I RECENTLY blogged on a Guardian 'The Breakdown' article, which highlighted the fall-off in player numbers in England. It goes without saying, if things are bad down there, they might well be even worse up here. Any way, that Guardian article, plus my take on it, got a few people worked up, and without naming names, here are a few of the comments I have seen, based around these figures.
Here are a selection of the comments. I have kept the posts anonymous, although one of the posters is a very-weel-kent former Scotland legend, while several of the others are long-serving club stalwarts.
1. “This is the depressing situation of English rugby ( and behind it I believe ALL club rugby) - according to the SRU 2019-20 annua1l report Scotland had 13,413 adult male players and 19,300 youth players registered with another 4,069 non registered players - who knows what the figures will be now with the saga of so many matches cancelled this season because of lack of playing numbers .
These are the facts that World Rugby and all the national unions are unwilling to face up to All over the rugby world mini rugby is booming but without strict Law adherence/changes we cannot keep players in the game as it is becoming increasingly unsafe and unattractive.”
Some excellent points there. I agree, World Rugby is asleep at the wheel, and the game faces really-serious health and safety issues going forward, which, at the moment, neither the world governing body, nor the individual unions appear to be addressing.
2. “I understand the chaos caused by Covid - but not only for rugby, and it will become endemic in the near future!!
If all is so dire other than that, how can Heriots Rugby Club report increasing demand leading to them fielding 3 Blues teams, in addition to the Super 6 squad? Plus a successful women's and junior playing programme? Surely, we are not the only club in Scotland (or the UK?) to be surviving the current crisis successfully, and laying a platform for the future!! (maybe good management and leadership has something to do with it!!) How about some more success stories to light up the gloom?
Of course, there will be radical changes in the set up of rugby across the world, as in everything else. I have personal experience of what has been happening in the US!!
I do not believe for an instant in any possibility of an NFL clone movement anywhere!!. I really feel that some of the doom mongers seriously underestimate the power of our game - at all levels, ages and nationalities. Rugby has been an important part of my life for 70 years now, including working with relative newcomers. We know that those who play our game develop a bond, unique in sport.
So let's work to strengthen the weaknesses (finance, laws, organization) but maintain the deep attraction of the game in which we all believe!!”
I can agree with the last paragraph there, but, the rest, too-much an air of We're all right at Goldenacre about it – because you're not. There are other clubs managing the modern game well, Marr being a good example. Maybe the Rugby Development Department should be using the example of the successful and thriving clubs to encourage the strugglers to adapt and thrive.
3. “The evidence is in the results pages of the SR website. I’m delighted that Heriots are getting three teams out. Excuse my French - but the effin well should! A ready made school system and one of the top clubs in Scotland based in Edinburgh with already made draw on possible players
I’ve seen recent data from the Rugby Development department on player numbers required to get teams out. So far this season Prem teams have used 40 players (39.3 to be exact). Between 37-38 players for the national leagues and approx 40+ for regionals
In effect that’s 80 players to get out 2 teams! That is a completely unsustainable position.
To illustrate this point we were exchanging messages in the rugby agitators group. One mentioned the the concerns expressed at East region on player numbers. The response from one of my Prem colleagues and I paraphrase - not really bothered as it doesn’t affect us! I may be being unkind but that was my take.
This gets back to our discussions and Aristotle's articles on the laws. It’s not purely a player numbers game. It’s how attractive is the game to play. I watched Broughton v Haddington yesterday. Not a great game but pretty typical regional rugby. Ref a bit off and lots of player errors. But still let’s smash the ball up. With whole team spread across the park so when the inevitable missed tackle came they raced up the park and scored. Not particularly enjoyable to watch tbh.
Saving Rugby Union has a point!”
It would appear the modern player increasingly wants to pick and choose his games. We need to find a means of getting back to guys wanting to play EVERY week, whether home or away.
I think we need to look at the issue of replacements, having a full bench might work in the performance game, it appears counter-productive at the grass-roots.
