THIS
being an inclusive blog, I welcome all-comers to comment and: the
more the merrier, so, I feel slightly, but only slightly, upset at
having to take umbrage with a new btl poster.
Watsonians win at Melrose the end of a great occasion (picture by fotosport/David Gibson)
Using
the pen name “drchuck” this new recruit to the ranks of
commenters, wasn't happy with yesterday's critique on Sevens. He/She
wrote:
“To
quote the late great Jimmy Sanderson "were you at the game"?.
I was and it was a brilliant spectacle - your posts increasingly seem
to focus on attractive lassies and other misogynistic remarks instead
of dissecting more important matters.
There
was a deliberate plan by the organisers this year to take the 7s back
to a more "traditional" club-based approach with less
stellar (for want of a better word) teams - something I'd thought
you'd have approved of given your antipathy toward Super6, oh sorry,
should that be Stupid 6?
Allied to this was the hopeful intention of Melrose getting a 3/4G pitch and perhaps centring itself again as the true home of 7s which could include a women's 7 tourney, elite competition and club and youth trophies - again something I'd thought you'd have approved of were it not for the fact that it'll probably arise as a result of Melrose's successful Super 6 application.
Maybe you need to take and break and try and work out exactly what YOUR agenda is?”
Let's take it point by point.
- No, I wasn't there, I accept, Melrose Sevens is perceived as a special day. All I said was, the Sevens we saw on television from the Gold Coast, was of a consistently higher standard than what we saw from the Greenyards. This is not a criticism of Melrose, merely a statement of fact.
- “Misogynist remarks instead of dissecting more-important issues.” The most-important issue facing Scottish Rugby today is Stupid 6 and Agenda 3. I believe I have written more on these crucial subjects than anyone else, therefore, that complaint is pure “mince”.
- On the face of it, taking Sevens back to a more-traditional club-based approach, I certainly approve of. However, in doing this, Melrose are discarding one of their tournament's two USPs (Unique Selling Points). These are: 1. Its place as THE original Sevens tournament; and 2. The tradition of inviting star-studded guest sides.
- I will deal with the points regarding the ground improvements and the future direction of the tournament below.
- I know exactly what my agenda is. I want Scotland to be winning tournaments like the 6Nations and the World Cup; I want to see Edinburgh and Glasgow winning in Europe and the PRO14 and I want Scottish Rugby to be in better health and producing better, more-talented players. BUT, I do not see Stupid 6 and Agenda 3 as likely to bring this about.
Sorry 'drchuck', but, your post
seemed to me to have an element of “Ayebeenism” about it.
To look at future developments. I
welcome Melrose's ambitious plans to upgrade The Greenyards, install
a 3/4G pitch etc. and make their “sports” even-more special.
However, there is a big circle to be squared here. The presence of
the star-studded guest sides, as I said, is one of the tournament's
two USPs. This is one of the factors which brings-in live television
coverage and big-money sponsorship.
Do you honestly think BBC Scotland,
who have singularly failed to mention Melrose's terrific achievement
in winning the BT Premiership this season, who never mentioned their
annexation of the Charity Shield at the start of the season and who
don't give a toss about the "warm-up games" on “Silver Saturday”,
incluing the BT Scottish Cup Final, which involves Melrose - but just might mention the 1872 Cup decider, will continue to support
the Sevens if the glamour sides are not there? Ah hae ma doots aboot
that.
Interest in Sevens tournaments is declining
Interest in Sevens has been
declining, at least since Rugby Union went Open. The Kings of the
Sevens initiative has not reversed this decline in interest. The Gala
tournament recently passed with the minimum of media interest.
Hawick, to their credit is trying something new, with their Festival
of Rugby alongside their “sports”, but, it will take something
very special to retain Melrose's status.
Everyone expects Melrose to get the
Borders Stupid 6 franchise. OK, some of the plans which have been
announced as part of their “Legacy” initiative will be handy in
guaranteeing the franchise. But, we are speaking big money here. The
“ball-park figure for a 3/4G pitch and floodlights is somewhere
north of £750,000. Can they be sure of being allowed to build the
stands they will need on the side of the park opposite the current
stand? These big developments have to be financed and managed by a
club in a village of under 2000 inhabitants.
Certainly, a star-studded
tournament, with big-money sponsorship and live television exposure
will make this funding easier to obtain and manage. As I said above,
remove this USP and will it still be possible to fund Melrose's
ambitions?
Then there is the point, the SRU
seems to be placing a barrier between the Stupid 6 sides and the rest
of club rugby. The ordinary “amateur” club sides will, we hear, be
unable to play against the semi-professionals of the Stupid 6 clubs.
