the Executive Council because they were the “USA”. This has put Canada under threat and makes their representatives forever vigilant.

It didn’t help in the late 1990s when the USA obtained the right to present their case to the Executive Council only to arrive on time and a day late. The representative tried to do something about it but most councillors had gone home.

The epitome of this is Jack Clarke who played many games for the Eagles, the USA National Team, coached the same team and who has used his position as head of Rugby at Berkeley to advance the game in a highly egocentric way.

The friction of distance defeats the game in the US as travel costs make it very expensive to duplicate what other countries have done.

The ideal rugby model is a small, highly populated country. An inter-state competition for just one part of the country is too expensive. The poles of growth approach similar to that used by the professional sports is the only one that will work. The problem with the Jack Clarke situation is that Berkeley was the only real pole of growth and anyone who wanted to play for the national team had to play there.

I also have doubts about his domination of the coaching programme as, if he didn’t get the head coach position, his clones did.

Anecdotally I called in to take a session with his team on my way home from conducting a course in Philadelphia. The role play around the campus was not the New Zealand way. “Coach Clarke” had real status as he roamed the campus on his golf buggy.

I conducted the practice and was asking questions of the players so they could work things out for themselves. No “take a knee” from me. After having some real fun with them I asked if there was anything more they wished to cover.

Jack, when I last looked about an hour ago, was 100metres away. Before my questioned was answered, Jack, who was right behind me, he closed down the practice, thanked me and embarked on a commando style practice that bore little resemblance to the game but a lot the way George Patton would treat shell-shocked soldiers.

Not only is it a culture of Mr Big, but Mr Big and because I am American I will automatically be on the IRB, and I/we/USA rugby, will know what is best for ourselves and for world rugby. 

“ I’m not sure what the best way is apart from it being the opinion I will decide to hold at the time.”

So, we have the USA hammering on the door and the Caribbean and Canada, making sure that voting keeps them in their place.

I well remember the behaviour of the national team coach, following a technical presentation I made at a conference in Atlanta. I tested the water by asking questions after I finished, the open question of the insecure presenter:

“Are there any questions?”

They asked questions that showed they didn’t really follow. For this I should reprimand myself as I should have been more sensitive to their needs. I did feel that they were resistant to advice from others.

Next to the podium not a hair out of place, white shirt, USA tie and blazer and grey flannels with parallel seems, black shoes and socks, the Eagles Head Coach.

He may as well have said that I talked crap. What he did say is that

“We are the USA, the strongest country in the world, we know how to play rugby and we will do it our way.”

He may have even raised Stanford winning the Olympic gold medal in 1924. He didn’t seem to realize it was Stanford not Berkeley.

He seemed unsure what way this was but it wasn’t my way.

This is what makes it hard for expatriate coaches to coach here especially to coach the national team. This is being helped by an increased number of ex-patriots being selected.

I have focused on their performance from games against Canada and Ireland in 1997 to the games against Japan in 2009 and they haven’t improved. Too often mediocre players are domestic stars of the team. One would think that, at the very least, they would be fit. You don’t have to get together to improve your fitness.

Often their style is physical, without subtlety, tending towards bullying. Perhaps an expression of their national character but when this is matched there is no plan B as the Japanese exposed in 2009, the wheels fell off.

The root cause of the problem is that while domination must be challenged, here it is out with the old and in with the new, a complete clean-out after the elections resulting in no continuity, no progress. Other unions make changes but, unless it is as catastrophic as the loss of Rugby World Cup co-sharing rights, continuity is maintained and built on.

So USA rugby is a land of “new dawns”. In recent times English and IRB administrators have tried and continue to try to follow sound methods that have worked elsewhere.

At one stage, the Nova project was promoted. Buy a squad of college athletes who have missed out on the professional ranks and mold them into a rugby team.

Given the background of most rugby playing countries, there is no precedent for this and nothing to make Americans any more exceptional than the rest of us even though there are more of them. There are more of them in each standard deviation of the normal distribution curve. At one end it is poverty that is third world, and the other is exceptional talent in sports, science, the arts and literature, and of course in commerce and finance.

So the Nova Project could have been a winner. The risk was thought to not be worth the investment, especially when other methods work well elsewhere at less cost. What under-mined the project was their unwillingness to invest in it themselves.

The rejection of the project may be previous as progress seems to be happening with Sevens.

So the game stutters along with some very committed individuals being always there scarred by the political macerations of the alpha males. Oh! For the instinct that works collectively and doesn’t kill off anyone who expresses another option.