Then there is the enjoyment factor, if guys are not enjoying their Saturday run-around, they will find something else to do. We need to put the fun back into fun rugby.
4. “Numbers have decreased alarmingly over the last 15 years, I totally agree. Games off, biggest issue is travel. I did the statistics myself over 6 years and sat down with the reserve league representatives of both East and West reserve rugby who chose to ignore my findings.
As I said there are green shoots of growth and our game can be attractive but we have to make fundamental changes to our game which is in the hands of the clubs. Less travel, shorter season, less subs, clubs learn to trust each other, clubs run their leagues, an understanding what youth rugby is about….. not winning but participation. I could go on but I’m tired of the subject as I have been going on about this long before Aristotle ( rugby) was even invented.
The worst area for change is the Borders, our hotbed of rugby!! All the clubs are struggling for numbers yet they continue to vote for National rugby ( involves travel), support 12 team leagues, have a 10 team King of the 7’s going into the summer ( making changes now!!).
Club rugby must move with the times yet the majority of the clubs won’t because of self interest and their beloved league system which is not fit for purpose. For your interest National 1 which is the league our Blues 1sts are in is still a 12 team league, 22 fixtures, we are already playing a full round of fixtures during Easter weekend 16th and there will be more cancellations meaning games going on to the end of April……. the clubs want 12 team league because they are scared of being in Nat 2. Hardly a way to encourage players, officials, volunteers etc into the game.”
Some good points there, I think particularly the club status thing. Some clubs have this sense of entitlement – because they've been playing since eithteen-canteen they should be considered a “big” club and accorded special treatment – when actually, they are, and for some time have been, rather average.
I feel we have too-many “National” Leagues which are of a poor standard. I would go quickly to Super10, but, below that, any leagues would be regional. Ideally, three full-time teams playing in the URC, ten semi-pro teams, with an element of cross-border games built-in, that should be our performance game.
Below that level, regionalised club competition, with a national cup competition.
5. "I was having a similar chat with Colin Rigby on Saturday. He’s not a fan of more regional rugby and I agree with him.
I believe there are too many national leagues. And 12 team leagues are a problem because of the number of games.
I have to say, it’s not because clubs are worried about being relegated. It’s to have 11 home games.
As always we get sucked into looking at things from our own perspective without looking at the whole.
For arguments sake, let’s get rid of Nat 3 and have 10 team leagues. So that’s Prem as is, top 10 from Nat 1 - as it stands Watsons and Boroughmuir go down. Top 8 from Nat 2 plus W & B.
Glasgow Accies, Kirkcaldy, Gordonians and Whitecraigs into regions.
But we would need three up three down into Nat 2. So Nat 2 would have 40% change year on year.
And how would regional clubs bridge the gap from regional rugby to National rugby. And don’t get me started on Caley 1!!!!
Another issue is we reinforce the super hoovers - like Heriots who would have Super 6, Nat 1/prem and wherever their reserve side chose to play (there is some talk of allowing 2nds to play in 1st leagues in East and West. This is a bad idea speaking from experience in Midlands)
The season structure group are likely to propose the same structure they came up with a couple of years ago. That’s 10 team leagues and several Nat 3 clubs dropping out into regional rugby.
Each action has an equal and opposite reaction. It’s too easy to say more regional rugby will solve our problem. We haven’t articulated what the problem statement is.
As an aside, some Edinburgh clubs won’t travel the length of ferry road. Colin said that their 3rds wanted fixtures with Heriots, Watsons and Accies. Max 8 games a season.
What seems simple is actually simplistic."
That final paragraph is probably the best one in this whole piece.
We have too-many National Leagues, that seems pretty clear. We do need change, but, let's get the bigger Governance issues sorted first; then draw breath and have a calm think about where we are going.
What is clear, doing nothing and carrying-on as we are, neither is the right option.
No comments:
Post a Comment