I know anecdotes do not necessarily mean that all similar behavior does conform to the anecdote in all respects – one size doesn’t fit all – but when the key variables are held in common you can be sure that there are generalization that can be made with some certainty.

It is with this in mind that I want to take a look at the state of New Zealand Rugby in its entirety based on anecdotal evidence.

THE AMATEUR GAME

At my local club over 500 pre-teenage players loyally turn up to Saturday morning schoolboy rugby as well as being available for practices during the week.

Compared to my day, half a century ago, parents of both genders are there in large numbers encouraging, but not always keeping their perspective, as the media has reported lately.

A further factor is, on the off chance the player will “make it”; the professional game, which may provide a lucrative livelihood bringing out the entrepreneurial instinct of the parents.

Coaches are available but the demand is such that you can’t be scrupulous about coach training. An enthusiastic, warm blooded, committed Dad may be the best you can expect.

What happens in many cases is that this “coach” follows his son through the grades picking up some expertise on the way with little training apart from the player insurance driven “Smart Rugby” or is it “Rugby Smart”, programme made mandatory, and for good reason, by the NZRU.

I was asked to do a bit of training of these coaches 2 years ago. All was fine until I threatened their conventional rugby wisdom. After all they had coached at under 6 to under 12 levels over the last 5-6 years. The most disconcerting reaction was for the “Director of Coaching” of the whole enterprise to declare that their “rep” coaches were highly experiences and weren’t about to listen to me.

The club had invited me.

Be it not for me to impose myself.

Just a point of clarification.

The numbers were so large that the club had more than one team in each age group so a “rep” season was developed in which the best players in an age group were put together for this part of the season. Presumably other clubs did the same.

To their credit, against resistance from some father coaches, the club spread the talent across all teams for the non-rep season.

Switching to the old “Q and A” like a good inquiry based teacher it became obvious that this was not the case. Worse still Q and A exposed a high degree of vulnerability in the coaches and, as I have found all too often in my mentoring career, I was a threat.

The over-riding philosophy was we are New Zealanders, New Zealand is rugby world champions and by osmosis all New Zealand “coaches” at all levels know how to coach rugby.

A bit like the way Kiwi ex-pats seek rugby status over there only to become unavailable when enquiries are made about their rugby background back home.

The coaches’ attitude at this level of play creates concerns from two points of view.

Firstly, this is the level at which habits are formed. These habits have to be sound so that time is not spent re-educating the players later in their careers.

Secondly this closed mind approach is detrimental to the development of these players. Once again out of insecurity the coaches lay down how the players will play and the players conform to it.

A further point is that rugby coaching is thought to be, by this group, something you don’t require. But a neglect of training for someone in their own occupation they would find peculiar. In this group there were some teachers and others who ran private job training institutes.

Isn’t it interesting that, in most aspects of life, you become humble in the validity of your opinion the more you know? As many have said, the more you know the more you realize you don’t know.

This applies very much to the coaches of the All Blacks, the Super 15 teams and other high performance teams I have had acquaintance with over the years. Indeed it could well be the primary reason for success.

 

Lets now go forward to the post secondary school situation. In the union in which I live they have been unable to have both an under 21 competition and an under 19 competition and have settled for one. As a result one would assume, because of the size difference, we have a deterrent to 17-18 year olds, having to play against and with 20 year olds, depending on their birthday.

This depending on the birthday has a further implication. All things being equal those closest to the cut of date will be the more mature and they will dominate any merit based selection.

In some countries they alter the cut off date annually to prevent this from happening .It is particularly important when it comes to leadership.

This means that throughout the secondary school experience there has been an alarming drop off in players. This erosion of players continues into the adult grades with only the “80/80” and Golden Oldie grades having no problem with numbers.

In some clubs the premiers are in trouble. In one anecdote last year a respected club had to default the game and a “friendly” was played with the opposition giving the club its reserves to make up a team.

It can be generally stated that the main role of the second team coach is to get 15 players to the venue on time each Saturday. The numbers attending practices are often less than this compromising any semblance of game preparation.

This also means that the clubs are recruiting from a limited reservoir of talent. If a club conducts a recruiting drive they are creating a precarious existence for the others.

Does the market rule?

The drop off in numbers also means that players from the U20’s, the 80/80’s and the Golden Oldies are now having to be persuaded to play for the second team, the premier team having taken the more reliable with some talent. They may be needed for the premier team.

Can we say that so long as this is happening as a general rule in all clubs then all are in the same boat so where is the problem?

I guess it is how you regard club rugby. Is it a breeding ground for future talent, at least in the inter-provincial competition? If this is the case it is not serving its purpose because of the dilution of talent.

I do recognize that those with inter-provincial aspirations, and beyond, are motivated to do their own thing before and after work or between lectures.

Is it a mixture of amateur and social? If this is the case there is a loss of purpose from my point of view.

