The Way We Were – Part 5 –  Challenging the Law

It is the role of the refs to apply the Law and it is the role of the coaches and players to gain an advantage from them within the framework of the Law. It is in this way that the game has evolved and changed.

In most respects it has improved although the variable width of the “gate” that players arriving at the tackle have to pass through is a cop out for the ref who feels threatened by the potential mess that is developing. The same goes for the right of a tackled ball carrier who has gone into contact with no thought of an escape route for the ball. The ball carrier is now being given priority to play the ball. It is a pity that refs and their mentors cannot live with a bit of a mess around the house. While the mess is taking place more players are becoming involved. This rewards the team winning the ball with space to attack.

Just think back.

We are better off with the 15m line limiting the length of the lineout that could previously extend across the width of the field.

We are better off now that the ball is no longer the offside line giving the team the dubious advantage of possession behind the gain line. The dominating option was getting over the gain line by kicking. The worn out areas of the field were up and down the touchlines for lineout after lineout.

Halfbacks are no longer fast or dead at the scrum as the flankers can no longer detach and follow the ball through the opposition scrum.

But this has ushered in power scrumming, as coaches want all 8 forwards pushing if they are no longer able to unbind and follow the ball.

Lineouts are not a shoving, elbowing, grappling contests now that the contestants have to use their arms and hands to lift or catch.

Teams with strong lineouts can no longer stitch their way down the touchline by being forced into touch so they would get the throw in at the next lineout.

The current kick into touch law has increased the time the ball is in play.

And the removal of the standing tackle has created the maul, the only method of phase play that has the potential to draw in numbers from both sides.

The two areas that continue to create problems are scrums and the post-tackle.

If we go far enough back we arrive at the 2-3-2 scrum in which the two hookers swept the ball back so quickly that the wing forward had to throw the ball in so that the halfback is ready to pass it. There was not time for the halfback to do both jobs. This went out because, New Zealanders think, we had good wing forwards. They were labelled as cheats and that was that. This wasn’t the first time we in New Zealand have felt hard done by because we developed expertise beyond our status, at the time.

I am told that we can blame the three fronted scrum on the South Africans as it gave them the loose-head on both sides and it wasn’t long for two of the back three in the 3-2-3 scrum to move forward to give us the 3-4-1 scrum. .

As far as the post tackle is concerned playing the ball with the foot would solve the problem, create a contest and reward the ball wining team with time and space. But this battle has been lost for now and we are so close to rugby league that our identity as a sport becomes critical.

These are just a few of the changes and the Charter gives them context.

What we must be careful to do is to go back to first principles when we are making changes and not to build on what has become standard practice. I just hope that the needs of the referees are not forcing change to the detriment of the game unique identity. The further you move from the games identity the more the identity is threatened.

We should accept development and change as the constant and look on it as a unique aspect of our game.

Another reaction that the punters don’t understand is the variable interpretation of the law from one post tackle to the next. Paddy O’Brien told us in London in 2010 that the refs were going to referee according to the Law. Evidence shows that this is not happening. Tom Jones often quotes the Ice Hockey example of the game getting too far from its identity. The laws were applied rigidly and 6 weeks of chaos ensued followed by the game regaining its true character.

This was tried in New Zealand in Super 14 some years ago only for the powers that be to lose their courage and drift into the variables of advantage, game management and materiality. Colin Hawke was the sacrificial lamb appropriately dresses in white.

All this stemmed from JJ seeing the game in this principled way.

Papers on professional rugby, laws, the ethos of the game, technical and tactical all came from JJ, as the breadth of his vision was great. Something I like to think I have continued with my regular contributions.

NZRU

Apart from a bit of boozing there was no real shock horror about the indulgence of those in high places in the NZRU.

But in the ex-Chairman’s post council visits to the office there was some shock. He was no longer on the Council he was quite crippled and on sticks but with a sharp mind that was much more than the “no comment” of the 1981 Springbok Tour press conferences.

He came in to “correct” the secretaries Council minutes. Which he changed to such in the degree that, when council members receive them, there were at least 30 changes to the decisions that had been made. Council members had to decide to tediously go through each of them at the next meeting and stall everything or focus on just a few of the more significant and gain a partial victory.

