As 2012 comes to an end a few thoughts come to mind.
On the "home front" I came across the team picture from Rochford and its a shock to realise that the triumph of the Letchworth Girls at Rochford Tens is a full six years ago now. All of the "girls" from that day have, needless to say, grown up - two have children of their own. Others are working or coming to the end of their higher education studies. Several still play - most notably Jess Robinson, who played in the Dubai Sevens again a few weeks ago. They were a great bunch and I miss those days, though maybe not when the weather is like this!
Beyond that it is often a shock to see the outcome of stuff that I have written, even (maybe especially) stuff that starts on here. It was, after all, on this blog that the world first heard of Emily Valentine - the first woman in the world to play rugby (that we know of). Her story has spread and spread - its been rewritten and published in Italy and Germany and Sri Lanka and Fiji... and now, in New Zealand, she is a brand! EmVale is a new women's health and sports range, whose name comes from Emily.
Its things like this that make a total amateur blogger and occasional "reporter" (well, that is what the press pass said) feel... well, slight scared to be honest! And rather pleased as well.
There were other personal highlights in 2012 - especially the London Sevens, and meeting and trying to talk to the great Kelly van Harskamp in front of 70,000 very noisy spectators at Twickenham counts as a lifetime moment. And to also get to meet other players as well was amazing. And its really hard to keep the "fan" at bay when you are pretending to be a journalist and ask journalist style questions! But the great news is that it looks like I will get another chance to meet them all, in Amsterdam in May! At last I might get the chance to see Spain play, live - that is worth looking forward to!
Its not all been sweetness and light, though. Returning to matters domestic it must be clear to anyone with eyes to see and half a brain that girls rugby in England is no-where near as strong as it was when Letchworth were playing only 4-5 years ago. The great gamble to putting all of the development eggs in the school sport basket just is not paying off - the statistics of players in schools and school teams entering competitions is up dramatically, but there is no sign at all that even a fraction of these "new" players are staying in the game beyond 13-15 (ie. when the school game stops). The club game in key areas - like the north - is in a pitiful state. Yorkshire cannot raise a county team in both age groups. Something has gone disastrously wrong - and its very upsetting to watch. Hertfordshire continue to do well, compared with the country as a whole, but even in the best organised county attendance at county trials is, from what I hear, down by 60-70% from the heady days of 2005-06.
It will take about 10 years, probably, before this hits the national team. In the meanwhile (and to end on a positive note) England are truly the best in the world now, certainly at 15s and maybe next year at 7s too. That is really something.
Showing posts with label Personal view. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Personal view. Show all posts
Monday, December 31, 2012
Wednesday, October 31, 2012
More tales from the real world
Apart from much of my writing appearing elsewhere, I felt reluctant to write on here what I have been hearing because its always so negative. But in the end there is a paucity of real good news about girls' club rugby, hence last week's review. Now some more information had found my way.
Remember Yorkshire? A few years ago girls' rugby in Yorkshire was so big they were not just a county, they were a region - on their own. Their clubs were feared across the country (for all sorts of reasons).
And now, after four years of centrally imposed leagues, in the third year of the glorious U13 programme, and with player statistics higher than ever before? Yorkshire cannot raise a U15 team.
You start with frustration, then anger, then despair, then... It is the worst sort of nonsense where those in charge of the sport seem interested in just the numbers, because numbers on paper mean grants that... well, I suppose they go somewhere.
But all the evidence - I mean ALL the evidence - is that player numbers - REAL player numbers - are falling through the floor. Yeah, girls are being introduced to the sport in record numbers in schools, and more schools are playing in more tournaments than ever before BUT practically none of these girls are making their way to clubs.
U15 rugby should be booming this year. Three years after the start of the U13 programme, its graduates should be flooding into clubs. But traditionally the single biggest girls rugby county cannot raise a team. All of Yorkshire cannot find thirteen U15s interested in playing rugby. WTF????
The wonderful nationally imposed leagues shrink year on year, and now I hear that (unofficially) rules that restrict guests players in league matches are being quietly shelved just to get matches going.
I hate to say that some of us told you so, because that hardly helps.
(If someone has some good new stories about expanding rugby at U15 and U18, please let me know. It would make a huge difference...).
Remember Yorkshire? A few years ago girls' rugby in Yorkshire was so big they were not just a county, they were a region - on their own. Their clubs were feared across the country (for all sorts of reasons).
And now, after four years of centrally imposed leagues, in the third year of the glorious U13 programme, and with player statistics higher than ever before? Yorkshire cannot raise a U15 team.
You start with frustration, then anger, then despair, then... It is the worst sort of nonsense where those in charge of the sport seem interested in just the numbers, because numbers on paper mean grants that... well, I suppose they go somewhere.
But all the evidence - I mean ALL the evidence - is that player numbers - REAL player numbers - are falling through the floor. Yeah, girls are being introduced to the sport in record numbers in schools, and more schools are playing in more tournaments than ever before BUT practically none of these girls are making their way to clubs.
U15 rugby should be booming this year. Three years after the start of the U13 programme, its graduates should be flooding into clubs. But traditionally the single biggest girls rugby county cannot raise a team. All of Yorkshire cannot find thirteen U15s interested in playing rugby. WTF????
The wonderful nationally imposed leagues shrink year on year, and now I hear that (unofficially) rules that restrict guests players in league matches are being quietly shelved just to get matches going.
I hate to say that some of us told you so, because that hardly helps.
(If someone has some good new stories about expanding rugby at U15 and U18, please let me know. It would make a huge difference...).
Sunday, July 08, 2012
If this is true, is it fraud?
A few weeks ago I reported a dramatic (but generally unpublicised) rise in player numbers in England, as reported by the RFU to the IRB.
The adult player number rise made sense - it matched the sort of numbers that have been reported by Sport England for some years. However, the rise in junior player numbers was extraordinary - like a 3,000 to 10,000% rise in reported player numbers since 2009, which (even with under-reporting of girls) seemed difficult to believe. However, it is rise that is being used to support the RFUW (and now RFU) policy on the U13 game.
What was not clear was where on earth this data came from as a claim that there are over 129,000 teenage girls playing rugby just does not match with the declining number of teams playing in leagues, etc. In short - wherever this figure comes from it certainly is not (solely) club registrations - it must now include schools as well.
Okay, if that does include schools then - in theory - that is fine. A girl playing regularly at school can learn the game just as much as at a club, and will be quite capable of moving onto divisional play, etc.
However the key here is "regular". Girls who play in just one tournament, based on maybe a handful of PE lessons and no regular programme of inter-school matches - and no club rugby - are not rugby players. To call them so is a nonsense. They had - at best - sampled the game.
But I hear from a well placed source in one region, that that is what is happening. I am told that junior player numbers in this area are being extrapolated from the "100 or so girls from six schools turning up for ONE school tournament for Year 6 and 7".
For a game's officials to pretend that these are "real" players is at best dangerous self-delusion. Dangerous because it can hide endemic problems within the game, which - in this particular region (a region that was until recently one of the strongest in the country) - seems to be the virtual collapse of the club game at U15 and U18 level. It means that an official, changed with expanding the game, can hit all their "targets" despite what is happening in the real world.
However, if a game is knowingly using this meaningless data to extract grants from government by pretending that the game is dramatically expanding and has many more players than it does then... is that not fraud?
One defence might be that everyone else is doing it - and I am told that Rugby League in the same region is using similar methods to compile its junior player data. Its not much of a defence, though. And even if it was, it does give a picture of various sports - including rugby union - spending so much time and money coming up with ever more clever (but ultimately meaningless) schemes to increasing player statistics that they do little or nothing to increase the actual numbers of players. Frankly, the people who involved in this sound like a load of bankers.
And its all probably not unrelated to the report last week that pointed out how few people from state schools (as opposed to independent schools) now make it to the top and win, for example, Olympic medals - because most of this grant money is supposed to support and develop talented state school sports people.
I may be wrong, of course - and if anyone has any more evidence one way or another I'd love to see it.
The adult player number rise made sense - it matched the sort of numbers that have been reported by Sport England for some years. However, the rise in junior player numbers was extraordinary - like a 3,000 to 10,000% rise in reported player numbers since 2009, which (even with under-reporting of girls) seemed difficult to believe. However, it is rise that is being used to support the RFUW (and now RFU) policy on the U13 game.
What was not clear was where on earth this data came from as a claim that there are over 129,000 teenage girls playing rugby just does not match with the declining number of teams playing in leagues, etc. In short - wherever this figure comes from it certainly is not (solely) club registrations - it must now include schools as well.
Okay, if that does include schools then - in theory - that is fine. A girl playing regularly at school can learn the game just as much as at a club, and will be quite capable of moving onto divisional play, etc.
However the key here is "regular". Girls who play in just one tournament, based on maybe a handful of PE lessons and no regular programme of inter-school matches - and no club rugby - are not rugby players. To call them so is a nonsense. They had - at best - sampled the game.
But I hear from a well placed source in one region, that that is what is happening. I am told that junior player numbers in this area are being extrapolated from the "100 or so girls from six schools turning up for ONE school tournament for Year 6 and 7".
For a game's officials to pretend that these are "real" players is at best dangerous self-delusion. Dangerous because it can hide endemic problems within the game, which - in this particular region (a region that was until recently one of the strongest in the country) - seems to be the virtual collapse of the club game at U15 and U18 level. It means that an official, changed with expanding the game, can hit all their "targets" despite what is happening in the real world.
However, if a game is knowingly using this meaningless data to extract grants from government by pretending that the game is dramatically expanding and has many more players than it does then... is that not fraud?
One defence might be that everyone else is doing it - and I am told that Rugby League in the same region is using similar methods to compile its junior player data. Its not much of a defence, though. And even if it was, it does give a picture of various sports - including rugby union - spending so much time and money coming up with ever more clever (but ultimately meaningless) schemes to increasing player statistics that they do little or nothing to increase the actual numbers of players. Frankly, the people who involved in this sound like a load of bankers.