The reasons for the drop off in players are many and complex and some are beyond the rugby environment. Amongst these are weekend work, shift work, study, the appeal of individual sports that can be done at any time and a social life not to mention the popularity of computer games.

As far as a social life is concerned there is a tendency to try and accommodate this within the club by having a couple of beers after practice along with a game of darts or pool. It would seem that rugby is becoming one part of the club’s raison d’etre and not the primary reason for the club’s existence.

There are reasons for this erosion of players that the game has some control over.

One solution is the age grade competition the NZRU has put into place at inter-provincial level for players in the under 19 grade throughout the country. Given the grade rugby situation I explained above one would assume that if a union does not have an under 19 grade they will be able to select from the age grade they have, players who meet the age criteria.

It doesn’t need to be explained in detail as we all know but the early physical maturation of Pacific Island players creates unequal competition and the puny Pakeha’s can’t hack the pace and tend to move to other sports and pastimes.

Pakeha’s who stay in the game survive and sometimes excel through the development of skill and game sense equipping them for future success so long as the physicality of the game doesn’t lead to injury or disappointment in not being selected because of a lack of size.

A trend, based on the success of the New Zealand cricket team, the Black Caps, as well as hockey, football and basketball, is for the all round athlete to play other sports. In crickets case this can lead to a long career and a more than comparable financial return.

The consequences of this for the PI players in rugby is they gain merit based selection by being physical and we should not under-estimate the pressure from the family who see the player as a source of future income.

Because of the numbers coming through those who make it to Super rugby and to the All Blacks are those who combine their early physical superiority with skills and decision-making. Be it not for me to use any other selection criteria other than merit selection.

But there are casualties.

A further reason is that, in the Pacific Islands, at least in the immediate past, births were not registered until they could be sure the child was going to survive. Registrations could be a year later. This may be the case with players brought to New Zealand to play rugby but is less likely to be the case of those born in New Zealand.

The worst of these are those who are recruited from the Pacific Islands and perform for their “rugby” secondary school in both rugby and athletics from an early age. The school environment is highly professional in the facilities that are provided, training programmes; rugby perks and, in most cases, sound coaching.

What has been left out is academic achievement. This may be beyond the school’s resources as the student may not be interested in spite of the best attempts of the school. Then again it may be easily neglected and put in the too hard basket.

This may not be the case throughout New Zealand but, over the years, the proportion of PI players in the predominantly Pakeha parts of New Zealand, especially if they are playing for schools with a hostel, has grown greatly.

It impacts most when All Star teams are picked at provincial, regional and national level and the choice in selection is from a much greater pool of players.

One can praise the players optimism and confidence in thinking he will receive a contract upon leaving school. If he does, no problem. But if he doesn’t, and he was initially recruited from the Pacific Islands, the only alternative is to return home.

The rugby conditions back home will be inferior to what he has grown accustomed to and his lack of academic qualifications make it unlikely he will receive a job in a country in which unemployment is high.

The solution is, of course, to prepare for life after rugby but this seems a long way off. Even the career managers of Super 15 teams have trouble convincing some of their players to prepare in this way.

In addition those who do achieve do become a source of income for the extended family. Unlike the Pakeha’s putting money away for the future is regarded as selfish. It is OK if the players following have them have the same community spirit. This is difficult when those close to you are salting it away for that rainy day.

There is a clash of cultures in this respect as there is in which, one the one hand your opinion is as good as the strength of your argument while on the other the strength is based on your age and status within the society.

Clubs and heartland provinces, the amateur side of the game, are solving the problem by providing both cash and kind to the players. And increasingly this is helping PI players to find a career in the game which can be a launching pad for higher levels.

I also feel that they feel more at home in small town New Zealand. Even the difference between Auckland and Dunedin seems to have made a difference to some players which has been to the detriment of the Blues.

Paying for players at this level often rankles with the older players who may have made a stand in the past, that

“So long as I am a member of this club/ province there will be no payment to players.”

For some clubs their long held status in the club has been eroded by this stand because the reality of the situation has been slow to sink in.

My old club infrequently holds reunions but they are held. These don’t take place in Dunedin as all have moved on and, when they assemble they are generally in top, well paid positions.

At one of these it became apparent that many were prepared to put their hand in their pocket to fund recruitment.

The comment above emanated from the mouth of the club Chairman and nothing was done.

On reflection I regretted not going to the podium to explain the reality of the situation. I feel I had enough “mana” to make it count.

The consequences of this struck me when I visited my old club in south Dunedin, the one I played for not coached, last week and spoke to the team after practice.

Compared to the team I played in a long time ago they were bigger, fitter, more physical and 14 of the squad were from out of town. Subsidizing the costs of tertiary education, now a commodity to be sold and not a right for the small proportion that got UE, is an obvious way of recruiting talent.

Meeting the needs of students, given the cost of education, is the most obvious way to recruit talent at club level.

A guide to the growing disparity between premier club teams in our urban unions can be gained by looking at the scores each weekend.