When they chose the latter he continued to run a large part of the affairs of the union.

When he was Chairman he could throw out an issue if the papers had grammar and spelling errors no matter what their value. Thank goodness he wasn’t present when I was there. He would appoint councillors to positions that were mystifying as the councillor invariably had no expertise in the area, the very reason for the appointment.

Bob Stuart gave me the tactics for agenda’s and papers you wanted to get through. On the last day of meetings the pressure went on to get things through. This meant that the areas you didn’t want much discussion about came at the end of the agenda. Anything you wanted even less discussion about were put in the bowels of a massive report. Few would read the report thoroughly and all would vote for its approval. It could have been turkeys voting for Christmas.

Going to tests and test dinners were an exercise in conspicuous consumption especially for an ex-schoolteacher. The intemperance of it all was not enjoyable if you were there to watch the game.

And this got you offside as a paid servant’s seats were in the furthest reaches of the grandstands and at the test dinners we were either in the corridor or left out altogether. It’s embarrassing to look down the seating list and find your name is not there. “Being there” has never been an ambition of mine.

In the last of the 2 dinners I did go to in the 7 years as Director of Coaching the Chairman recognised the dilemma and hurried to the door just as we were leaving to go home. Being “fitted” in on the end of a full table doesn’t do much for “who do you think you are?”

I should add that hierarchies are more common elsewhere in the game than in New Zealand and they do have the effect of making you try harder as you know, when you are down the food chain, that you will be held up to greater scrutiny.

At the first dinner we were at the same table as Ron Don, down the corridor. Ron’s comment was that it took him a long time to be on the outer while taking me considerably less.

I might seem outwardly indifferent to the perks of being in high places but I did wonder why the treatment. Was this because I continually rattled the cage and didn’t have the status to do so? Bruce Robertson said to me that I would be always offside because of my drive towards continual improvement, the Japanese principle of “kaizen”, while others either sought credit for the change to raise their stakes or were happy with the status quo.

This occurred at the first Conference on the Game I organised at the Lensbury Club in London, the purpose of which was to make sure the game was true to its ethos.

The Charter was in development at the time. I quickly found that it wasn’t my role to scrutinise the Laws of the Game. Marcel Martin, as Chairman of the Laws Committee, was, according to him, the only person who could change the Law. The speed with which he prevented the England lineout increasing the gap, for no particular gain to either team, is just one example of his use of power.

The IRB often wears criticism for Law change. The IRB does not change the Law. What it does is facilitate change for the Executive Council unions who forward Law change, provide feedback on proposed changes from the rest of the unions and inhabit the Laws Committee and Executive Council to put the changes into Law.

New Zealand

In the early 90s the NZRU was flush with cash to such an extent that Russell Thomas was able to invite the executives of all the other major sports bodies, plus the media, to the union’s annual dinner all to revel in 50 games without loss, Russ in the Godfather role.

While I was at the NZRU we not only put in place the coaching pathway but developed age grade national coaching schools and trials based on a successful blueprint if results both then and later, as the players graduated to the All Blacks, are to go by. For each position we had a selector/coach and they watched the first trial by position to record on the whiteboard their rankings of the players on show. They had to justify it to not only the national selectors at that level but to the national selector-coaches. They coached the players for the next 2 days and repeated their selection role for the final trials. Once they had justified their rankings we left it up to the three wise men.

Just some anecdotes.

The shadow team played the rest in one of the final trials one year. Noel McQuilkin revved up the rest so much that they won but even then Josh Kronfeld, who terrorised the opposition backline, was not selected. Peter Thorburn, the team coach, said he was too destructive.

“Yes Peter you are correct he spent his time preventing the “best” backline from operating.”

Justin Marshall starred on a cold and windswept Tawa Park only to be written off because he ran away from support. Sure he did but as Lin Colling pointed out his path was directly towards the opposition’s goal line.

After the final meeting in the year Frank Oliver coached the team we were about to depart once the rankings had been justified.

“No need” said Frank, “You buggers know your rugby. We just need to take the first and second ranked players in each positional list.”

That year we beat the Aussie’s by over 50 points.