Geographically the tyranny of distance prevents unity. Interstate competitions and a national championship are too expensive. The only approach that will succeed is the franchise approach based on clubs and colleges and this will create continuing. What these amount to are poles of growth and if a player wants to progress along the pathway they relocate to a college that has a good rugby programme or go to a super club. The blueprint is already there in the other sports.

Even with this their overconfidence that tells them that they must lead, they know best and they have a God given right to succeed will always be as big an impediment as the lack of continuity.

On Law

Over the years much effort has been put into scrum law but the modern era with its emphasis on safety commenced with power scrumming in the early 1970’s. This occurred because, with the ball being the offside line defending players could following the ball through the scrum so long as they didn’t get ahead of the line of the ball across the field.

The best use of the halfback and flankers under these circumstances from scrum was to disengage and follow the ball through the scrum tackling the attacking halfback once he touched the ball. The consequence of this was the use of the dive pass as it is difficult to tackle a player who is diving away from you.

The limitations this put on play resulted in kicking being a major method of going forward and limited back attack in 2 well matched teams.

The consequences of the law change that created an offside line through the hindmost foot was to change the role of flanker and Number 8 to one in which they pushed in the scrum. As a result power scrumming became the dominant form of scrumming especially when the All Blacks, embarrassed by their lack of power against the British and Irish Lions, put down a 3 man front row to clear the ball as quickly as possible.

Very soon after this the Law was changed stipulating the composition and configuration of the scrum and, since this time, the blend of reserves needed to retain competitive scrumming so as not to revert to “Golden Oldies” uncontested scrum except in extreme circumstances.

As a result of the kilo’s and techniques that were engaged in the scrum, safety issues emerged resulting in the abdication of responsibility to perform the scrum to the referees. The battle continues to make the scrum a contest while trying to ensure safety.

The result is a raft of Laws that succeed in making the referee never wrong while at the same time challenging the players to get their heads around what is required of them.

The issue in contention is that can  team whose actions create an unsafe situation by disrupting their opponents be rewarded with a penalty. At the professional level it is assumed that the decision is in favour of the superior scrum, but this is by no means certain either.

What is of major contention is the role referees coaching the players or at least giving them plenty of advice. If I was a ref I would certainly have to prioritise the scrum law and focus on the most important. What I would also do is not pull a law out of the hat when the mess results in the need of having to do something.

Given the fiction that surrounds scrumming technique should a game be decided on these laws or should the scrum be reset.

I realise that these Laws are thought to be working at the lower levels but they are not at the professional level and it is this level that has the greatest amount of exposure.

If the scrum law is there to ensure safe scrumming then why does the scrum that “screws” their opponents receive the reward of a penalty? Is the way ahead to penalize the team that makes the scrum unsafe, the team with the more powerful scrum?

Beating the Team in Black

Why is it so hard to beat a team that has the following weaknesses?

1. A willingness to play high risk rugby deep in their own territory after they have scored.
3. Commitment to the attacking ruck by so few players the halfback is often drawn into the ruck to ensure possession while a player unaccustomed to the position has to perform this role.
5. Players who don’t know if the play is to the left or the right when the ball is delivered.
7. The optimism to counter attack with the ball in hand even when support in depth is limited.
9. A team with brittle goal kicking.
11. A team whose attacking line is so close to the gain line, from ruck, that the defence can launch themselves into the tackle with great certainty.
13. An attack that is lateral, left to right and back to left, like the window screen wipers in your car, but has no depth to play at a miss-match by overloading a channel.
15. A team that has so much east — west and so little north — south that the defence just has to wait in their designated channel and the ball will come back to them. Don’t think a large number of phases in attack indicates how good they are at moving forward and retaining possession. The defence commits one, at best/worst two tacklers and the rest form the defence line.
17. “The easier it is to retain the ball the less the space to use that possession”
19. Surely to beat them can’t be that difficult or is it something else that the others may never had — their nationality and the willingness to react once current best practice is countered.
21. It comes from being small, having to be innovative and to not want to wear that label “Ex-All Black”
22. Post Wales
23. Do you think that a team is capable, at international level, to allow the opposition that their outside-in defence has them confused lulling them into a false sense of security? This is then followed by a scoring blitz in which the majority of the attack and the majority of tries scored being based on the exploitation of this false sense of security.
24. What do you think?

• «Previous Post
• Next Post »

---