This would probably roll-over into the Sevens; bad enough to no
longer have the glamour guest sides, but, far worse if Gala, Hawick,
Jed-forest, Kelso and Selkirk are prohibited from playing against
Melrose and the other five, while the city sides are also no longer
allowed to play. That would put the event's entire existence in
jeopardy.
Stupid 6 is a sticking plaster, not radical surgery
As I have said before, it seems to
me in pushing Stupid 6, the SRU is attempting to persuade a small
group of clubs to purchase and apply a sticking plaster to solve an
SRU problem – their failure to properly fund their own ambitions.
The six clubs are being asked to take-on an elite player development
role, while at the same time running a “normal” club, and getting
that club to the new SRU Gold Standard in what they offer members.
And, the SRU are being distinctly miserly in the amount of financial
assistance they are providing for these six clubs – and for the
lesser clubs aiming for Silver and Bronze, far less Gold standard.
Let's put it this way, Melrose has
half the population of Auchinleck; perhaps their per-head of
population income is greater than in Affleck, but, you wouldn't catch
Auchinleck Talbot trying to, at the same time, run a tournament as
prestigious as Melrose Sevens, while upgrading their ground and
funding an elite player development scheme – as much to help-out
the SFA as improve themselves.
One thing is for sure If Melrose stop winning and start a losing run like Hawick did, would the support fallaway like it does in most sports when the home team keeps losing. All that money spent will turn out to be a big white Elephant.
ReplyDeleteWell done Marr at Melrose for exposing the myth that sevens is specialist. Where is their sevens tradition? Why, also, do we parachute big(ish) names with limited experience into CG squads if it is so specialist. It is largely about fast runners on a full size pitch,
ReplyDeleteMatt, I have to disagree with some of your thoughts on the Melrose 7s. I think you are comparing Apples with Pears. I'd make a similar argument about the BT Premiership and the PRO14. The standard is lower, but of course it is. A statement of the bleeding obvious I would say. For me, it in no way makes the Melrose 7s inferior as an event to any other 7s tournament.
ReplyDeleteI do agree that the poor quality of the guest sides perhaps detracted from the tournament somewhat this year. I think it's a good thing that there were no Pro sides steamrolling the competition but the tournament lacked a Stellenbosch Uni or an NZ Club side or similar. A team with flair and some unknown stars to excite the supporters. Poland were woeful and the US Tigers were industrious but not the X Factor type side that the tournament needed. But, as a spectacle, it was once again a fantastic day of rugby enjoyed by all.
As for Melrose's facility plans. I guess they are a necessary development and will no doubt provide improved spectator and hospitality facilities and of course a 3G pitch which. My only concern, and I'll admit it may be a personal concern only, is that I worry that the development will lose some of the shine and allure of this historic event. I've heard the Greenyards, the 'home of 7s' being compared to St. Andrews as the 'home of Golf'. One of the great attractions to such a venue is the historic significance of playing on the same course/pitch as legends past and where so much history has been made. I do worry that the sanitised new facility, for all it's merits, will affect the Melrose 7s main USP - it's authenticity.
adco (and others) I appreciate, I am comparing apples to pears in some ways. I tried very hard not to denigrate Melrose, which I accept, is still a special tournament. But, if the 2018 trend continues, it will cease to be special, and I don't have the silver bullet to prevent this.
DeleteTo use your golf analogy, comparing Melrose with the CG Sevens, or a HSBC World Rugby tournament is a wee bit like comparing the Scottish Amateur Golf Championship, even if played over the Old Course at St Andrews, with the Open Championship.
Maybe we should stop sellng Melrose as somehow special, but, as something different. But, it's a hard circle to square.
Maybe, not yet in the UK or in the traditional rugby-playing countries, but, in the non-rugby-playing rest of the world, Sevens, with its Olympic Games profile, will become the means to attract new supporters. In which case, Melrose can be saved.
Tip to Melrose, how about trying to get Clark Laidlaw to bring a NZ development seven across next year, that might bring back the X factor.
My point about the old course at St Andrews was merely a reference to the authenticity of playing golf at 'the home of golf'. If you modernised it by knocking down the old club house and building a a new modern structure in it's place, and then dug up the 18th green and landscaped it into something new, the old course, for all it might gain in better facilities, it would lose something intangible wouldn't it?
ReplyDeleteI think the same could be said for the greenyards but on not as grand a scale. A Melrose 7s on a plastic pitch with modern grandstand replacing the old Club house etc will 'feel' like a brand new event.
i felt yesterdays comments were a bit of playing the man before the ball. I struggled to see with the misogyny comment came from.
ReplyDeleteYou do raise an interesting point (granted that there are some apples and pears comparisons). In the new world the Super 6 clubs will need there own 7s tournaments as they wont be able to play in the club competitions - unless of course that cant play clause is only about 15s? And even if it does only apply to 15s, will Melrose 2020 have the super 6 sides then the amateur teams from other clubs?