The coaching programme continued to produce and three of the unions from the northern hemisphere were sent out staff to learn from what we were doing and I was hosted on a busman’s holiday to Ireland, Scotland and England.

When those from a business background take over unions, because the game is now a business, the coaching programme gets crippled. To improve the bottom CEO.s regard development as a cost rather than an investment. This is all the better to improve the bottom line so that, before this neglect comes home to roost on the playing field, they have moved on to their next job along a self interested, staggering career path. This has happened in provincial unions in New Zealand, notably in Auckland.

Around the time I left the top men at the NZRU decided to devolve the coaching programme making the provincial unions responsible for their own development no matter what their resources were. Prior to this funding for development was largely through the appointment of development officers and the funding was in reverse proportions to the unions’ wealth. In other words the poor got the most as the wealthy could look after themselves.

As the result of the change we had the East Coast programme based on no resources and the Auckland programme, stretched by the magnitude of the task, and everything in between. What this ignored was New Zealand’s essential unity that was responsible for the success that was a mystery to our more populous opponents. The courses were eroded and the method of delivery was talking heads, their duration reduced to two and a half days not the previous ten days for the highest level courses. As a teacher I knew something of the effectiveness of inquiry based learning as opposed to rote learning.

What is overlooked in these situations is that there is a time lag between the neglect of high performance age grade coaching and playing development and its consequences at the international level. Equally there is a time lag between the decline in international performance and the resurrection of a unified coaching programme to under pin that success.

When I was in Dublin Jim Telfer rang. He had recruited some New Zealand coaches and the standard was poor. The answer too his question was obvious and distressing.

I should add that it has been back to the future in New Zealand since the loss of co-hosting rights as the results show.

Planning

The value of planning was driven home to me at the NZRU if only to cover your butt. When you consult to develop a plan for four years with action annual plans complementing it you have a sound foundation for both development itself and for the monitoring of programme. So when the chairman of the coaching programme changes course randomly on the grounds that the plan was just a guide and he wanted to knee jerk in another direction, I was shaken. I was about to leave and return to teaching when he was replaced.

This didn’t work at the IRB because the person who is going for you wants nothing on paper only on the phone. Once there are trumped up charges or an assassination there is no evidence but it took him 8 years to get rid of me. More of that later but the advantage the IRB has is that there is no accountability on the field of play, unlike the unions who are accountable for the performance of their teams.

In the end the NZRU programme ran itself and the coaching committee, while taking an active part at various events, met to review the previous 12 months and to preview the next 12 months. The autonomy they gave me was a vote of confidence that I willingly accepted.

The Women’s Role in the Game.

Throughout the history of rugby, right up to the 80s males and females were separated for test dinners. The ladies were forced to go to dinner with a group they didn’t know and/or had little in common with while the men’s dinner degenerated into a booze fest with food throwing especially at the top table. When Otago got smashed, by Canterbury in 1980 the students’ partners came along for the after match only to be turned away. We all went, the country boys as well. Behaviour like this was the start of the changes we now take for granted.

Eventually the sexes integrated and behaviour improved. Festivities then became a competition based on the brevity of the All Black partners’ dresses and a growing number of partners with an iron will to make sure the players and their partners got some of the proceeds.

A decree came out that they were to go to just one test. The wife of one of the quietest and most respected members of the team booked travel and accommodation for all wives and partners to all tests, the bill went to the NZRU and that was the end of the matter.

Russell Thomas’ often repeated claim to fame was when he managed the All Blacks in the UK and Ireland. He attended all games, in his “number ones”, black shoes and socks, grey flannels, white shirt, All Black tie and blazer, nothing more than this even in inclement weather. But the cunning bugger was wearing his jersey under his shirt. It makes you wonder what other challenges managers might have met to share the player’s hardship.

There are numerous rumours that one manager struck up a friendship and during sex the woman passed out. Apparently her hips had dislocated and the pain caused the fainting. The drunken manager, recruited the drunken coach, to remove the woman, who they thought was dead.

They sent her down the laundry shoot. Upon release she showed signs of life. They were quick enough to get down to the bottom of the shoot to retrieve the situation.

Apart from the ex-Chairman’s editorial visits and the overindulgence in booze and accommodation at the best hotel in town, backstabbing mates when “healthy” competition demanded it was the other off-field sport.