And its all probably not unrelated to the report last week that pointed out how few people from state schools (as opposed to independent schools) now make it to the top and win, for example, Olympic medals - because most of this grant money is supposed to support and develop talented state school sports people.
I may be wrong, of course - and if anyone has any more evidence one way or another I'd love to see it.
Monday, July 02, 2012
Goodbye, RFUW - we are now one game
Today rugby in England became a single, unified, game. Its taken a long time - three or four years since "integration" began. Outwardly we have been one game for a while - England's women players have been playing under the RFU rose for some time - but today the final moves behind the scenes took place. All of the RFUW's staff have now moved to roles within the RFU.
All of the statements today have been positive - RFU Chief Executive Officer Ian Ritchie said: “We are very much looking forward to combining knowledge and resources and to welcoming new colleagues from the RFUW. This is a progressive move to make the Union even more inclusive going forwards, with our ultimate aim to broaden the reach of the game to the widest possible audience. Joining forces with the RFUW will allow us to do that”, while the new RFU Head of Performance (Women's) - ex RFUW MD Nichola Ponsford was also positive - “Of the many positive changes I've seen over the years, integration is certainly a high point. It is a recognition of the hard work and commitment of the organisation’s staff and volunteers, the vision for the game set early on and the commitment shown to overcome all the challenges."
And with reason - the resources potentially available to the women's and girls' game now dwarf anything that it has ever known before. However, it remains potential - and women's and girls' rugby will still have to fight for those funds, and there is always the risk that the demands of the bigger men's professional game will swamp the amateur women's. That, after all, has been the tale in some other countries - from France to New Zealand. Indeed its actually quite hard to think of countries where a merger has been a total positive. Japan probably? Wales possibly? Ireland, perhaps?
By and large the "integration" has gone well - so far - with increased media profile via access to RFU contracts, for example - but there have been negatives, like being swept up in the problem reducing player numbers - an entirely MALE problem - but which has resulted in the U13 game being forced on the girls' game to solve a problem that did not exist. It was a policy brought in just to increase some statistics - to give the impression that player numbers were growing, and it seems from the outside to only make sense as part of something to benefit the whole RFU because surely no-one who knew anything about girls' rugby would have introduced it voluntarily.
However, integration does now mean that all of the petty personal rivalries and personality clashes that can affect a small organisation should no longer be possible. The expertise is there - and the grants too, as a unified games with a single governing body will be a bigger attraction.
Integration is a risk, but there was no other choice - and if those who play women's and girls' rugby are willing to fight their corner it will work.
All of the statements today have been positive - RFU Chief Executive Officer Ian Ritchie said: “We are very much looking forward to combining knowledge and resources and to welcoming new colleagues from the RFUW. This is a progressive move to make the Union even more inclusive going forwards, with our ultimate aim to broaden the reach of the game to the widest possible audience. Joining forces with the RFUW will allow us to do that”, while the new RFU Head of Performance (Women's) - ex RFUW MD Nichola Ponsford was also positive - “Of the many positive changes I've seen over the years, integration is certainly a high point. It is a recognition of the hard work and commitment of the organisation’s staff and volunteers, the vision for the game set early on and the commitment shown to overcome all the challenges."
And with reason - the resources potentially available to the women's and girls' game now dwarf anything that it has ever known before. However, it remains potential - and women's and girls' rugby will still have to fight for those funds, and there is always the risk that the demands of the bigger men's professional game will swamp the amateur women's. That, after all, has been the tale in some other countries - from France to New Zealand. Indeed its actually quite hard to think of countries where a merger has been a total positive. Japan probably? Wales possibly? Ireland, perhaps?
By and large the "integration" has gone well - so far - with increased media profile via access to RFU contracts, for example - but there have been negatives, like being swept up in the problem reducing player numbers - an entirely MALE problem - but which has resulted in the U13 game being forced on the girls' game to solve a problem that did not exist. It was a policy brought in just to increase some statistics - to give the impression that player numbers were growing, and it seems from the outside to only make sense as part of something to benefit the whole RFU because surely no-one who knew anything about girls' rugby would have introduced it voluntarily.
However, integration does now mean that all of the petty personal rivalries and personality clashes that can affect a small organisation should no longer be possible. The expertise is there - and the grants too, as a unified games with a single governing body will be a bigger attraction.
Integration is a risk, but there was no other choice - and if those who play women's and girls' rugby are willing to fight their corner it will work.
Saturday, December 03, 2011
IRB Dubai Sevens: almost right, but...
The "experiment" of the IRB's women's challenge sevens seems, going by all reaction so far, to have been a great success and hopefully from here we can go on to a proper women's series (though the barrier to that is likely to be finding a home for the fourth leg, London and Edinburgh not showing much interest).If we do go on from here then the main improvements would seem to be...
Get the seeding right. Giving Canada a seeding below USA - while true to the World Cup positions in 2009 - seemed otherwise a strange idea by the IRB. The result was a serious imbalance in the pools that was obvious from the moment they were announced, with Spain (who, it should be remembered, lead Canada 14-0 past halfway in their game) losing out. The Spanish would certainly have been a match for the USA.
The best 8 teams in the world? Well, obviously these were not the best eight teams. Even leaving aside New Zealand's refusal to join in the fun, the fact is that China, and particularly Brazil, were heavily outclassed and its possible to come up with half-a-dozen teams that could, perhaps, have equipped themselves better.
However there is, of course, a very good argument for including them in the tournament (in order to represent parts of the world where the game is growing and developing), but if geography is to be allowed to trump ability then why does Asia and South America get a leg up by not - say - the Caribbean or Pacific? Why should China get a free ride into the tournament but not Samoa, or Fiji (either would be stronger than China)? And why Brazil and not, say, Trinidad?
In short, the qualification criteria for any series next season need to be clear and open. It does not do the game, or IRB, any good if decisions of this importance are taken behind closed doors with no explanation.
That aside, an announcement about a series for next year cannot be long coming. Its certainly long overdue.
Friday, November 25, 2011
Lies, damned lies, and... (part 23. Approximately)
Interesting news article about the IRB's new plan for women's rugby (a copy of the plan would be nice), but in the meanwhile....
But also, given the fact that England's wildly inflated totals not only make up a sizeable proportion of the world's alleged rugby player totals, but have apparently been falling (see various panicked initiatives over the past five years or more, many reported on here), how on earth can player numbers be going up this much, if at all?
Wouldn't it be great if someone at the IRB (and RFU) could stop inventing statistics...
IRB Chairman Bernard Lapasset said: “These are exciting times for Rugby around the world. We have witnessed an 18% growth in participation across the sport since Rugby World Cup 2007"How on earth does he know? Given the very loose link between many countries player registration data and reality (most especially England's hilarious claims) how can he possibly make such a statement? And with such laser-like accuracy? Not "about 20%", not "more than 15%" - exactly 18% (unless maybe someone said it was about a sixth?).
But also, given the fact that England's wildly inflated totals not only make up a sizeable proportion of the world's alleged rugby player totals, but have apparently been falling (see various panicked initiatives over the past five years or more, many reported on here), how on earth can player numbers be going up this much, if at all?
Wouldn't it be great if someone at the IRB (and RFU) could stop inventing statistics...
Tuesday, September 20, 2011
So... Where now with the Letchworth Girls' blog?
A new season has begun, and its time maybe to review where this blog is going.
It was originally created as a news system for the players of the Letchworth Girls teams, but that purpose has rather ended. I don't have any real link with the girls teams (well, team - there is just a U15 section this year) now. None of the girls I knew now play for the club - everyone is now too old! - so I get no news about what they are doing - and I am not sure how many of them read this (if any).
However, lots of "former legends" do still read this, and it is a great reminder of six or so incredible years we had, starting - as it does - during the second season, and taking in all the triumphs and enormous fun we all had. Every player - certainly from the "originals" - appears in here, somewhere or other. Its packed with memories and so needs to be preserved just for that. The fact that articles from four or five years ago are still being read shows that some people value it, anyway!
Its also a great way of letting everyone know about what former legends are doing now, in the rugby careers, and if we are ever going to get that mythical reunion then this is where it would be organised.
But more important than that the blog has always been read - and still is read two or three thousand times a month - by many people with no connection with the club at all. The little filler stories have taken over and without doubt what appears on here gets noticed. Quite why I have no idea - why the national governing body would even read a small club blog never ceases to amaze me, but they have always done and (going by the feedback on my reports of the summer's Nations Cup) still do!
Reason being, I guess, that communication - true communication (in the sense of a two-way exchange) - within the game in England remains lousy, especially the junior game where even the most basic information tends to be transmitted by rumour as much as anything else. And as for exchange of views - criticism, discussion, debate - there is none of that. There remains a centralised control-freakery when it comes to the domestic game in England that remains astonishing (and no, Julia Hutton, I do not mean you - you are wonderful. My absolute hero. And I mean that - honestly). Coaches, parents and players really are scared to speak their minds, and at least this blog allows them to do that - even anonymously.
If I am proud of anything that this blog has achieved it is to hear that it these debates have, from time to time, annoyed those at the centre - at least that means they have had cause to think about what they are doing. Anyone who ever writes a blog (or magazine or newspaper) that a central authority likes should pack it in immediately! Doesn't mean that any policy has ever been changed as a result - indeed from time to time Twickenham has gone out of its way to say how they have not listened to any internet blogs - but I live in hope that it might have had some subliminal influence. Maybe.
Yes, at times I get things wrong - almost invariably because of the need to fill some vast unbridged chasm caused by a complete lack of information (again, not your fault JH). It is amazing, but true, that - for example - England autumn tests with France have still not be officially announced (at least in England - they have been an openly discussed fact in France for months), and as for the U13 nonsense... So I guess and speculate and try to make some sense out of smoke-signals emerging from TW2. Better that than silence - and just occasionally it does seem to spark some movement. Mind you, these days its just as likely to be Dublin 2 that raises the ire, though the IRB obviously have more sense than to take any notice of this at all, Indeed is anyone St Stephen's Green knew that this blog existed I'd be ever so slightly worried about them.
