ON
FACEBOOK this week, there was a
mischievous wee post from a paragon of the Scottish Rugby Union
Writers, playing dumb about how the PRO14 is organised, in respect of
the cross-conference games – such as Edinburgh v Glasgow.
The
poster, trying in vain to kid-on, since he's a Leither
he must be thick –
which he isn't, he's actually a very-sharp cookie – was suggesting
these games might confuse the casual fan. Ah hae ma doots about that,
the cross-conference concept is easy to explain and understand.
Such
games are a new concept in UK sport, but, have been a staple of North
American sport for decades, understanding how it works is easy. Also,
cross-conference games are not new to the UK. I can remember
cross-conference games in ice hockey some 20-years ago.
The
basis of such games is to pad-out a season. After all, what are the
alternatives?
If
the PRO14
was run like a football competition, the season would only be a
26-game one – each team playing the other 13 clubs home and away.
That would work for me. Of course, the modern game seems to demand a
cash-generating play-off tournament, involving at least the top four
sides. To me, these are cynical money-making exercises, I'm
old-school, if you're having leagues, the team which finishes top of
the table at the end of the campaign has to be the Champions.
Also,
a 26-game campaign is longer than the 22-match regular season
currently in-use, offering each team two more home games of gate and
sundry income.
This
assumes the PRO14
remains a 14-team competition. There are rumours of expansion, with
more South African teams coming in, to make it a PRO16
or PRO18.
If that happens,
then, further changes might be called for.
[That
said, if I were to suddenly be appointed CEO of European Rugby, with
the powers such a job properly deserved, I would instigate an
MLB/MLS/NBA/NFL/NHL-style pan-European league, in which the top
players played; leaving the various National Leagues below that to
develop players.]
But,
self-interest among clubs and Unions would make such a league all but
impossible to organise. So, it looks as if we will be stuck with the
current set-up, with some minor tinkering, for a few years to come.
Maybe,
by the time the real, necessary changes come in, the public will all
recognise how the current set-up works.
I
DO NOT have
a lot of time for The
Guardian's Robert Kitson,
but, he has produced an interesting wee piece this week, listing the
large number of players picked by Eddie
Jones, then
discarded after one or two games, and cast into outer darkness.
Among
the considerable number of names Kitson listed were those of: Ruaridh
McConnochie, Fraser Dingwall, Gary
Graham, Cameron Redpath, Zach Mercer and
Ben Vellacott. Graham
has already been capped by Scotland, Redpath surely will be during
the forthcoming Guinness
Six Nations, McConnachie
and Mercer we have lost to England, but, Dingwall and Vellacott could
still get to wear the thistle.
I
appreciate, there are several people in Scottish Rugby circles who
would rather we upped our game in developing young, Scottish-born and
raised talent. Nothing wrong with that. However, the fact is, we have
a smaller, shallower talent pool from which to pick uor national
side, and while I am not a fan of non-Scots “project
players,” I
see nothing wrong with fishing in the deeper waters of the Caledonian
Diaspora when
it comes to finding players for Scotland.
One
of the advantages Scotland has is, we may have fewer players from
which to choose, but, that means – provided we pick the right guys
- we have more chance of being able to nurture almost a “club”
feeling in the national squad.
The
problem with this is, there is the danger, and Scotland in the past
has fallen into this trap, of having to keep capping players who
maybe were not truly “international class,” but, because of lack
of options went on to win more caps than they might have with other
countries with a deeper talent pool.
Then
there is media interference, and here, thanks to the way the
mainstream media has side-lined rugby to be almost treated like a
“minority sport,” this is not so-much of a problem for Scotland.
Craig
Brown has
admitted, when he was Scotland football team manager, he occasionally
capped a player in the face of a concerted media campaign for that
player's inclusion in a Scotland squad, simply to prove to the media
– the guy wasn't Scotland-class to begin with. I don't see Gregor
Townsend ever
having to do that – but, I think Eddie
Jones has
done this in the past, and will do it again.
In
the course of Kitson's Guardian piece, he came up with this little
gem: “If
Jones, as he keeps saying, does not rate the Premiership as
preparation for Test rugby,”..... There
you have it, the England Coach, does not rate the league which his
national rugby press corps keeps insisting is: “The
Best League in the World.” What
can we make of this?