I do claim to be apolitical but admit to being a sceptical griper. At the NZRU my office was a haven for Eddie Tonks prior to shafting Russell Thomas; Griz Wylie prior to being summoned to a meeting with Tonks, Malcolm Dick and John Hart designed to make him give up the coaching job prior to the Rugby World Cup in 1991; Eddie Tonks after Richie Guy had done the job on him: Neil Gray after he had been shafted by Laurie Mains and various villains who were called upon to face the judiciary. Most notably, these were Richard Loe after the Greg Cooper incident, Alan Whetton after the Steven Bishop incident, Robin Brooke after the David Latta incident and Troy Flavell after he dealt to Greg Smith. The attraction for the latter 3 was that I had a video tape recorder and they had the tape. In a small way I could be held responsible for bringing matters to a swift conclusion as the video made the players readily admit their guilt.

The media never got used to the fact that the offices had a ninja escape route and the villains were well on their way home while the media waited at the front door.

Coaches Vulnerability

The disloyalty of the Rugby brotherhood, over and above the democratic process, is a major hypocrisy of the game. This particularly applies to coaches and probably is the product of their individuality and relative isolation, when it comes to getting jobs.

In an area of the game in which trust is essential it is so often breached.

The coaches and the refs are convenient sacrificial lambs but at least the refs have objective criteria and a referee coach to mentor them to success.

The very coaches, who are feted into positions by an idolising group of “no name” committeemen, are dropped as sacrificial lambs when they are thought to be the cause of the lack of success. It’s easier than replacing an entire playing squad. They may be the best you have in any case.

The committeemen are not always to blame as the game engenders a high degree of self-promotion especially around after match activities. I, amongst this group of fine men, am not beyond gossiping and scandal mongering to enhance this self-promotion.

The classic situation is the isolation the coach feels after a loss. At the after match few want to speak to him so the coach gravitates towards another group who will want to listen to him, the reserves bench. Many are the false promises made by the lonely coach to these players not realising that, when the promise doesn’t come to fruition, matters are only worse.

The current players’ association in New Zealand seems to be doing a very good job, but a coaches association doesn’t exist enabling coaches to be picked off and forcing them to be self-seeking when the time comes. What makes them more vulnerable in the professional game is the review technique imposed by management academics. Currently in vogue is the 360° interview in which the players express their opinion of the coaches and, depending on the score the coach retains the job, re-applies or seeks another job. It is hoped that those who conduct the assessment can see past a gripey, self-interested player.

For some time I thought the situation in New Zealand was one in which we had 3 wise men at the top and daylight below. There seemed to be only coaches with too little experience or an erratic record.

What I have found in that, given the opportunity and the training a substantial number have grown on the job. This has resulted in a large number securing positions offshore. The strength at international level has been continuity, which was placed at risk after the quarterfinal loss in 2007.

Realise that longevity, continuity and success are all part of the deal. Look at the mature professional sports especially in the USA and Europe.

While the players association is to be congratulated for the strong position that they have placed the players in with something like 46% of the net profit going to the players, the amateur coach is likely to find better things to do when the community rugby budget continually diminishes limiting the number of courses. The funding of the professional game seldom diminishes.

The only individuals insulated from this biased attitude towards coaches seem to be the ex-internationals. The national body conducts courses for coaches along a career path and yet undermines its own infrastructure, by allowing ex-internationals to leapfrog the rest of the class into top jobs. This detrimentally affects the recruitment and development of excellent coaches who are in more stable jobs. The risk of going into a coaching position is just too great. In doing this, the union undermines its own development programme and drops the ex-international right in it.

You see playing at the top level is intuitive and coaching is analytical. These are at the extreme ends of the playing/coaching continuum. This is not to say that the ex-international as a coach hasn’t extraordinary knowledge in his position and in aspects of play he was closely associated with but these peaks are compromised by the wide deep troughs of knowledge in other aspects of play, work ethic, planning and coaching method. All the position specific knowledge in the world will not compensate for an ability to coach, to put in place robust systems and processes to ensure optimum performance of the team.

What the coach’s playing status does do is enable him to get another job and another and another further snuffing out the ambition of coaches on the pathway.

