By PerryGo
December 4 2002

So what did you make of Saturday? Mark Reason’s write-up in the Sunday Telegraph called it a ‘farcical affair’, describing both teams as being “capable of the type of nonsense rugby of which only Edward Lear could make rhyme or reason”.

Hmmm... Must be something to do with the fact there weren’t enough New Zealanders on the field...

But more of Wayne 'Buck' (as in: 'That's what I came to Sarries for..') Shelford's diagnosis later.

I guess whether you think it was 'farcical' (a reference to the number of errors etc.) depends on what perspective you adopt towards the match and what expectations you take to it. The facts reveal that there were five tries in the second half that Mark Reason says involved an element of farce: an interception, a dropped ball behind the line, a run in via an obstruction, a run in from a dropped ball in midfield and a try when the last defender turned his back on the ball carrier. He might have added Gollings' classic 'damn, I knew I meant to wear studs this week' first half slither behind his own goal line as well.

As Reason so graciously put it, "highlights will be shown on the Cartoon Channel later in the week".

Let Me Entertain You

Personally, I thoroughly enjoyed the game. It was exciting stuff. The lead changed hands, each team had periods of ascendancy and some quality play, as well as making mistakes and going off the boil. Quins' comfortable lead was all but eliminated minutes from the final whistle and two missed kicks near the posts from a first class goal kicker (compared to an immaculate performance from his opposite number) were the difference between the sides at the end.

It's easy to sit in the stands and be critical. Even easier in the dugout. But at the end of the day, was that not a first class day's entertainment? Was anyone bored? I was on the edge of my seat a lot of the time. Can either side be accused of playing nine-man, stick it up the jumper rugby? I don't think so. Did you see a few points scored? Yes - 68, I think it was. Although, you wouldn't necessarily know that from the scoreboard.

While we're on the subject of the scoreboard, what's the problem do you think? Apart from the fact that from various points in the ground it is invisible in the dim half-light that passes for floodlighting in the northwest and southwest corners. Doesn't really matter if you can see it or not, I s'pose, when the figures displayed bear little relationship to the actual score. Unless the Zurich Premiership has adopted a new points system without telling anyone?

Maybe it's something extra that's been laid on for the Mighty Quins. A kind of "Now who can tell me what the real score is?" competition. I thought there was a requirement of some sort in the ZP rules about scoreboards (one of the six hundred and seventeen that Rotherham failed to fulfill last season, no doubt). Maybe there's a 'founder member of the RFU' exemption?

Or maybe it's to fool the opposition. You know, trick the Sarries' front row into believing they are 48 points ahead, when really we all know they're 13 points behind. Sneaky, eh? As a former member, Mark Evans clearly knows what works.

Eye of the Beholder

Going back briefly to the question of farce or feast - you know, each of the more farcical moments identified above is capable of a more kindly interpretation.

'Interception' - bad pass or great anticipation by the intercepting player? Depending on how you look at it, both the player that threw the pass and the one who committed himself to the interception were either reckless (missing an intercept usually leaves an overlap) or trying to play expansive attacking rugby, Super-12 style ('oh, if you put it like that, it's OK then').

'Dropped ball behind line' - rugby balls are an odd shape, bounce unpredictably and one referee's touch down is another referee's failure to ground the ball.

'Run in via an obstruction' - player error or refereeing error? Forget the finer points of 'dummy runners', what about referees penalizing good old fashioned crossing maneuvers for starters? I have rarely seen one so blatant as that which led directly to Goode's try.

'Run in from a dropped ball in midfield' - yes, rugby is played by humans who drop rugby balls from time-to-time. In this case, though, it was a bad pass rather than a bad catch. Still bad, but different villain.

'A try when the last defender turned his back on the ball carrier' - a reference to Goode and Nathan Williams. Well, I for one (and kwin for another, I see) thought that was just a superb piece of play by our full back, who showed great pace (that I didn't know he had), power (ditto) and footballing skills to score a fine try. Williams turned Goode inside out.

You could even be charitable and say Goode did well to get there at all in an attempt to cover, albeit unsuccessful.

So, everyone needs to make their mind up, but I suspect that most people there really enjoyed their day. If crowd numbers mean anything, we're doing something right. It may not have been everyone's idea of a spectacle of rugby, but it was a rugby spectacle all the same.

Pass the Buck

Now I promised a return to the theme of Mr. Shelford's post-match diagnosis. If you haven't read kwin's supplemental match report of (both of) the coaches' comments, by the way, you should definitely do so.

Here are some selected Shelford extracts:
"We've guys in this squad, and likewise around the country and in other professional teams, that simply won't make Super 12 squads in New Zealand. That's the vast difference between the two leagues - a lot of players that are in these clubs simply would not make Super 12".

The fault he believes is in the system: "You've got the players here, but your league is so too big. Your top 50 players are good enough, but you put your top 50 players back out to 12 clubs - it's not many per club is it?"

That may be so. But what then is the answer? I suppose, in theory, these mythical top 50 could be siphoned off the top and set into two invented sides, like in Scotland. Boy, how those teams have captured the imagination of the public there. But who would they play? Perhaps Buck can see it now - this weekend's big match up: 'South West France' verses 'Northern England'. Tickets still available. What time's kickoff? What time can you get there? Fran Cotton would be happy, at least.

If the performance of the national side is anything to go by, we must be doing something right. I agree that there is a gap between the Super 12 sides and the English club sides. There are a number of reasons for that, not all 'bad' reasons. But that doesn't mean that there is a better system for England, or that, given a few more years of development, the club scene can't narrow that gap.

Short Term or Long Term?

One thing that would help is to get rid of the fear of relegation. If clubs could be assured of their future they would not have to make so many one/two year horizon investments in fast-fading former stars from the southern hemisphere to shore up leaks in the team whilst home-grown youngsters complete their rugby education.

Can those passionate believers in the intrinsic 'fairness' of promotion/relegation not see that whilst this may 'feel good' it is inherently detrimental to the development of young, England qualified players? And club grounds and facilities. Don't get me wrong - I am really glad we get the chance to see some (not all) of these foreign players and I think they can be a force for good in the development of the game.

But have you noticed there's no relegation from Super 12. Must be bad, then, eh?

Shelford continued with a blast at his players fitness levels, compared to New Zealand: "In the last three months we've fitness tested the guys quite regularly now...and most of the players in the Saracens squad are way off Super 12 stats for VO2 levels and strength levels and speed. About 9 out 30 players are at the level of fitness I'd like... "

I was shocked to read this, so I did a bit of research.

Saracens have a full-time fitness and conditioning coach. His name is Pat Fox and he joined pre-season in a blaze of publicity.

According to their press release when he was signed, Saracens' Chief Executive Peter Deakin cast his net far and wide for a suitable person.

"We received a lot of CVs for this post but Pat's was head and shoulders above the rest" explained Peter. "We're very pleased to welcome him on board and are looking forward to him and Wayne Shelford striking up a great working relationship"

So that's working out well, then.

Oh, I nearly forgot to mention where Pat Fox comes from:


... New Zealand.