The competition divides itself into two groups, those who have their finger on recruitment and those who don’t. The scores reflect this.

The world is such that, in a professional environment the game is not being played for its own sake or to enhance a feeling of belonging to your roots. The carrot, the reason for the intense preparation for no immediate reward, is a professional contract and the return this will provide for the players. And we all know that if All Black selection is unlikely, a couple of season of Super 15 or ITM Cup rugby would make the next step a lucrative contract overseas of which there seem to be many.

THE PROFESSIONAL GAME

When the game went professional I naively thought that there would be trickle down funding, something that is no less likely in rugby as it is in life generally.

The professional game raises money for the professional game and funding at other levels of the game seems to be as little as the amateur game will put up with. A bit like the dividend paid to shareholders. In other words it is looked on as a cost and not an investment since early, merit selection silos away from club rugby, much of the talent the professional game needs to ensure its future.

Equally the amateur game’s ability to raise money is effected by professional players never playing for the club they are nominally members of. So the traditional punter cannot wonder along to see a sprinkling of All Blacks playing with the club players and rubbing shoulders with them in the club rooms afterwards.

Implied in this is the programme for the professional game having more and more games. This has to be the demands of the TV network that own the competition and the small viewing population in New Zealand in which more games make up for the numbers viewing. This is further accentuated by the numbers attending the games and aggravated by the first class television coverage.

I have often said that more is not better and used the National Football League in the USA to justify my view. But we are talking about a country of 215 million and games, all games, are sold out seasons ahead.

So we have a siphon economy in rugby in which the discretionary wealth of the population is being siphoned off to the professional game, from those who, previously, would spend on the amateur game.

The professional game does enable the community to get involved but in a different way than has been the case in the past. Those with the wherewithal can fund the team in order to be invited to events, to rub shoulders with the players and coaches to put their views and chew the fat.

Based on the ability to provide patronage to the professional game they gain a sense of superiority, of being in the “in” group. Their wives, yes even their wives, can obtain reflected glory by telling the girls in the walking group how they were at a table with so-and-so and so-and-so and they said this and that. In other words the theatregoers are in the ascendancy.

Ticket prices put the audience at the RWC in this category.

Old buggers like me have trouble with this, as we like to talk rugby, to thrash things out.

These situations are fundamentally different at a cost.

To continue the analogy between the two parts of the game, between the amateur game and the professional game there is a hollow frontier with numbers seeming to be declining in adult, amateur rugby to a critical level.

Will this lead to rugby clubs becoming cosmopolitan clubs with a rugby section in much the same way as league clubs in Australia.

Do we have the population to do this? And if we want to duplicate this model how many rugby clubs will cease to exist to get the threshold population to establish clubs of this sought?

WHAT CAN BE DONE?

The query depends on how you define the success or otherwise of the game. You may use money as your criteria. I am told that New Zealand, England and Hong Kong are the only rugby unions in the black.

If this is the case as JJ Stewart said at a NZRU Council meeting:

“If money is your goal knock down the down town stadiums and grounds, replace them with rental accommodation and you will make money, plenty of it, but no rugby.”

I also remember the last CEO of the IRB saying:

“It’s all about money.”

If you base success on playing numbers, especially those after secondary school and on to the adult grades, something needs to be done. But because the bottom line of the finances is fine there is bound to be reluctance to do this.

What could be done?

Let’s be extreme on the grounds that it will stimulate opposition and arrive at something more rational.

Could the game be divided into a hierarchy of seasons so that you start with club rugby, go to provincial rugby, Super rugby and international rugby? We almost play 12 months of the year now and, if players need a break they can find time within the overall structure to do this. In my experience of club rugby the needs of your senior team are less important than a couple of weeks surfing in Hawaii or a cruise or, would you believe, getting married and having a honeymoon during the rugby season.

Players would be available to play at all levels. Club and provincial players would get the benefit of “rub off” that we used to get playing with All Blacks. In addition these players would learn a degree of tolerance, as they have to increase their own workload to cover for the less able.

In addition we may keep slower maturing players in the game and ensure early maturers develop their skills and game sense.

The momentum would build as the year progressed and, if we use the calendar year club rugby would be played late summer and spring.

This brings to mind another trend in the club game. Players are often available for some but not all of the season. They have other priorities such as travel, going surfing, job commitments and so on. Such a structure might accommodate these other demands.

There are 52 weeks in the year. Try club rugby 12 weeks, provincial 12 weeks, Super rugby 12 weeks and international rugby 10 weeks – with judicious resting of players throughout the season.

Maybe a 12-week window, or even less, is all the more transient playing population want.

But maybe the world has changed so much there is no way back and we are faced with assumed “onward and upward” under the present circumstances.

Or has my gallows opinion just produced the worse case scenario and, after all, we are winning so what’s the problem sunshine?

• «Previous Post
• Next Post »

---