So... where now? If there were a range of other, real, news sources; if the game was open to discussion and people were not afraid to let their views be known; if the media at large gave the women's game a fraction of the coverage it deserves; if two- to three-thousand people a month were not reading this "irrelevant little blog" (that is the right quote, RW?) then I'd be more than happy to stop. But - apart from ScrumQueens - we are no nearer all that than we were in 2004.
A change of name? Ideally, yes - but regular readers know the blogs name, and those that don't find it via subject searches anyway. And it also honours the achievements of greatest bunch of young people you could have ever wished to meet.
So, we go on. If you want fact and information about women's and girls' rugby in Hertfordshire (and occasionally England generally), use the Herts Girls' blog. If you want to follow the international game, turn to ScrumQueens. If you want discussion, debate, speculation, rumour, opinion, and "occasional sage-like ramblings" (thank you anon from TW2) then come here. And if you want to start or contribute to any rumours or discussions yourself... carry on sending the comments. Good or bad. I welcome criticism...
It was originally created as a news system for the players of the Letchworth Girls teams, but that purpose has rather ended. I don't have any real link with the girls teams (well, team - there is just a U15 section this year) now. None of the girls I knew now play for the club - everyone is now too old! - so I get no news about what they are doing - and I am not sure how many of them read this (if any).
However, lots of "former legends" do still read this, and it is a great reminder of six or so incredible years we had, starting - as it does - during the second season, and taking in all the triumphs and enormous fun we all had. Every player - certainly from the "originals" - appears in here, somewhere or other. Its packed with memories and so needs to be preserved just for that. The fact that articles from four or five years ago are still being read shows that some people value it, anyway!
Its also a great way of letting everyone know about what former legends are doing now, in the rugby careers, and if we are ever going to get that mythical reunion then this is where it would be organised.
But more important than that the blog has always been read - and still is read two or three thousand times a month - by many people with no connection with the club at all. The little filler stories have taken over and without doubt what appears on here gets noticed. Quite why I have no idea - why the national governing body would even read a small club blog never ceases to amaze me, but they have always done and (going by the feedback on my reports of the summer's Nations Cup) still do!
Reason being, I guess, that communication - true communication (in the sense of a two-way exchange) - within the game in England remains lousy, especially the junior game where even the most basic information tends to be transmitted by rumour as much as anything else. And as for exchange of views - criticism, discussion, debate - there is none of that. There remains a centralised control-freakery when it comes to the domestic game in England that remains astonishing (and no, Julia Hutton, I do not mean you - you are wonderful. My absolute hero. And I mean that - honestly). Coaches, parents and players really are scared to speak their minds, and at least this blog allows them to do that - even anonymously.
If I am proud of anything that this blog has achieved it is to hear that it these debates have, from time to time, annoyed those at the centre - at least that means they have had cause to think about what they are doing. Anyone who ever writes a blog (or magazine or newspaper) that a central authority likes should pack it in immediately! Doesn't mean that any policy has ever been changed as a result - indeed from time to time Twickenham has gone out of its way to say how they have not listened to any internet blogs - but I live in hope that it might have had some subliminal influence. Maybe.
Yes, at times I get things wrong - almost invariably because of the need to fill some vast unbridged chasm caused by a complete lack of information (again, not your fault JH). It is amazing, but true, that - for example - England autumn tests with France have still not be officially announced (at least in England - they have been an openly discussed fact in France for months), and as for the U13 nonsense... So I guess and speculate and try to make some sense out of smoke-signals emerging from TW2. Better that than silence - and just occasionally it does seem to spark some movement. Mind you, these days its just as likely to be Dublin 2 that raises the ire, though the IRB obviously have more sense than to take any notice of this at all, Indeed is anyone St Stephen's Green knew that this blog existed I'd be ever so slightly worried about them.
So... where now? If there were a range of other, real, news sources; if the game was open to discussion and people were not afraid to let their views be known; if the media at large gave the women's game a fraction of the coverage it deserves; if two- to three-thousand people a month were not reading this "irrelevant little blog" (that is the right quote, RW?) then I'd be more than happy to stop. But - apart from ScrumQueens - we are no nearer all that than we were in 2004.
A change of name? Ideally, yes - but regular readers know the blogs name, and those that don't find it via subject searches anyway. And it also honours the achievements of greatest bunch of young people you could have ever wished to meet.
So, we go on. If you want fact and information about women's and girls' rugby in Hertfordshire (and occasionally England generally), use the Herts Girls' blog. If you want to follow the international game, turn to ScrumQueens. If you want discussion, debate, speculation, rumour, opinion, and "occasional sage-like ramblings" (thank you anon from TW2) then come here. And if you want to start or contribute to any rumours or discussions yourself... carry on sending the comments. Good or bad. I welcome criticism...
Friday, April 29, 2011
U13 Age Band. The anger grows.
If you thought that the introduction of leagues last year caused a bit of a fuss "you ain't seen nothing yet". Last year's rumblings are peanuts compared with the reaction to Wednesday's announcement and the appearance yesterday of further details (see here for the new U13 playing rules). Regular correspondents, not normally known for their written invective, have been swearing like troopers, while at least one leading Hertfordshire coach has been proposing what comes close to outright mutiny. Any RFUW officials planning to attend Herts and/or National Seven may need some serious protection if one or two people get anywhere near them.
And you cannot blame them. The leading clubs in Hertfordshire (and I dare say across the country) have been carefully nurturing and encouraging girls currently in Year 7 to move over to the girls' game next season. Many have had on-going programmes for years in local primary and secondary schools that ensured that girls leaving at the top of the U15 band were always replaced with girls coming in at the bottom. The effort these clubs put in is astonishing, impressive, effective - and has been a complete waste of time.
I will avoid naming names as fear of RFUW reprisals continues, but I must pass on some of the reaction.
For example, as a result of this change I understand that one the country's leading (and biggest) clubs with a superb recruitment programme will barely have a viable U15 team next season - and if they cannot put out a full XIII (and I remind you that U15 rugby is meant to be 13-a-side, whatever the league rules may be) then heaven help anyone else! As for them fielding a U13 team...
Another club tells of a superbly talented girl, with years of rugby experience in the minis - a potential England player (and this comes from a coach who knows both real and potential England players) - who has been preparing to move into U15 rugby next season but who has now already said, as a result of this week's announcements, that she does not want to play any more.
I could go on.
What really gets me, though, is the basic thread woven into all this - and that is that the problem with recruiting girls (and actually boys too, going by other proposals in recent years) is that they are scared of contact. So, if you reduce (and all but eliminate) contact from junior rugby you will get more junior players.
This is utter tripe. First, they will have to start playing contact at some point - unless adult club rugby is going to move over to tag as well - so if any girl or boy is going to drop out of the game because they are frightened to tackle (or be tackled) then they will just drop out later. All you are doing is delaying the inevitable, while maybe artificially boosting player statistics (hmmmm....).
It also ignores the basic reason about why children - and especially girls - play rugby at all. You ask any rugby player, or read any interview with girls or women who play the game, and see why they took it up. Every single one - every single one - will say the same thing. Its the contact. No other girls team sport offer this - it is rugby's "USP" (Unique Selling Point). It may not attract all girls - it may (indeed probably does) put the majority off - but for thousands of girls across the country for the past 20 years or more it has been the reason why they have taken up the game.
This is the siren call of a sport whose officials have no confidence in either themselves or the sport they run. Fact is that you cannot have a sport that appeals to everyone. Some people are scared of the hard ball used in cricket - but that sport's authorities are not forcing teenagers to play with tennis balls in order to "attract more players". That there are some children with a fear of water is not sufficient to make swimming clubs empty their pools so as to boost numbers. Just because boxing is a minority sport has not panicked that sport to ban punching, any more that fear of speed has forced motor racing to have speed limits.
Every sport has something special about it - and for rugby it is contact. Whatever the new U13 game will be - this unadventurous, committee-designed, grab-and-tag, non-kicking, anti-septic, pasteurised travesty - it won't be rugby! It may attract new players, but they are unlikely to be the sort of girls who will want to move into the full contact game - and they will join the game at the expense of girls who DO want, or who would be attracted to, contact - but will find in this wishy-washy pap nothing that attracts them at all.
And is it is these girls - the outgoing, confident, adventurous girls - who are the future of the England team. The days when international stars learnt the game in their teenage or university years have gone - as far as I am aware EVERY member of the current England team started playing in the minis. With U13 girls rugby being such a step backwards from U12 minis how many future Pococks, Scarratts and Spencers will now turn to other sports for their excitement?
And you cannot blame them. The leading clubs in Hertfordshire (and I dare say across the country) have been carefully nurturing and encouraging girls currently in Year 7 to move over to the girls' game next season. Many have had on-going programmes for years in local primary and secondary schools that ensured that girls leaving at the top of the U15 band were always replaced with girls coming in at the bottom. The effort these clubs put in is astonishing, impressive, effective - and has been a complete waste of time.
I will avoid naming names as fear of RFUW reprisals continues, but I must pass on some of the reaction.
For example, as a result of this change I understand that one the country's leading (and biggest) clubs with a superb recruitment programme will barely have a viable U15 team next season - and if they cannot put out a full XIII (and I remind you that U15 rugby is meant to be 13-a-side, whatever the league rules may be) then heaven help anyone else! As for them fielding a U13 team...
Another club tells of a superbly talented girl, with years of rugby experience in the minis - a potential England player (and this comes from a coach who knows both real and potential England players) - who has been preparing to move into U15 rugby next season but who has now already said, as a result of this week's announcements, that she does not want to play any more.
I could go on.
What really gets me, though, is the basic thread woven into all this - and that is that the problem with recruiting girls (and actually boys too, going by other proposals in recent years) is that they are scared of contact. So, if you reduce (and all but eliminate) contact from junior rugby you will get more junior players.