Party to this is the politicisation of appointments and the reflected glory assumed by the committee members and CEOs especially those in provincial unions.

A coaching career can be a short one, especially if progress is very rapid and more specifically, if there is little coaching background. The “coach as I was coached” method doesn’t optimise performance. By forcing coaches to have qualifications the union is saving the coach from his own limitations and, in the long run, ensuring a long and successful career.

After Franz Beckenbauer won a second World Cup as captain of the German national team he decided he wanted to go coaching. He made enquiries and was told a level 1 course started soon but there was a waiting list and they would try to get him on it. Eventually they did and he went through the pathway but the standards were not compromised.

In coaching it doesn’t pay to go too far too soon, as life out of a suitcase in foreign parts does little for stability in aspects of life more important than rugby coaching. Further to this we are getting a breed of self promoting carpet baggers and aggressive agents who give all offshore coaches a bad name.

I started this chapter, mentioning corruption and it seemed to me that at worst there was over indulgence and conspicuous consumption in little more than food, drink and accommodation. An adequate reward for time spent in the game. Nothing more and nothing less than you would get in any New Zealand sports body or scrutinised government department.

Having left at the commencement of the professional era I’m not in a position to judge what has happened since with the exception of a loss of the co-hosting rights for the 2003 Rugby World Cup.

However, there was a sorry event at the inception of the professional era. I remember when the then chairman, convened a meeting elsewhere in Wellington, away from prying eyes.

As we now know, the professional game was about to split the best players from the control of the unions. We were told at the meeting, that Jock Hobbs had been able to recruit all our players having travelled the country to do so. This was done at slightly greater expense than the union would have liked, but the achievement had saved the game for all New Zealanders.

At the next AGM Jock was voted off for giving away too much. It is fair to say that no one else was prepared to do it let alone have the ability to do so. There were some high profile members of council, who were firmly sitting on the fence during these negotiations.

The loss of co-hosting rights for the 2003 RWC reflected the arrogant stands that the NZRU had made at the Conferences on the Game. The NZRU delegates on the IRB Board gave the NZRU hierarchy ample opportunity to understand the situation and the latitude Vernon Pugh was willing to give the NZRU. For him the last straw was the incorrect belittling of Vernon as a person by Murray McCaw on national television.

Just below the surface there is an arrogance in New Zealand Rugby. We hide behind false humility on occasions. At the top level we hide this very well. It emerges when we do the big OE, “overseas experience” when it suit Kiwis in a foreign land to assume a superiority based on the sole criteria of rugby. When these individuals get involved in rugby and see someone who knows they are a fiction coming around the corner they run for the hills or hold their ground and talk, talk, talk with ample name dropping.

 IRB At Weighbridge

My first contact with the IRB was at Weighbridge in Surrey when, in a panic, the eight IRB unions called a conference to invite all the FIRA unions into the fold. The RWC showed the potential to fund a world game and the recognition of FIRA, by Juan Antonio Samaranch and the IOC as the world rugby union, meant that the IRB had to act quickly. It must be realised however that, while FIRA had around 50 unions, and the IRB 8 the playing numbers were greatly in favour of the IRB, especially if France was included, being a member of both organisations.

Being in England for the first time even the result that emerged from the conference was diminished in importance by me going down to the local for a beer with a group of both Eastern and Western Europeans only to be sitting there watching TV and seeing the Berlin Wall falling. They were in tears it meant so much to them.

I have often wondered while I got to go here with Bob Stuart but I guess it was because I had developed a programme that could serve all nations in meeting their playing and coaching needs. I thought I was just filling a gap and providing a friendly face.

The surplus from the first three Rugby World Cup’s seem to be growing logarithmically as the event grew organically and still does. I had worked with Bob Stuart in putting together the operational support scheme married to an expanded NZRU coaching and development programme.

Serevi’s Philosophy from Franck Boivert

This is a philosophical interpretation of the famous Hong Kong Sevens try in 2007 in the semi final of the tournament versus New Zealand.

