Far be it for me to publish unsubstantiated rumour (
who said "like you do anything else"?) but it was a great pity to hear that our good friends at Westcliff may not be playing next year. We knew that, with no U15s to reinforce their U18 squad, that they would probably have to fold after 2008/9, but to hear that they may have to end things a season early is a great shame.
They are not, unfortunately, alone and in all honesty unless we can attract in a good half-dozen new faces next season we too may have similar problems come 2009/10 (though it is always worth remembering that we started in September 2004 with
fewer players than we
know we will have September 2009 so there is reason to be optimistic). It is therefore maybe worth asking where its all gone wrong (I say "wrong" because the collapse in the number of teams playing regular fixtures over the past 2-3 years is hardly indicative of something going "right").
Let's begin with a a list of teams we have played but who have now disppeared, at least as independent entities. Off the top of my head...
- Milton Keynes (now part of Bucks Jesters)
- Aylesbury (ditto)
- Hemel Hempsted
- Bishops Stortford
- Stevenage (revivals announced annually, but nothing ever seems to happen)
- Cheshunt
- Fullerians
- Uttlesford
- Rochford/Basildon (obviously clustered now, but no longer independent entities)
- Paviours (now in a cluster)
Thats ten teams we could have had fixtures with in 2004 or 2005 who we cannot now play, replaced with - at best - three cluster teams, so a net loss of seven. And as all of them had full teams at at least one age band that is also a net loss of at least eighty players (12 x 7). With Westcliff added the loss become eight sides and approaching 100 girls out of the game.
The remaining clubs are indeed stronger teams - Basford are a better side than either Basildon or Rochford were, Bucks Jesters are probably stronger than Milton Keynes or Aylebury - but is that the point of club rugby? Surely the purpose at this level is participation not elitism? That should be what the county or regional system is for.
In fact what we are getting close to are clubs that are in fact county sides in everything but name. Bucks Jesters presumably is Bucks, and with 19 players in the squad Reading is Berkshire. Where will Essex get girls next year except from Basford? How many non-Saracens play for Middlesex? Or non-Leos play for Yorkshire? I could go on - Hertfordshire maybe the one major exception because it has significant contributions from more than one club!
A few strong teams do not make a strong game. Without a local club, where will girls at Hemel or Uttlesford, Milton Keynes or Cheshunt learn the game - or even know that it is an option? Furthermore in 2004 you could learn - you could pick games against sides of different strengths. In 2004 we began with three games against MK, Hemel and Stevenage before we took on the might of Welwyn. Would we be here today if Welwyn had been the first, and indeed only, side we could have played in the county? What is it like now when your first "club" game sees you up against a county team (or stronger!) wearing club shirts? No trainer pool like in 2004 - its sink or swim!
Whose fault is this? I'm not sure that that matters. You could say that RFUW were not prepared for the explosion in interest after the World Cup, and were too slow to adapt their structures to support the growth, but in reality that is unfair because they are a tiny organisation with minicule funding that have to worry about the game at all levels, right up to and including internationals. They did what they could with the resources they had, but it was a tidal wave they faced.
I will say, though, that I am not sure that clustering works - at least in the sense of growing the game or forestalling its contraction. It gets current girls games, yes, but the "cluster" seems to inevitably become the "club", risking its links with the communities from the smaller participants or clubs where the cluster does not play. And once the girls in that cluster leave the age band..? It will be interesting to see how Vincent's Suffolk "all-stars" avoid this problem next season. I am also not sure what the alternative is, within the current system anyway.
Because while the RFU and RFUW remain separate bodies, and while the RFU remain responsible for all U12 rugby, I cannot see anything changing. There is no incentive whatsoever for any club that does not have a girls section (ie. over 90% of them) to do anything to recruit girls, or do anything to adapt their coaching practices to retain those that may come along (even simple stuff like not calling the team "boys", let alone the more subtle differences and understanding required) because ultimately the RFU and the clubs in its membership (and, from what one hears, many CBs) are only responsbile for and interested in boys' and men's rugby. And you cannot blame them - why pour your resources into a talented girl who cannot play for you after she is 12, let alone play for your colts or adult sides?
One thought though. On the continent - indeed across most of the world - the main game is not 15-a-side rugby, but sevens. The former is obviously preferable, but I wonder if we had more opportunities for clubs to play in small-sided competitions like sevens spread throughout the season (say one every four-six weeks or so rather than packed all together in April and May) we might be able to keep more clubs playing as clubs? Do we have to be honest, grasp the nettle, and see the world as it is rather than how we might want it to be? Better to have a girl playing sevens than not playing at all...