This is utter tripe. First, they will have to start playing contact at some point - unless adult club rugby is going to move over to tag as well - so if any girl or boy is going to drop out of the game because they are frightened to tackle (or be tackled) then they will just drop out later. All you are doing is delaying the inevitable, while maybe artificially boosting player statistics (hmmmm....).
It also ignores the basic reason about why children - and especially girls - play rugby at all. You ask any rugby player, or read any interview with girls or women who play the game, and see why they took it up. Every single one - every single one - will say the same thing. Its the contact. No other girls team sport offer this - it is rugby's "USP" (Unique Selling Point). It may not attract all girls - it may (indeed probably does) put the majority off - but for thousands of girls across the country for the past 20 years or more it has been the reason why they have taken up the game.
This is the siren call of a sport whose officials have no confidence in either themselves or the sport they run. Fact is that you cannot have a sport that appeals to everyone. Some people are scared of the hard ball used in cricket - but that sport's authorities are not forcing teenagers to play with tennis balls in order to "attract more players". That there are some children with a fear of water is not sufficient to make swimming clubs empty their pools so as to boost numbers. Just because boxing is a minority sport has not panicked that sport to ban punching, any more that fear of speed has forced motor racing to have speed limits.
Every sport has something special about it - and for rugby it is contact. Whatever the new U13 game will be - this unadventurous, committee-designed, grab-and-tag, non-kicking, anti-septic, pasteurised travesty - it won't be rugby! It may attract new players, but they are unlikely to be the sort of girls who will want to move into the full contact game - and they will join the game at the expense of girls who DO want, or who would be attracted to, contact - but will find in this wishy-washy pap nothing that attracts them at all.
And is it is these girls - the outgoing, confident, adventurous girls - who are the future of the England team. The days when international stars learnt the game in their teenage or university years have gone - as far as I am aware EVERY member of the current England team started playing in the minis. With U13 girls rugby being such a step backwards from U12 minis how many future Pococks, Scarratts and Spencers will now turn to other sports for their excitement?
In Memorium
In loving memory of English junior girls' rugby
bludgeoned to death by unthinking officialdom
Mourned by well-wishers, supporters
and players past and present
RIP
Monday, April 11, 2011
The RFUW's junior leagues: First year report
Arguably the most unpopular initiative the RFUW have ever introduced (I never met nor heard from anyone last season who wanted them, though most did not wish to be quoted!), the first season of the RFUW's U15 and U18 leagues has now pretty much reached its end. So - triumph, or disaster?
Truth be told, of course, we will never know as it is impossible to say how the game would look if Twickenham had not forcibly axed every existing competition and "encouraged with extreme prejudice" (for want of a better term) most of the more active clubs (54 U15s and 57 U18s) to join their new leagues. In addition, RFUW never really said what the aim of the leagues was - at least not in any way that would reveal measurable targets. Even if we were to measure the number of active clubs or players, before and after, who is to say that things would have been any different otherwise? As it was the leagues ran, champions emerged, and so - on that basis - the competitions "worked".
And maybe it would be worth, at this stage, congratulating the various winners:
However, the competitions were not without their problems. Of the 608 leagues games that were planned, 179 ended in "walk-overs" - nearly 30% - and another 77 games seem not to have taken place (ie. no scores were reported), so only just over half of all the planned fixtures were played and are included in the final league tables.
Some leagues did better than others, it has to be said - 90% of the games in South West South U18s were played, as were over 80% of the games in North West U15s and South West South U15s (a legacy of the successful South West leagues perhaps?). However, London Irish's South East U15 win was based on a league were barely one game in three was played, while Morwick lifted the North East U18 leagues on the basis of just three completed games (out of a planned 20).
This was only to be expected, not least because of the very early entry deadline RFUW adopted, which meant that many teams will have (and to my certain knowledge did) put in teams "just to be on the safe side", without having any idea what they player numbers would be like. And, truncated though Morwick and London Irish's season will have been (and having your fixture list wiped out by walk-over after walk-over cannot be fun), you can only beat what is in front of you. And its a pretty safe assumption, after this first year shake out, that there will be fewer entries next year by teams unable to play all of their games.
Of rather more of a concern, however, has been how competitive these leagues have been. Or maybe haven't. Over half of all games - 58% of U15 matches and 51% of U18 games - were decided by margins of over 30 points (ie. a difference of at least four tries). Scores in the 70s and 80s were not unusual - indeed there were several wins by over 100 points. Midlands East U15s was the most extreme example, with Welwyn winning the league with an average victory margin of over 55 points per completed game, while Ashby finished bottom having lost every game by an average of near 56 points. But this was not in any way an isolated example of one-sided rugby.
Alnwick U15s cannot have learnt a great deal after being trashed by an average 58 points per game, but equally Ellingham and Ringwood U18s average victory margin of 52 points is unlikely to have developed that team very much. Aylestone St James ("Jimmies") U18s lost every fixture by an average of over 50, while Exeter Saracens strolled to wins by an average 45 points per game. And so on, and so on.
In 11 of the 18 leagues, clubs can be found winning or losing every game by what must be damagingly high scores. But that is what you get with leagues. Weaker clubs get thumped every week, but have no-where else to go, not least because better clubs - seeking silverware - are not going to go send their second XV if it could lose them the title (Paviours only won their U18 league thanks due to their recording more try bonuses than Welwyn - it does not pay to take your foot off the pedal).
There is no conclusive evidence that those sides being regularly thumped lost heart, though the number of walkover in some leagues increased slightly as the season went on and Exmouth U18s gave away their final two matches in South West South following (but, there is no evidence to suggest, due to) some heavy defeats.
Junior rugby is about learning the game, developing players - and teams - and keeping them playing. All of these should come before win-at-all-costs - but that is inevitable in the inflexibility of this sort of league rugby. Its a simple system to understand, it makes officials jobs easier (especially fixture secretaries), and a few teams get to make some good headlines in the local press - but is it good for the game as a whole? Does it allow players (and clubs) to learn the game? Who gains when a team wins by 109-0?
Truth be told, of course, we will never know as it is impossible to say how the game would look if Twickenham had not forcibly axed every existing competition and "encouraged with extreme prejudice" (for want of a better term) most of the more active clubs (54 U15s and 57 U18s) to join their new leagues. In addition, RFUW never really said what the aim of the leagues was - at least not in any way that would reveal measurable targets. Even if we were to measure the number of active clubs or players, before and after, who is to say that things would have been any different otherwise? As it was the leagues ran, champions emerged, and so - on that basis - the competitions "worked".
And maybe it would be worth, at this stage, congratulating the various winners:
| U15 | U18 | |
| Midlands South | Old Northamptonians | Lakenham Hewitt |
| Midlands East | Welwyn | Paviors |
| North East | Morpeth | Morwick |
| North West | Vale of Lune | Tydlesley & Waterloo |
| South Coast | South Sussex | Ellingham & Ringwood |
| South East | London Irish | London Irish |
| South West North | Worcester | Worcester |
| South West South | Exeter Saracens | Tavistock |
| Thames Valley | Berks Baa Baas | Saracens |
However, the competitions were not without their problems. Of the 608 leagues games that were planned, 179 ended in "walk-overs" - nearly 30% - and another 77 games seem not to have taken place (ie. no scores were reported), so only just over half of all the planned fixtures were played and are included in the final league tables.
Some leagues did better than others, it has to be said - 90% of the games in South West South U18s were played, as were over 80% of the games in North West U15s and South West South U15s (a legacy of the successful South West leagues perhaps?). However, London Irish's South East U15 win was based on a league were barely one game in three was played, while Morwick lifted the North East U18 leagues on the basis of just three completed games (out of a planned 20).
This was only to be expected, not least because of the very early entry deadline RFUW adopted, which meant that many teams will have (and to my certain knowledge did) put in teams "just to be on the safe side", without having any idea what they player numbers would be like. And, truncated though Morwick and London Irish's season will have been (and having your fixture list wiped out by walk-over after walk-over cannot be fun), you can only beat what is in front of you. And its a pretty safe assumption, after this first year shake out, that there will be fewer entries next year by teams unable to play all of their games.
Of rather more of a concern, however, has been how competitive these leagues have been. Or maybe haven't. Over half of all games - 58% of U15 matches and 51% of U18 games - were decided by margins of over 30 points (ie. a difference of at least four tries). Scores in the 70s and 80s were not unusual - indeed there were several wins by over 100 points. Midlands East U15s was the most extreme example, with Welwyn winning the league with an average victory margin of over 55 points per completed game, while Ashby finished bottom having lost every game by an average of near 56 points. But this was not in any way an isolated example of one-sided rugby.
Alnwick U15s cannot have learnt a great deal after being trashed by an average 58 points per game, but equally Ellingham and Ringwood U18s average victory margin of 52 points is unlikely to have developed that team very much. Aylestone St James ("Jimmies") U18s lost every fixture by an average of over 50, while Exeter Saracens strolled to wins by an average 45 points per game. And so on, and so on.
In 11 of the 18 leagues, clubs can be found winning or losing every game by what must be damagingly high scores. But that is what you get with leagues. Weaker clubs get thumped every week, but have no-where else to go, not least because better clubs - seeking silverware - are not going to go send their second XV if it could lose them the title (Paviours only won their U18 league thanks due to their recording more try bonuses than Welwyn - it does not pay to take your foot off the pedal).
There is no conclusive evidence that those sides being regularly thumped lost heart, though the number of walkover in some leagues increased slightly as the season went on and Exmouth U18s gave away their final two matches in South West South following (but, there is no evidence to suggest, due to) some heavy defeats.
Junior rugby is about learning the game, developing players - and teams - and keeping them playing. All of these should come before win-at-all-costs - but that is inevitable in the inflexibility of this sort of league rugby. Its a simple system to understand, it makes officials jobs easier (especially fixture secretaries), and a few teams get to make some good headlines in the local press - but is it good for the game as a whole? Does it allow players (and clubs) to learn the game? Who gains when a team wins by 109-0?
