One of the showpiece games of the Six Nations every year is England-Wales. For all the passion that was displayed on Sunday it was not a good game and skill levels by both sides were very poor. It was not even that conditions did not allow for it, the pitch was pristine, the weather was good, yet still handling was poor by both sides.
Why then are two of the Northern Hemisphere's top sides are so poor at basic skills. Much of the fault lay with Wales on the day who were very poor however, we need to look past top level international rugby and down at the leagues; both the Aviva Premiership and the RaboPro12.
Compared to the Super XV neither league has an overall good skill standard. Most teams in these leagues opt to use the boot far more than their hands. There are exceptions to this and it is refreshing to see teams and players with outstanding handling ability. The question still remains; how have the Southern Hemisphere clubs left us so far behind with their superior basic skills.
There is an argument to suggest that games like Aussie Rules Football help their handling form a young age. In Australia AFL, Rugby League and Rugby Union are all big sports and all encourage good handling skills. There is a fair point to say that their sporting culture helps them. In the Northern Hemisphere we tend to have a far greater focus on football from a young age, so there is a difference there.
However, this only accounts for Australia; the weakest of the three great Southern Hemisphere sides at the moment. New Zealand and South Africa also possess phenomenal handling skills. Watching one game of Super Rugby will show the difference between the two Hemispheres. The reason for this difference, there may be a few but one I find important is the pitches.
In Super Rugby the players play on beautiful carpets of grass which encourage running rugby and good handling abilities. Twickenham was close to being one of these pitches on the weekend, but our players are not used to that style of play and couldn't implement it. If a Southern Hemisphere side had played on the Twickenham turf on Sunday they would have played in style.
4G pitches I believe are the way forward. For every coach it is about working with what you have, controlling the controllable. Technology has given us the ability to create the pristine surfaces that the Southern Hemisphere have always had due to the obvious weather differences between Sydney and Edinburgh.
Using these 4G surfaces at every level from the grass roots up to international would help players improve their skills no end. It is here that I begin to start having an argument with myself. I can see the positive impact of 4G pitches, but rugby is a sport played on grass and it would not be right to take that away. Would it?
Both the Cardiff Blues and the Saracens have opted for the new high-tech pitch. It does have advantages for clubs. As the pitch cannot be cut up by over use or damaged it can be used whenever it is available. The Cardiff Blues have seen a business market in this and rent the pitch out for the public to play on. This is great for the fans as they can play on the same pitch as their heroes, and also brilliant for the bank balance of rugby clubs who are looking for ways to make their assets work for them.
An artificial pitch would also help with the scrum. I do not believe the Northern Hemisphere should go as far as the Southern has in terms of the scrum becoming a non-event. It should still be a contest and the artificial pitch would allow both teams to hold their ground without the pitch churning up.
In the Northern Hemisphere we do have some of the greatest rugby venues in world rugby. However, the pitches are simply not up to standard. The pre-match atmosphere at Murrayfield is brilliant, but it is dies when a ball is kicked because the pitch is so bad the game simply degenerates. It is good to see the Scots moving towards a Hybrid pitch, the halfway house between old and new.
There are many reasons to put 4G pitches in place and they are valid reasons. On the other hand it remains difficult to ignore the tradition of rugby and the 'hallowed turf' of certain arenas. Is rugby the same game without grass and mud? It sounds like an absurd statement but that is the way we all play as children and it is part of the charm of the game. It is heart-breaking to think moments like the Gareth Edwards try against Scotland in 1972 would be wiped out. The try where he scored and stood up to reveal his face coated in mud; a classic rugby moment.
Bizarrely there are not many reasons to support keeping pitches as grass, but they have tradition on their side. Tradition counts for an awful lot in rugby union; look how long it took to finally become professional. I cannot decide where I stand on this. I am a traditionalist that can see all the benefits of the new technology.
I support the argument of new pitches until it gets to the Millennium Stadium. A stadium that is probably more in need of the new technology than most. However, as it means something to me I don't want to see an artificial pitch there and Irish fans will probably feel the same about Landsdowne Road and the English will Twickenham. It will be interesting to see how the Scots react to the new pitch as the turf at Murrayfield is replaced before the Autumn internationals.
No comments:
Post a Comment