Of
course The
Gallagher Premiership is
over-rated, every top English league, in whatever sport, is
over-rated – it goes with being English. Of course, their media
will never believe this, they will go on pushing their Tina Turner
rubbish to a gullible public.
In
football,
England's record in the top two tournaments – the World
Cup and
the
European Champioships is
a
stunning 3% - 1 win from 33 tournaments. In rugby, it's better, 11% -
1 win in 9 tournaments and in terms of Cricket
World Cups,
it's 8% - 1 win in 12 tournaments (and that win was definitely
pauchled).
Thus,
at the highest level, in the three world-wide sports largely
originating in and being first organised in England – the home
country's success rate is 5.5% - 3 wins from 54 attempts. That
compares badly to the records of Australia,
20%
–
7 wins from 35 tournaments; New
Zealand, 9%
- 3 wins from 34 tournaments; and South
Africa, 12.5%
- 3 wins from 24 tournaments. (I cannot count France,
who
don't play international cricket.)
So,
England are not as-good as they like to think they are. But, then
again, we Scots have been trying to tell them that for almost 150
years.
Back
in the amateur era, playing careers at the top end tended to be
shorter. When I first went to a live Murrayfield international,
Scotland's record caps holder was the great (Lord) John M
Bannerman. (He was also virtually Mr Scottish Rugby at the time).
Bannerman
won 37 caps, between 1921 and 1929. Back then, there were perhaps
five internationals per season and, with the need to earn a living,
most players could only give maybe five seasons of the commitment
necessary to play at the very top end of the game, before career and
family considerations forced them to step down and only play club
rugby.
Then
there were some strange SRU edicts. Bannerman, for instance, declared
that Anglo-Scots forwards could only be considered for Scotland if
they played for London Scottish.
British
Lion Ernie Michie, for instance, could not be picked for
Scotland while an integral part of a very-good Leicester pack,
but, when his work saw him move to the Borders, and join Langholm,
he was back in the Scotland team – while playing in a weaker
club team than he had been down south. Then, there were an awful lot
of players in the immediate post-war period who were capped on the
basis of a good performance in the Oxford v Cambridge Varsity
Match, who vanished into the City of London after their first cap
and a season in the London Scottish XV.
Today,
with professionalism, careers last longer, there isn't the same
turn-over of capped players, so, to stay at the top level, requires
hard work – both to get there and to stay there.
In
the amateur era, England, like Scotland, had a massive turn-over in
players – again a Varsity Match Blue, a cap, a move to Harlequins,
two or three years at the top, then off to be “something in the
city” was a common career trajectory. Also, the ups and down of the
County Championship and selectoral bias was in play.
For
instance in the 1950s – the Calcutta Cup matches between
1950 and 1959, Scotland used 83 different players in that single
annual fixture. Of these only four players: Hughie McLeod (6
matches), Grant Weatherstone, Hamish Kemp and Adam Robson (5
games each), played in half of the fixtures.
England
used 79 players in the same ten fixtures, with only Jeff
Butterfield (6 games) and Eric Evans (5 games).
In
the early part of that decade, perhaps because selection was slewed
by performances in the Inter-District Championship up here and the
County Championship down south, you had players from some fairly
small clubs winning caps.
Today,
if a player is not playing regularly in either the Gallagher
Premiership, the top 14 in France or the PRO14, he's not getting
capped. Back in the amateur era, with some 20 counties involved in
the County Championship, the selectors could spread their net wider.
However, you had to be an outstanding talent to get picked from one
of the lesser counties; so, in reality, it has always been a case of
the England team coming from around a dozen teams. Thus, selectors'
whims came into play.
Today,
Jones might still be selecting his squad from a dozen clubs, but,
they are all of a more-similar standard, so, he still has to make the
hard choices, and, some guys might fail their audition and find, he
has no way back.
That's
the thing with selection, it is not an exact science and, at the end
of the day, it comes down to one man's – the national team coach's
– opinion; and we are then free to agree or disagree with that.
Not
that it matters to us. He's being paid the big bucks to make the big
decisions, and, if he gets these wrong, someone else will get their
chance to pick their choices for the national side.
It
really is a case of: “plus
ça change, plus c'est la même chose."