It would be interesting, incidentally, to know how those sides who resisted the attentions of RFUW faired this season, because (if clubs in and around Hertfordshire are typical) the answer would seem to be "not too badly". In areas with supportive county CBs perhaps there is an alternative after all?
Wednesday, September 08, 2010
A team to beat the Black Ferns?
In the follow-up to the World Cup various World XVs have been published and discussed - teams made up from the best players in the World Cup.
This is all very interesting - and great fun - but the problem is that the teams picked have no-one to play, at least not until Mars takes up the game. Perhaps more realistic might be whether it is possible to come up with a team that will beat New Zealand - a Rest of the World XV to play the best in the world?
It has been done before. Back in 1990 there was a World Rugby Festival in Canterbury - a few months before the first proper World Cup. It featured USA, Netherlands, USSR and New Zealand and, after the main tournament, a XV chosen from the other three sides played the winner (New Zealand). New Zealand won (12-4), needless to say - apart from anything else they were used to playing together, which the World XV were not.
Maybe the time has come for a repeat. If so, and based on World Cup performances, who could the world outside the Land of the Long White Cloud put together to take on their four-time champions?
1. Rochelle Clark (England)
Impressive performances throughout the tournament - at the heart of England's impressive pack
2. Laetitia Salles (France)
Ever-present as French hooker in two World Cups, a lynchpin of the most successful element of the French team (the maul) - and moreover scorer of two tries in the 2010 tournament.
3. Jamie Burke (USA)
US captain, hugely experienced, put in several impressive performances - especially in the final game against Ireland.
4. Tamara Taylor (England)
5. Jo McGilchrist (England)
The England second row partnership - peerless, even in comparison with the Black Ferns - especially McGilchrist who had an amazing tournament.
6. Heather Fisher (England)
Missed the final owing to injury - probably the most significant absence as prior to the final Heather had had an excellent World Cup.
7. Maggi Alphonsi (England)
Is any explanation needed?
8. Debby Hodgkinson (Australia)
We knew she was a good Sevens player, we didn't know she was a brilliant 15s star as well - and moreover one that got better and better as the tournament went on. Was fantastic against England.
9. Frida Ryberg (Sweden)
Tricky choice this one, but - with her pack under unbelievable pressure in every game - Frida never failed to get the ball away (a heck of an achievement), and speed of pass would be important against the Ferns.
10. Katy McLean (England)
At no position is there greater competition, and - although Katy did not have an outstanding final - her kicking from hand was still far better than any competitor. And if there were any doubts about her goal kicking then there alternatives below...
11. Nicole Beck (Australia)
Is there even the slightest doubt about this? An 80% plus goal kicker, she flies like the wind with ball in hand, can side-step like a dream, and as for the tackling...
12. Sharni Williams (Australia)
A crowd favourite - and with justification. Give her half a yard and you are dead. A scarily good centre.
13. Lucy Millard (Scotland)
A nugget of pure gold in a very average team. Amazing feet - always a threat with the ball - coupled with super defence.
14. Heather Moyse (Canada)
A sporting superstar. Strong, fast, clinical. You do not get to be the leading try scorer in two consecutive World Cups without being very good indeed.
15. Danielle Waterman (England)
Produced more gasps from the crowd in the final than any other player. Seems so small, but has a hand-off that would stop a charging rhino. She can also tackle like a runaway train, and run like the wind. What more do you want?
Replacements:
16. Catrin Edwards (Wales)
17. Amy Garnett (England)
18. Joy Neville (Ireland)
19. Marie Alice Yahe (France)
20. Christy Riggenberg (USA)
21. Cobi-Jane Morgan (Australia)
22. Kat Merchant (England)
Other players who would join a touring party to New Zealand would include:
Stéphanie Loyer (France), Kelly Russell (Canada), Catherine Spencer (England), Mel Berry (Wales), Zandle Nojoko (South Africa), Fiona Pocock (England), Charlotte Barras (England), Nimah Briggs (Ireland).
This is all very interesting - and great fun - but the problem is that the teams picked have no-one to play, at least not until Mars takes up the game. Perhaps more realistic might be whether it is possible to come up with a team that will beat New Zealand - a Rest of the World XV to play the best in the world?
It has been done before. Back in 1990 there was a World Rugby Festival in Canterbury - a few months before the first proper World Cup. It featured USA, Netherlands, USSR and New Zealand and, after the main tournament, a XV chosen from the other three sides played the winner (New Zealand). New Zealand won (12-4), needless to say - apart from anything else they were used to playing together, which the World XV were not.
Maybe the time has come for a repeat. If so, and based on World Cup performances, who could the world outside the Land of the Long White Cloud put together to take on their four-time champions?
1. Rochelle Clark (England)
Impressive performances throughout the tournament - at the heart of England's impressive pack
2. Laetitia Salles (France)
Ever-present as French hooker in two World Cups, a lynchpin of the most successful element of the French team (the maul) - and moreover scorer of two tries in the 2010 tournament.
3. Jamie Burke (USA)
US captain, hugely experienced, put in several impressive performances - especially in the final game against Ireland.
4. Tamara Taylor (England)
5. Jo McGilchrist (England)
The England second row partnership - peerless, even in comparison with the Black Ferns - especially McGilchrist who had an amazing tournament.
6. Heather Fisher (England)
Missed the final owing to injury - probably the most significant absence as prior to the final Heather had had an excellent World Cup.
7. Maggi Alphonsi (England)
Is any explanation needed?
8. Debby Hodgkinson (Australia)
We knew she was a good Sevens player, we didn't know she was a brilliant 15s star as well - and moreover one that got better and better as the tournament went on. Was fantastic against England.
9. Frida Ryberg (Sweden)
Tricky choice this one, but - with her pack under unbelievable pressure in every game - Frida never failed to get the ball away (a heck of an achievement), and speed of pass would be important against the Ferns.
10. Katy McLean (England)
At no position is there greater competition, and - although Katy did not have an outstanding final - her kicking from hand was still far better than any competitor. And if there were any doubts about her goal kicking then there alternatives below...
11. Nicole Beck (Australia)
Is there even the slightest doubt about this? An 80% plus goal kicker, she flies like the wind with ball in hand, can side-step like a dream, and as for the tackling...
12. Sharni Williams (Australia)
A crowd favourite - and with justification. Give her half a yard and you are dead. A scarily good centre.
13. Lucy Millard (Scotland)
A nugget of pure gold in a very average team. Amazing feet - always a threat with the ball - coupled with super defence.
14. Heather Moyse (Canada)
A sporting superstar. Strong, fast, clinical. You do not get to be the leading try scorer in two consecutive World Cups without being very good indeed.
15. Danielle Waterman (England)
Produced more gasps from the crowd in the final than any other player. Seems so small, but has a hand-off that would stop a charging rhino. She can also tackle like a runaway train, and run like the wind. What more do you want?
Replacements:
16. Catrin Edwards (Wales)
17. Amy Garnett (England)
18. Joy Neville (Ireland)
19. Marie Alice Yahe (France)
20. Christy Riggenberg (USA)
21. Cobi-Jane Morgan (Australia)
22. Kat Merchant (England)
Other players who would join a touring party to New Zealand would include:
Stéphanie Loyer (France), Kelly Russell (Canada), Catherine Spencer (England), Mel Berry (Wales), Zandle Nojoko (South Africa), Fiona Pocock (England), Charlotte Barras (England), Nimah Briggs (Ireland).
Tuesday, May 25, 2010
Fantasy and reality: RFUW's junior leagues
RFUW have announced more details about their "proposed"* junior leagues for next season.
First the details. The latest paper says that there will be nine junior U15 and nine U18 leagues next season. These will be approximately geographic (with some variation due to club preferences), and will vary in size from four to seven clubs. In both age bands we are in Midlands South:
The other leagues are:
U15s
South West South: Plymouth Albion, Liskeard Leopards, Newquay Hornets, Tavistock, Exeter Saracens
South West North: Cullompton, Thornbury, Devizes, North Dorset, Worcester Greyhounds
South Coast: Oakmeadians, Ellingham and Ringwood, Worthing, Solent Sirens, Hampshire Penguins, South Sussex Baa Baas, Swanage and Wareham
South East: Guildford, London Irish, Thanet Wanderers, Rochford Hundred, Aylesford Bulls, Thurrock Chicks
Midlands East: Paviors, Aylestone St James, Sleaford, HMH Vixens, Stratford Old Leams, Burfield, Welwyn
North East: Tynedale, Morpeth, Tyne Valley Cluster, Alnwick
North West: Manchester, Tyldesley/Waterloo, Macclesfield/Glossop, Liverpool St Helens, W P Leeds
Bridgenorth, Barnsley
Thames Valley: Ealing Emerlads, Bucks Jesters, Berks Baa Baas, Oxon A, Oxon B, Saracens, Grasshoppers
U18:
First the details. The latest paper says that there will be nine junior U15 and nine U18 leagues next season. These will be approximately geographic (with some variation due to club preferences), and will vary in size from four to seven clubs. In both age bands we are in Midlands South:
| U15 | U18 |
Bedford Blues | Bedford Blues |
Hertford | Lakenham Hewitt |
Lakenham Hewitt | Letchworth Garden City |
Letchworth Garden City | Old Albanian Saints |
Old Northamptonians | Old Northamptonians |
Wellingborough |
The other leagues are:
U15s
South West South: Plymouth Albion, Liskeard Leopards, Newquay Hornets, Tavistock, Exeter Saracens
South West North: Cullompton, Thornbury, Devizes, North Dorset, Worcester Greyhounds
South Coast: Oakmeadians, Ellingham and Ringwood, Worthing, Solent Sirens, Hampshire Penguins, South Sussex Baa Baas, Swanage and Wareham
South East: Guildford, London Irish, Thanet Wanderers, Rochford Hundred, Aylesford Bulls, Thurrock Chicks
Midlands East: Paviors, Aylestone St James, Sleaford, HMH Vixens, Stratford Old Leams, Burfield, Welwyn
North East: Tynedale, Morpeth, Tyne Valley Cluster, Alnwick
North West: Manchester, Tyldesley/Waterloo, Macclesfield/Glossop, Liverpool St Helens, W P Leeds
Bridgenorth, Barnsley
Thames Valley: Ealing Emerlads, Bucks Jesters, Berks Baa Baas, Oxon A, Oxon B, Saracens, Grasshoppers
U18:
South West South: Plymouth Albion, Liskeard Leopards, Newquay Hornets, Tavistock, Exeter Saracens
South West North: Cullompton, Thornbury, Chipping Sodbury, North Dorset, Gloucester Reds, Worcester Greyhounds
South Coast: Oakmeadians, Ellingham and Ringwood, Worthing, Solent Sirens, Folkestone, South Sussex Baa Baas, Swanage and Wareham
South East: Guildford, London Irish, Thanet Wanderers, Rochford Hundred, Aylesford Bulls, Tonbridge Juddians, H3
Midlands East: Paviors, Aylestone St James, Sleaford, HMH Vixens, Welwyn, Newark, Burfield
North East: Tynedale, Morwick, DMP Barracudas, Tyne Valley Cluster
North West: Manchester, Tyldesley/Waterloo, Macclesfield/Glossop, Liverpool St Helens, W P Leeds
Bridgenorth, Barnsley
Thames Valley: Ealing Leopards, Bucks Jesters, Berks Baa Baas, Oxon, Saracens, Grasshoppers, Beaconsfield Belles
Okay, so far so good. A brief glance at this and it looks quite reasonable - even exciting. Not too many teams, not too many long journeys, guaranteed fixtures - great, eh? However, let's dip below the surface a bit and see how this House of Cards stacks up.