Viewing of the video clip: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=abY3U3hcQOU

We elaborated on this piece during a conference on leadership in the Pacific to illustrate the paper we presented about Waisale Serevi’s leadership style. The conference took place at the University of the South Pacific in Suva, Fiji: https://www.governance.usp.ac.fj/fileadmin/files/thematic/Leadership_Development/Case_Project/franck.pdf

Counter Attack
The video clip starts with a counter attack of the New Zealand team from inside their own 22 as Fiji is leading 15-12. A Fijian player, Mosese Volavola, on the attack had lost the ball forward and Tomasi Cama the playmaker for New Zealand recovers the ball and launches the counter attack.

In rugby a ball won on a turn over is a perfect situation for counterattacking. In this situation the team who just lost the ball is defensively unorganised as they are in an attacking pattern. Teams who recover a ball in such a situation want to take advantage of this momentary state of disorganisation in the defence by launching a counter attack that will exploit the open spaces in the disorganised defence.

This is exactly what New Zealand does and they run the ball on the near side of the field and almost the whole length until the Fijian player William Ryder inside the Fiji team own 22 metres finally catches one of their players.

Great Leaders Emerge in Chaotic, Desperate Situations

Historically and socially great leaders emerge in situation of chaos and desperation. It is in an environment where a group or a nation, seem to be in ultimate danger that the true leader will rise, come to the rescue, take charge and saves the group. This is exactly what Serevi will do in this situation. The situation at that point is desperate for the Fiji team, they cannot concede a try if not they lose the game; they are under tremendous pressure from New Zealand right inside their own 22 not far from their own goal line. Fiji needs a saviour and this is when Serevi appears and takes charge.

Just like General De Gaulle took the leadership of the French resistance to the Nazis in the “second world war” as France was invaded and its Army on the run; just like Churchill delivered his speech of “Blood Sweat and Tears” as Britain was under the direct threat of Nazi invasion and rallied his people.

History and sociology recognise the great leaders in times of crisis.

At The Right Place, At The Right Time

In order to emerge as a saviour, a leader, in a time of crisis or chaos, this person has to be at the right place, at the right time. De Gaulle was in London at the BBC to make his call to arms at the right time as France was diving into chaos under the Nazi’s invasion. Churchill was prime minister of Great Britain just as the war seemed to be lost.

It is exactly where Serevi will be in this desperate game situation, right time and right place. He is perfectly positioned right behind the Fiji player, Cakau, who recovered the ball; he is standing in an open space and will calmly call for the pass even though the pressure from the opposition and the crowd screaming of excitement is enormous.

Calm, Composed, Clearheaded

All great leaders don’t panic under pressure but analyse the situation calmly and take the appropriate action. Great people, champions and leaders, do not take reckless decisions that could endanger the group; they will take calculated risks and in order to do so, they must first analyse and quickly decide. This is what Serevi does at that point. His vision of the field helps him in adapting instantly to the situation and in making the right decision.

Attack

Two New Zealand defenders are coming at him, but they are not exactly on the same line as a good defensive line should be. Serevi has space on both side of the field and on his right side he has one player, Simione Saravanua, in support, but Saravanua is wide and under the threat of the second defender.

So here we are in a situation of a 2 versus 2, but with space available. This situation calls for a counterattack ball in hand; kicking is not a good option as there are players in the deep end of the field to cover a possible kick. Kicking for touch is not part of the equation, as it would give the ball back to New Zealand with little time on the clock. In the crowd we hear: “go wide” which means to pass the ball wide to the support. (See Video clip filmed by spectators in the stands: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=olaej5krE-g)

Instead Serevi runs towards the inside of defender 1 and as this defender follows his movement, Serevi will cut back outside with a devastating sidestep that will beat clearly defender 1. Serevi then straightens up as to take the gap and this motion attracts defender 2 towards his channel, another sharp sidestep will beat on the outside defender 2.

Take Charge

Serevi in just 2 quick steps and motions has turned the game around. From a desperate situation with his team on the back foot, now Fiji is going forward, Serevi is totally in charge, he is in control. “Follow me” now is the subliminal message to his teammates.