Let's take our league. Five U15 and six U18 teams - so that's eight and ten fixtures respectively, mainly against clubs we know pretty well (Lakenham excepted). Err... no. Fact is that we do indeed know these clubs pretty well and - at a reasonably educated guess - I reckon that next season there will be just about sufficient girls at all the clubs put together to form two U15 and two U18 teams. Maybe three if we are lucky.
You see a fairly fundamental flaw in all this is that the RFUW - if they are considering player numbers at all - seem to be either looking at membership categories or maybe at player registrations. Trouble is that we know that both are (for reasons that need not bother us here) pretty inaccurate - even for the current season. But when applied to next season, this season's player numbers are so meaningless that they are close to complete fiction. This is not adult rugby. Major clubs one season are often shadows of themselves the next - indeed they can disappear altogether. Remember Fullerians, the first winners of Herts 7s, providers of a string of England U19s, one of the best teams in the country in 2005... non-existent by 2007. And that is far from an unique example.
In short some - most? - of these leagues are, or will be, complete fictions. Many of these teams will only exist on paper because the clubs involved knew that they had to "express an interest" as otherwise they'd be shut out of the process. Better to be safe than sorry - send the form in. Doesn't mean that they'll have a team though.
There are ways around that, of course. Given some flexibility the SW League's systems could be used - gather all the girls together at one club on each league day and sort of the teams from there. Could still be good. Teeny snag is that, of the many adjectives that might be applied to RFUW, "flexible" is not one that immediately springs to mind.
However, in theory that is fixable. It just needs a bit of imagination. What is not fixable might be summed up in the traditional toast of "absent friends". To take only Hertfordshire, where is Royston? Where is Bishop's Stortford? Where is Stevenage? Not major sides - yet - but Royston is reported to have over 20 U15s next season. That will be 20 U15s twiddling their thumbs, because they won't have many teams to play. The leagues will make sure of that.
Okay, their decision, you may say. Maybe they are not RFUW affiliated anyway so did not get the paperwork, maybe they did not want to take part, maybe they are a shade "administratively challenged". Their problem. Bit if a shame for the girls, though... really good for development... let's kill off teams because they cannot get their paperwork straight. Nice one.
But that too is peanuts, frankly, behind the biggest problem. And to illustrate that - I'm sorry - its down Memory Lane again. We were formed in 2004 on the back of a tag team that played at Herts Youth Games in June of that year. Based on that success we pulled a team together in September 2004, playing our first game in October, and racking up an average of a game every two-three weeks right through to the end of May. We went from nothing to one of the strongest U14 sides in the county in those few months.
These leagues would make that impossible. Utterly impossible. No new clubs will ever be able to follow the our path (which is far from unique). They would need crystal balls (or a spare Tardis) because entries had to be in by the end of last month. In April 2004 Letchworth didn't know that it would have a girls team the following season.
So, clubs starting up between now and next September will find themselves excluded from inter-club rugby until 2011/12 - especially if they are in areas where there are leagues of seven teams (about half the country) as they will have a minimum of 15 blank weekends, in addition to the blank county weekends! So that would be a whole year before they could play properly. Given that, what do you think these new players, these potential stars of the future, will be doing come September 2011? Who knows - but whatever it is it won't involve rugby...
In short - this is great on paper. Sounds wonderful. But then most fantasy is a great read - trouble is that being an exciting read doesn't make it real. And when we get back to reality the truth is that this has the potential to be a disaster. A system that will exclude and kill off new clubs, while gradually watching the existing club game fade away. Remember - on average a third of all junior teams disappear every two years. Its an unfortunate statistic - and the best that can be said is that the leagues will do nothing to stop it.
Bottom line? The RFUW clearly do not remotely understand junior club rugby - they seem to think its like the adult game when it could hardly be more different. It is no exaggeration to say that this needless centralised tinkering - this one-size-fits-all solution to a problem that does not exist - has the potential to kill the game. To sum it up - if these leagues had existed in 2004 you would never have played rugby because Letchworth Girls would never have existed. Its as simple as that.
*"Proposed" as in the sense of "I have a gun to your head and I propose that you do what I tell you".
- I anticipate an inevitable "what would you do, then?" in response to the above. So - here goes...
- "If it ain't broke don't fix it" - or actually the club game has been doing okay so far. Not perfect, but not too bad. There are a few problems - the "Superclub" problem in particular, with talented girls being stolen from "small" clubs by "big" clubs with coaches and parents (and its normally the coaches or the parents - rarely the girls) who are obsessed by winning. There are ways or doing things about that - and one problem with the leagues is that this will make things worse!
- If the RFUW really want to help develop the club game then the best thing is one-off festivals, not leagues. Encourage and organise regular festivals throughout the year - 7s, 10s, 15s - maybe one a month in each Division. Everyone enjoys festivals, they are fun, and clubs big and small can take part (or not) in each festival as the wish, combining with different clubs (or not).
- In between the festivals, friendly fixtures (or independent leagues, if clubs wish to form their own - up to them). RFUW could perform a vital role by running a fixture bureau - matching together teams with blank dates.
- A season of festivals and friendly fixtures would give the flexibility the game needs. New clubs could develop and grow from festival to festival - maybe making a Bowl final here, and Egg Cup there - while established sides could aim for tournament championships. In between clubs arrange games against teams of appropriate standing. Simple, flexible, fun - and much less pressure to create SuperTeams.
Wednesday, March 10, 2010
RFUW bid to "nationalise" league rugby
Just when you might have thought that the future was looking good, what with the threat of regional rugby removed, and the promise of a 2010/11 season which clubs could plan for a full season of rugby with confidence, RFUW have dropped a huge great boulder into the calm waters of junior rugby.
Despite the fact that the junior club game is doing rather nicely, thank you, despite (or is it because of?) minimal central involvement - leagues springing up to meet and match local demands, a slew of fantastic and popular one-off tournaments such as the Gloucester 10s, Herts 7s and Worthing Festival, plus locally arranged clusters and the usual friendly fixtures - the RFUW have potentially thrown the whole thing on one side with proposals for a series of regional leagues run from the centre.
In practice its not entirely bad. The slightly random, ad hoc development of leagues have resulted in some clubs in some areas - due to geographic accident - being too far away from a league regular participation, but too close to not escape the side effects - ie. no teams to play due to other's league commitments. For several years this was a problem that Letchworth faced, until we clustered with Saracens and were therefore able to play in their league.
However, that is about where the positives end. The negatives, on the other hand, are legion.
First, the leagues are to be organised based on club distribution maps based on registrations (U15s above right, U18s left). However the teeny snag is that there is no actual relationship between registrations and "active" clubs. Even the category clubs register in - based on self-assessed teams sizes - rarely match reality. Clubs and teams grow and shrink, rise and fall, unpredictably as seasons go on. And between seasons its even worse - in recent years around 15-20% of teams have disappeared from register from one year to the next and the average club lasts about six years (being replaced by other clubs in different areas).
That does not point towards stability or equal numbers of teams in a league. Just because the arbitrary lines on a map that Twickenham have drawn currently show equal numbers of teams in a given area does not mean that this will be the case next season.
Of course boundaries can be changed to match these variations, but that is actually a minor problem compared with the next question - playing standards. There is a huge gulf - a Grand Canyon - between clubs just starting up and the more well established teams. What on earth would be the point of forcing little clubs just starting out into a league with the likes of Welwyn or Worcester? How would anyone gain from a league where clubs regularly win (or lose) by 100-nil (as would be quite likely looking at some of the proposed groupings)?
Of course clubs do not have to enter - its not compulsory. However if you do not enter, but everyone else around you does, where does your club go then? Who will you play friendlies against if everyone else is playing in the leagues? Will players from non-league teams lose out when it comes to representative selections? Could anyone afford not to enter?
As for the fixture secretaries... well in the long term they may like leagues, but in a normal, sane, world they would also expect to more than a few months notice of major changes to their sport. This time of the year they would already be well on their way to sorting out next season's fixtures. Now... well, what on earth are they meant to do? Will there be leagues, or not? Will they be RFUW's leagues, or one of the current private affairs? Who will be in the leagues? When will the games be played? Is it too late to say that you never wanted to do this job in the first place?