Step Out Of The Norm

Another defender approaches with a good defensive angle from the inside but Serevi still has the support of the player Saravanua who just had to follow him. We have now the academic situation of 2 versus 1 that all good coaches teach first to their players. And what all coaches teach is to simply fix the defender in order to pass the ball to the unmarked player. What all players will do, that is fix and pass to the unmarked player, Serevi will not do. Just like when he got the ball and the crowd was yelling “out wide” and he did not. This is the trademark of the geniuses. Geniuses do not follow principles or methods or plans or don’t do what is expected but adapt and create. In order to be a genius you have to go out of the mould, you cannot be just conventional.

So here we are with everyone expecting Serevi to pass the ball but he will not. Instead he will dummy the pass, the defender is fooled by the fake, jumps outside leaving his channel wide open for Serevi to run into.

Serevi is then out of the norm, of the conventional, surprises everyone and he gains at that point the status of greatness.

Not a Gamble

Let’s recall what we said earlier. Great people, leaders, do not take uncalculated risks, if Serevi fakes the pass to beat the defender it is because this defender in his run moved towards the outside shoulder of Serevi. An error that Serevi has detected and also provoked by running first to the outside then cutting back inside showing the ball all the way to distract the defender from Serevi footwork.

“And We Play”

In this action is shown the essence of what the game of rugby can be that is “play”. Just like two children play to have fun, Serevi brings the fun, the joy of playing to solve problems. It is the illustration that, “play” in the total “ludic” sense, is the most powerful mean of approaching an issue and find a creative solution to it.

But in order to enjoy the game to the point of having the solutions come up instantly, the player must have complete freedom.

Freedom

Just like the writer, the poet, the artist, who creates a chef d’oeuvre, Serevi has total freedom to create and it is this freedom that enables him to be a genius of the game. It is also that freedom to improvise that forces the admiration of all. All admire him at that point not only for his physical and technical prowess but because he is a free man. The quest for Freedom is the one for all ordinary human beings and when one sees a free man it enhances in all of us the liberation of our spirit trapped in our social condition. Our heroes are free men and as this fantastic rugby phase of play is developed by Serevi, he becomes our hero, the one who has achieved what we are all looking for that is this ultimate liberty described by Philosopher Kant in a bird being able to fly as high he likes.

Reserve and Availability

Fiji plays against a formidable opponent and the retreating defence of New Zealand performs and traps Serevi and then tackles the Fijian player (Simione Saravanua) Serevi had to pass the ball to after he drew one more defender. This tackled player then passes the ball from the ground to another support player. Meanwhile Serevi is still playing. He plays without the ball in hand. He is in reserve of the action and as his teammates are in action he looks at the best way to beat the excellent defence.

Instead of keeping his position after passing the ball, he is still available for the game. He repositions himself by running outside the last ball carrier in the open space.

When one analyses the performance of a player, you will tend to look at the player only ball in hand or close to the action. As the play develops, the greatest players will “play without the ball” and work on finding the best position to be in, next. The hero disappears from the action but it is to reappear soon and conclude the epic story. The others are in the action; meanwhile he is in reserve of the next move, works hard and intelligently prepares his return, he is always available.

Invulnerable

It is thanks to his unnoticed work that Serevi gets the ball again, this time he is totally open, he runs towards the goal line, his run seems unstoppable, he runs on water, the goal line is closer. There is one defender coming across to catch him but he beats him yet with another inside cut and an incredible poise that reinforces the impression of invulnerability. This last defender was desperate in his action, rushing to tackle him and looking so clumsy while Serevi was just gliding on the field, like an Albatross in the breeze leaving the common on the ground while he runs towards the glory of scoring.

 History and Greatness

The great don’t just create history; they have the exceptional ability to mark history with a symbolic gesture. This is what Serevi does next.

As he runs towards the middle of the goal posts Serevi has this instant of genius that will mark history. He is running straight, the face full of joy and happiness, his body relaxed and he carries the ball high with the tips of his fingers. This image stays in history and translates the brilliance of the moment and of the man.