Despite the fact that the junior club game is doing rather nicely, thank you, despite (or is it because of?) minimal central involvement - leagues springing up to meet and match local demands, a slew of fantastic and popular one-off tournaments such as the Gloucester 10s, Herts 7s and Worthing Festival, plus locally arranged clusters and the usual friendly fixtures - the RFUW have potentially thrown the whole thing on one side with proposals for a series of regional leagues run from the centre.In practice its not entirely bad. The slightly random, ad hoc development of leagues have resulted in some clubs in some areas - due to geographic accident - being too far away from a league regular participation, but too close to not escape the side effects - ie. no teams to play due to other's league commitments. For several years this was a problem that Letchworth faced, until we clustered with Saracens and were therefore able to play in their league.
However, that is about where the positives end. The negatives, on the other hand, are legion.
That does not point towards stability or equal numbers of teams in a league. Just because the arbitrary lines on a map that Twickenham have drawn currently show equal numbers of teams in a given area does not mean that this will be the case next season.
Of course boundaries can be changed to match these variations, but that is actually a minor problem compared with the next question - playing standards. There is a huge gulf - a Grand Canyon - between clubs just starting up and the more well established teams. What on earth would be the point of forcing little clubs just starting out into a league with the likes of Welwyn or Worcester? How would anyone gain from a league where clubs regularly win (or lose) by 100-nil (as would be quite likely looking at some of the proposed groupings)?
Which brings up the question of whether junior leagues are a good thing anyway. They are a gift for fixture secretaries who otherwise have the endless (and unappreciated) task of trying to put together a season of friendly games, while coaches love the competitive element - especially at the stronger clubs - aiming for silverware and the proof of... something. But for the development of junior players (or the game generally) are they actually a good thing? Is it good to push clubs to put out the strongest team each week (because what is the point of entering a league of you don't)? How can new players get a game if its nothing but leagues?
Leagues may make it easier to unearth and identify talented players, but surely that is what the representative programme is for? Is it really the point of club rugby (especially junior club rugby) - or amateur sport generally? Is junior rugby to be a sport just for the talented, or should it be a sport for everyone? What about average (or even below average) players who will never play for England, or even the county? Do they not matter as well?
It is a problem that some leagues have faced and solved. While some are "traditional" winner-takes-all highly competitive competitions, not all are. Our current league recognises the importance of encouraging development, while the highly successful and innovative SW League is a completely different beast again - encouraging and rewarding participation as much as on-field success. All of these leagues are the response to local needs and local situations - one size does not fit all. But it will have to. And you can bet your life that the RFUW leagues will not follow the South West model!
It also has to be said that the centre's record when it comes to running junior club is not exactly impressive. The National 7s has always gone well, despite being by far the most expensive single day's rugby of the year, but the National Cup was never exactly a popular or accessible event for 90% of clubs, and even the short-lived National 10s was only a minority interest. On the other hand there are any number of popular successful competitions and tournaments run by individual clubs or countries "private" affairs - including Herts 7s, Gloucester 10s, Worthing, and all of the existing leagues - all of which attract higher entries than their "official" equivalents. And most - maybe all - of these risk being put out of business by the proposals.
Which leads to the question of why RFUW should be getting involved at all? Where has the demand come from? Who has asked for this? Surely "if it ain't broke don't fix it"! What you can be sure of is that any league will come with a slew of new rules and regulations - players registered with certain clubs perhaps, limitations of "lending" players, demands that clubs play games at set times on set weekends, and endless petty disputes as a result. After all that is what has happened with one or two leagues. Throw in ambitious players (or more frequently parents) moving to "better" clubs because they are higher ranked in a league (again its already happened in some areas!) and its difficult to see any benefits from the plan at all.
Of course clubs do not have to enter - its not compulsory. However if you do not enter, but everyone else around you does, where does your club go then? Who will you play friendlies against if everyone else is playing in the leagues? Will players from non-league teams lose out when it comes to representative selections? Could anyone afford not to enter?
As for the fixture secretaries... well in the long term they may like leagues, but in a normal, sane, world they would also expect to more than a few months notice of major changes to their sport. This time of the year they would already be well on their way to sorting out next season's fixtures. Now... well, what on earth are they meant to do? Will there be leagues, or not? Will they be RFUW's leagues, or one of the current private affairs? Who will be in the leagues? When will the games be played? Is it too late to say that you never wanted to do this job in the first place?
Monday, November 16, 2009
RFUW make clear what their priorities are
It seems a while since I have had a go at the RFUW in Twickenham, but a little information that reached me over the weekend needs passing on, I think.
RFU figures indicate that there are at least 4,000 girls aged 13-18 playing rugby in England. I say "at least" because in fact this is almost certainly a wild underestimate - Sport England surveys would suggest that, as result of under-registration of girls and women (or the registration of girls as "boys" due to some of the features registration system) the figure could be easily doubled. Anyway - that's quite a few players for a minority sport. Significantly more than, for example, 60.
Why 60?
Well I hear from a normally reliable source that RFUW are not willing to give their support to a proposed multi-club girls tournament (I will avoid saying which tournament to avoid any nonsense) because the date clashes with an elite girls' event. Or to put it another way the RFUW believe that a development day for a mere 60 or so elite girls - who are obviously starved for development opportunities, what with there being "only" 13 weeks of county and regional rugby, plus TDGs, Schools of Rugby, etc. etc. etc! - is more important than a competitive day's rugby for knocking on for ten times that many. It all confirms (yet again) that despite Twickenham's words about wanting to expand the game, their actions show that basically if you are not a potential England player they are not interested.
On the positive front apparently the RFU have endorsed the tournament - so maybe things may change soon once the merger takes place.
Saturday, May 30, 2009
What makes a complete rugby club?
The steady stream of rugby news that tends to find its way here these days varies a bit in interest and relevance, but if there is a trend then it is generally pretty positive towards the worldwide development of women's and girls' rugby. Gradually barriers seem to be coming down, attitudes changing. Even in male dominated societies women's rugby is growing - women play rugby in Iran, Laos and Cambodia played their first international last week (only 10-a-side, but it will now be an annual event), and an Indian team will take the field for the first time next month.
But just occasionally you get news stories that make you sit up and say "what???". And rather a lot of these stories tend to come from nearer home.
Take for instance today. From the RFU I get their latest newsletter with an article praising to the skies a rugby club that is...
"setting the standard for rugby clubs up and down the country by becoming the first club in England to achieve the Rugby Football Union’s Whole Club Seal of Approval award"
Wow. Apparently...
"the Whole Club Seal of Approval award recognises the effort and achievement of volunteers in reaching the required standard of a club committed to the development of rugby union."Sound amazing. They have obviously worked hard. So who is this club? The answer that they probably won't mean much to you. Why? Because they have no women's or girls' team. So far as I can judge they are nor even part of their county cluster and their comprehensive website mentions girls just twice - once in the mini section saying that girls are welcome, and once in a tour report which apprears to see girls as a form of entertainment for the boys.
Okay, they are only 20 miles from a club with a big, well known girls' team - but within around 20 miles of Letchworth you'll find Welwyn, Hertford, Saracens, Ampthill and Stevenage, so that is no excuse.
But this is not a dig at the winning club (which is why I have avoided mentioning them). What I have problems with is the RFU saying that such a club could be "setting the standard for rugby clubs up and down the country". When one rugby player in 12 in England is now female, is (effectively) a male-only club (with, presumably, no development plan for girls or women's rugby - well not one that works anyway) really the model that the sport's governing body should be encouraging everyone to emulate? Surely a basic requirement for a truly model rugby club would be one that successfully embraced the entire local community - not just half of it?
Sunday, May 24, 2009
Confirmed: No Twickenham final for World Cup
I wonder - when England won the bid for the 2010 World Cup (ahead of Germany and Kazakhstan, if not others) did those voting have visions of a final at the Home of Rugby? If so they are going to face a bit of a disappointment.Admittedly Twickenham was not mentioned in the RFUW's bid, but even so you'd kind of expect that with the tournament taking place at grounds all within the same postcode as England's national stadium, the final of the sport's most important event would take place there. After all Edmonton dusted down their Commonwealth Stadium for the 2006 final even though qualifiers took place at smaller stadia around the city.
But no. The money men (and I bet they are all men too!) are firmly in control of rugby in England, and as the RFUW cannot guarantee to put sufficient bums on seats world rugby's most important women's game must go elsewhere.
Which is not to say that The Stoop - where the final will be - is anything other than a top quality rugby stadium, but - dammit - this is a World Cup. When cricket's women's world cup was last in England in 1993 the final was at Lord's - as it will be again next month for women's 20:20. And can you imagine, if England ever hosted soccer's women's world cup, that the final would take place anywhere other than Wembley?
The fact that Lord's was not, and Wembley would not be, sold out would be irrelevent. Its all about status. If a sport's authorities do not believe that an event is significant enough to be given access to the game's national stadium then how the heck will it sell the event to a press (and therefore a public) that currently considers women's rugby of no importance? After all - by implication - it says that university finals, schools tournaments, inter-service games, and even the House of Lords v the House of Commons are ALL more important than women's rugby at the highest level.
Yet again rugby - when it comes to equality - demonstrates the gulf that exists between its words and its deeds, and how far it has to go to catch up with just about every other major team sport.
Tuesday, April 21, 2009
National Cup correction
It seems that I have been misinformed about Thornbury's withdrawl at least. My apologies to all involved.
Even so the main points remain. It is difficult to understand why national resources are being directed in support of a competition that attracts a handful of entries (9 U18 teams and - I believe - 13 U15 teams?) while other, more popular, formats have been cancelled. Fifteen (or thirteen) a-side rugby may be important, but at this stage in development very few true club teams can come up with squads large enough to take part in this sort of event, especially with the rules as they are. As a result three days in a wildly overcrowded calendar set aside for the event also seems just a bit excessive - the knock-on effect of the tournament ultimately restricts as many playing opportunities as it creates.