This gesture is a gesture full of meaning for the people of Rugby and the people of Fiji. It symbolises the offering that Serevi makes to the Gods of rugby and its people. It is the ball that all of us dream to carry and cherish that he offers to all of us rugby lovers to see high and bright. It is the Holy Grail that he has won for us and brings back to us to admire and celebrate. Serevi knows at this instant that this could be his last try scored in the Hong Kong stadium the place where millions of fans have admired his rugby, and it is an “au revoir” that he means to give us in the most brilliant way. It is the conclusion not only of an absolute extraordinary play that will remain in all memories for eternity, but also the glorious end of a great rugby adventure. The gesture with his smile, wants to share his joy and his achievements with the public in the stadium all shouting and screaming of pleasure and accepting his offering.

This gesture is the Lion King presenting his son to his people on top of the mountain, it is De Gaulle with his arms extended way up to celebrate victory over the Nazis on the Paris balcony, it is Churchill with his V sign for victory, it is the GI’s raising the flag on top of Iwo Jima.

This is how greatness is achieved not only by accomplishing a feat but also by seizing the moment with an inspiration that will engrave that moment.

 

 

 

 

 

SUPPORT

 

Serevi has his apostles with him in support. Right next to him even though there is just he and the goal line now. If the teammates are still in support it is because Serevi has always demanded from them to be there even if he is way in the clear. One day Serevi shared with us: “do you know why I did not score that many tries on the Irb circuit? It is because I will often pass the ball to my support players to score instead of me, even when I am in the clear. This way I know they will still be in support the day I will need them.”

This “confidence” /secret was a prophecy as Serevi is showing the ball to the people of Rugby his team-mates in immediate support warn him of an arriving threat in the form of Tomasi Cama who tries to take advantage of Serevi relaxed moment to catch him up. He then wisely chooses to tuck the ball against his body for a dive in the end zone, the Promised Land.

 

 

 

 

JUDAH

 

In order to understand the next episode we must go back in 2001 when Tomasi Cama senior was the 7’s coach for Fiji. Even though Tomasi Cama was Waisale’s team-mate back in the early 90’s and scored that other memorable try for Fiji thanks to another incredible passage of play led by Serevi (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xU1o4U2jep4), Tomasi Cama would not select Serevi even though he was back then at the pinnacle of his career. It created enormous controversy in Fiji and many could not comprehend that Tomasi Cama the coach would not select Serevi in the Fiji team even though he was the best 7’s player in the world. Many saw that as a betrayal.

Tomasi Cama’s son plays for New Zealand and for some this is seen also as betraying his country of birth even though many admire his excellent play for New Zealand.

Given that background, with a father who would not select Serevi and playing for the enemy, Tomasi Cama jumps on Serevi on the ground way after he has landed after scoring. It is a blatant act of brutality that should warrant a yellow card. That act is to punish Serevi for his brilliance; it is to nail him on the ground like nailing him on the cross for being so holy. Who else can do that but a “Judah” and that moment is another extraordinary symbolic gesture of our poor human nature. It is the sign that us humans can be the carriers of pettiness and cruelty. This is when the apostles come to the rescue; Naevo and Vucago confront Cama but too late. Just like the Albatross in the Baudelaire poem, Serevi has been brought down to the mediocrity of human nature and his majesty while gliding in the sky turned into clumsiness when on the ground.

 

 

“Often, to amuse themselves the men of the crew 
Lay hold of the albatross, vast birds of the seas-
Who follow, sluggish companions of the voyage, 
The ship gliding on the bitter gulfs.

Hardly have they placed them on the planks, 
Than these kings of the azure, clumsy and shameful, 
Let, piteously, their great wings in white, 
Like oars, drag at their sides.

This winged traveler, how he is awkward and weak! 
He, lately so handsome, how comic he is and uncomely! 
Someone bothers his beak with a short pipe, 
Another imitates, limping, the ill thing that flew!

The poet resembles the prince of the clouds 
Who is friendly to the tempest and laughs at the bowman; 
Banished to ground in the midst of hootings, 
 His wings, those of a giant, hinder him from walking.”

Charles Baudelaire

 

 

It is with this poem that we will conclude our essay on philosophy with Serevi as it illustrates so well Serevi’s fate in his country. He is not a prophet in his country and too many driven by the mediocrity of their soul behave as the sailors in Baudelaire poem towards “the prince of the clouds”. Those who could not achieve the freedom we humans are ultimately seeking will not want to let the other enjoy it.

 

Franck Boivert

 

 

• «Previous Post
• Next Post »

---