But in addition - and the main thing that made all this worthy of mention - was that the format chosen in the south was extraordinary and worthy of comment. At least some of the clubs involved were far from happy - which is why information about it found its way to here. Good luck to those who do go to the second day, but really two days - and two long journeys - should not have been necessary for the task of reducing five teams to one.
Tuesday, March 31, 2009
Closing Time...
"... every new beginning comes from some other beginning's end..."
Thought that now might be the best time to let everyone know that I will not be continuing in any formal management position with the team from next season. Which many may have guessed anyway.
Why? Well I think if Mel had added "... oh, you do realise that you'll be helping to run the team until practically the end of the decade" to her "Do you know where I can play rugby..." enquiry back in late 2002 I might have been slightly less enthusiastic about helping out at the start!
However my aim from 2-3 years ago was always to gradually step back from things and now seems the best time to step away, more or less, entirely.
More importantly it will also create a small vacancy for someone to work with Mike and Heather throughout what will presumably be their final season next year with the aim of taking over in 2010. So if you will still be a junior in the 2010/11 season now is the time to push a parent forward.
Seriously - this is very important. Such is the way this game works that running the girls team probably requires as much off-field effort as running virtually an entire boys' rugby structure from 6-18. Maybe more. Understanding the rules and the unwritten rules and the Ways We Do Things in women's and girls' rugby requires a bit of an apprenticeship. You need to know what you are doing and who to talk to - without which the team just would not get onto the field. So - and I guess this means our small band of U15s - start badgering now!
Not that its all hard work - it is, and has been, staggeringly rewarding (in the non-financial sense of the word!). Its quite strange to stand back sometimes and watch and listen to you all and remember when we or you first started. This season ends with so many of the girls who started the team moving on - next season only Nikki will remain (plus Ruby, if her back ever allows her to play again) - so its a good time for me to step down as well.
However, I won't disappear entirely. Mike has asked that I carry on managing this blog - which I will - along with the Herts RFU website, which I have just taken over (requires a lot of work!). And I'll certainly come along to watch the games!
But that is all in the future. We still have two months of this season to go, including five tournaments and - in one of them - our 200th match. Any idea how we might celebrate that?
Friday, February 06, 2009
All regional games off
All regional games across the country have been cancelled this weekend - and the RFUW have confirmed that the junior games will be replayed next Sunday while the senior games will now be played on the 22nd.
Needless to say its a decision that is going down really well with club coaches and managers across the country. As one (who wished to remain anonymous - and incidentally doesn't that desire for anonymity when making even mild criticism say so much?) said:
"We have fixtures arranged, and non regional girls looking forward to a game, but now they have to wait another three weeks to play... This is [being done] just to justify the £75 fee"Many defend the current regional system, seeing it as the first step of the elite rugby, bringing the best players together - so maybe I could explain the problem using the statistics recently unearthed from the IRB.
The fundamental difficulty is that regional rugby is not elite rugby (and, to be fair, RFUW do not claim it is - and indeed it was never intended to be). A true elite programme would take only the top 5% of players, maybe 10% at most. In fact, if you do the maths, you'll find that the boy's county programme - the bottom rung of their elite programme (and therefore comparable to girls regional rugby) does indeed select, on average, roughly the top 5% of players. Such a narrow selection brings the best players together without taking away so many from the clubs that it brings grassroots rugby to a standstill
The girls regional programme, on the other hand, pulls out some 240 or so girls in each age band from a pool of perhaps 1200-1500 active players across the country - so that's nearer to 15-20%. That is not an "elite" - so much so that it is debatable how much truly elite players benefit from it.
But what is not debatable is that the remaining 80+% of girls suffer - and there is a certain irony that a programme designed to give girls more rugby is now stopping girls playing. Yes, in some counties like Hertfordshire officials go to huge lengths to fill the gap by bringing clubs together, but its far from universal (as the above non-Herts coach confirms) or perfect and will not suit everyone. Its a sticking plaster on a wound the game has inflicted on itself. Certainly at club level the impetus is lost - coaches find themselves with four or five week gaps between club fixtures, unable to build a team or work on any problems. And when their one window that they have been building towards is slammed in their face at a week's notice it is to be expected that they and their players might be a shade upset.
Have a county programme (as we had in Herts this year) that is accessible to virtually all players, and a truly elite (divisional ?) programme by all means - it'd be cheaper for starters! But the strange half-way house that is the current regional programme is neither one thing or the other and causes more harm than good.
Wednesday, February 04, 2009
Getting your priorities... wrong
Given the forecast is not great, RFUW have come up with a detailed plan for deciding when and whether the weekend's regional games will go ahead or not. Essentially decisions will be made by Friday lunchtime at the latest, and will look at both ground conditions and possible travel problems.
This is all very commendable except for one tiny little point. Well, two really - the first might be to ask why no published contingency plan was already in place (bad weather in February being not unheard of) - but the main point is that the games concerned are not to be cancelled (as would seem unfortunate, but sensible, in a crowded calendar), merely postponed. They will be rearranged.
But not (as you might reasonably expect) in place of one of the regional training afternoons. Oh no - they will be rearranged for (in the case of the junior fixtures) the following weekend - that is the only weekend set aside in the calendar for club rugby in the entire month of February, and one of only three weekends made available to clubs between regional trials at the start of January and the end of March!
Yes - I know clubs can work together to put on festivals etc. etc. on regional days, which we do (or try to!) - but that only works if you have a few weeks notice. Last minute changes like this can and will only result in fixture cancellations and therefore hundreds of girls sitting at home NOT playing just so that a small elite can play warm-up games of no importance (after all its not the only warm-up fixture, and it has no effect on the festival).
But it doesn't end there. Oh no. Guess when the senior game would be moved to? I'll give you a clue - when did I say yesterday that Hitchin had their crucial make-or-break league game? Yes -that weekend. No content with mucking up the junior club season, the climax to the senior club season is also threatened. Okay, there are no Hitchin players in the regional squad (unless you count Hayley) but there will be clubs who are affected. Now I grant you that the senior regional game is important - it is one of three fixtures that will decide who qualifies for the championship final in March - but a cancellation of a fixture is one of those things that happen in sport - its tough but it happens, and its not as if the selection of the two teams (from 11) to make the final based on just three games isn't a bit of a lottery anyway!
As a final shot its interesting to look at why RFUW are in this pickle - why last minute rearrangements have to be squeezed in to a suffocatingly tight timetable. Could it be because RFUW imposed this straight-jacket on themselves by coming up with this concentrated regional season, instead of spreading things out as in previous seasons? The words "hoist" and "petard" might be appropriate if it were not for the fact that it is the clubs that are being hoisted on the RFUW's petard.
And before anyone asks what else could RFUW do and how else could they fit the season together, I think I covered that last August, but in short... regional rugby is unnecessary. It is a solution to a problem that doesn't really exist anymore - in most parts of the country a season-long county programme would be just as effective while imposing much less of a pressure on the calendar. Sometimes less is more.
Sunday, August 10, 2008
There is another way - an alternative to regional rugby
Picking up from the previous article on regional rugby, the correspondent who prompted the article also asked "would you have a proposal that might be better?"
Okay, not to shirk a challenge, I'll give it a go...
Currently girls' rugby has a truly amazing number of tiers of performance - at least six:
In addition the terms are hardly well defined - in particular what is meant by "development level" is open to an extraordinarily wide interpretation, to the extent that in practice it is meaningless.
And finally the actual function of each tier varies across the country. In Hertfordshire county rugby has been a pretty elite in the past, but in other parts of the country (where the club game may be less developed) the county team is the only way that girls get to play. The system is therefore inconsistent - a player who in one place might barely beyond county level elsewhere might get as far as the HPAs.
Far simpler might be a more clearly defined structure - perhaps based on three tiers:
1. Participation level:
3. Elite level:
Feel free to suggest alteratives.
Okay, not to shirk a challenge, I'll give it a go...
Currently girls' rugby has a truly amazing number of tiers of performance - at least six:
- "Elite" level:
- TDG/Schools of Rugby (top 30 or so girls in each age group)
- Super-league (top 50)
- HPAs (top 100)
- "Developmental" level:
- Region (11 regions - so top 300)
- County (28 "constituent bodies")
- "Grassroots" level:
- Club (???)
In addition the terms are hardly well defined - in particular what is meant by "development level" is open to an extraordinarily wide interpretation, to the extent that in practice it is meaningless.
And finally the actual function of each tier varies across the country. In Hertfordshire county rugby has been a pretty elite in the past, but in other parts of the country (where the club game may be less developed) the county team is the only way that girls get to play. The system is therefore inconsistent - a player who in one place might barely beyond county level elsewhere might get as far as the HPAs.
Far simpler might be a more clearly defined structure - perhaps based on three tiers:
1. Participation level:
- The development aim would be for this to be club level rugby
- Temporary combinations of clubs, agreed by CB, allowed up to county level if there were insufficient players at individual clubs.
- The aim would be to guarantee that any girl wanting to play would be given an opportunity to play regardless of ability.
- The development aim would be for this to be county level rugby
- In areas where the game was insufficiently developed there might be combinations of counties for an interim period.
- The aims would be
- to give potentially talented girls a chance to play at a higher level
- to allow talented girls to be identified for the elite level.
- Ultimately the programme's calendar would be linked to the boys'/men's county programme
3. Elite level:
- Top 40/50 girls in each age group
- The U18s to be the England U18 squad (practically every other major rugby-playing country has one, why not England?)
- Equivalent to the current Super-league/TDG level
- Run on the same weekends as representative rugby. As mentioned in the previous article, it is debatable how valuable regional/county level rugby is to the development of potential England players.
- Initial selection over the preceding summer - though players might be dropped to or promoted from county level during the season.
Feel free to suggest alteratives.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
