1
Rugby needs to get over itself and stop being so precious
Three days after Warren Gatlandâs Wales stuttered to yet another defeat to Italy in Rome, and 10 days before Matt Sherrattâs Walesâ match against Ireland in Cardiff, three Irish pundits gathered round their microphones to snigger at the state of Welsh rugby.
ADVERTISEMENT
On the âOff the Ballâ sports show, Arthur James OâDea weighed in on the mismatch between the teams separated by 10 places on World Rugbyâs rankings list. âWould a 14-man Ireland team beat Wales?â OâDea asked.
âProbably,â replied his co-host, Ger Gilroy before the conversation took a more cynical turn. Would Wales beat Leinster? Probably not according to the pundits. Would Wales beat Irelandâs second-string side? Their third-string side? Irelandâs u-20s? How many first-team players could Ireland leave on the bench and still beat Wales? Are 12 Irishmen better than 15 of their Welsh counterparts?
Video Player is loading.
Cue the inevitable pearl clutching. Wales Online published the debate in full, the equivalent of sticking it on the dressing room wall with the intent of motivating a beleaguered outfit. On X â which admittedly is no place for measured discourse â OâDea and the gang were branded âarrogantâ, âclownsâ and, perhaps worst of all, of âsounding like the Englishâ.
Their flippant remarks were now part of the zeitgeist. Itâs as if three podcast bros were speaking for all Irish fans, players and coaches. As if Michael D Higgins had carried their message to The Senedd and delivered them to Mair Eluned Morgan himself.
The BBCâs Rugby Union Daily podcast was sucked into the vortex, demonstrating that even the respected and measured Gareth Rhys Owen could prick his finger on what should have been a totally ignorable thorn. Which perhaps is proof that rugby lovers of all stripes can, on occasion, take offence a little too easily.
Erstwhile Ireland second-row Donncha OâCallaghan also got stuck on his new podcast with Tommy Bowe, labelling Gilroy and coâs comments as ânot from rugby peopleâ and that it was âfishing for clickbait and all that s***â.
ADVERTISEMENT
This stems from rugbyâs values where respect for the opposition and authority is sacrosanct. But this is odd, when you think about it. After all, rugby is a sport that requires its participants to perform acts that would precede jail sentences for grievous bodily harm if they were done by civilians in the street. Itâs a game built on violence and antipathy, one laced with colonial hangups and a nationâs pride.
Do we really expect players to tear lumps out of each other and not harbour at least some resentment afterwards? Do we really expect fans to belt out their countryâs anthems, froth themselves into a passionate frenzy, live every tackle and try and then act like Knights of the Realm when the final whistle sounds? Letâs leave the faux chivalry for a bygone amateur age. Itâs 2025. Niggle and needle is part of sportâs appeal. Itâs high time rugby recognised this.
American sports are leaders in this regard. The NBA, NFL and the rest have long acknowledged that sports are not mere pastimes but massive money-making machines. A rugby match lasts 80 minutes. That leaves 1,000 hours in the week to fill with content. It is not enough to rely on team releases and former players pontificating over second-row combinations to stir emotions. We need more fire and brimstone. We need more so-called âarroganceâ from so-called âclownsâ. Because like it or not, engagement is the name of the game.
ADVERTISEMENT
I remember in 2019, in the build-up to the World Cup final, former England scrum-half Matt Dawson penned a column for the BBC. He said that: âIf you could choose a combined XV from England and South Africa at this World Cup, you would choose all England players.â
As a Springboks supporter, I was outraged, as if Dawson had insulted me personally. Even though South Africa had scraped through their semi-final against Wales, and England had just obliterated the pre-tournament favourites New Zealand, I abandoned logic and reason. It was as if, for several days in a row, my amygdala was doing the driving. Every thought I had was coloured by the rage I felt for Dawson, Eddie Jones and all of English rugby.
I know I wasnât alone. And by all accounts, it amplified the sense of excitement. The build-up was now flavoured with a rare spice that is only made available when sporting contests become personal. Itâs what makes rivalries and derbies so special. The players themselves attest to this, how these hostilities help them reach extra heights on the pitch and compel their bodies into one more tackle, one more ruck, one more ball carry when the game is on the line.
Rugby must do away with self-righteousness. In 2012 the BBC pulled a Six Nations advert that remains, to this day, the most memorable promotion of the competition. In it, fans from Wales, Ireland, Scotland, France and Italy looked into the camera and yelled out âEngland!â, not in support, but in response to being asked which team they most wanted to beat.
The ad didnât see the light of day until it was shared on YouTube. Tournament organisers were understood to have raised concerns with the BBC and it was re-edited before going to air. A BBC spokeswoman said: âThe creative concept for the Six Nations trail was around fans being united in rivalry. We featured real fans from England, Wales, Scotland and Ireland in the trail all talking about who they wanted to beat. The non-English fans interviewed for the trail all wanted to beat England which made the first cut of the trail slightly unbalanced. We therefore changed the balance of the fans in the next edit to make the trail more representative.â
Ridiculous, right? Letâs give rugby fans some credit. Not all of us are snowflakes and shrinking violets. We can take a joke. We can handle criticism. And when we disagree or take offence, we voice our protestations and provide a counterargument. Of course this has the potential to veer into jingoism and poison â Iâve copped my fair share of abuse for opinions published on this site â but like a tenacious loose forward taking aim at another ruck, Iâve dusted myself off and made another dart. Iâd like to think that Iâm in the majority in this regard.
So letâs encourage more banter and hot-takes. Some might be utter nonsense. Some might even make you mad. But our sport would be poorer without them.
News, stats, live rugby and more! Download the new RugbyPass app on the App Store (iOS) and Google Play (Android) now!
Ah come on. No disrespect meant towards the author but maybe a little over sensitive? I seem to recall when Ireland were âwinningâ the wooden spoon every year in the 5 nations. There was plenty of sniggering then about âpoor Irelandâ and how bad they were. The only difference was that there was no real social media. It was the same thing a couple of years ago for Italy. The whipping boys at the time for social media. Always expected to lose. The simple truth is, Welsh rugby is currently in a bad place. It's not going to last. Wales will bounce back in the next couple of years and then, Welsh pundits will be sniggering at the new âworst teamâ.
A little niggle between fans is good. Itâs difficult to love your team and not get incensed when someone says something negative about them. You canât switch the medulla oblangata off. Emotion is what drives humans to buy products, vote for politicians, bring their eyes to watch rugby games.
Besides, youâll never get the pundits from the North to talk much sense. Theyâre all mostly bozos looking for clicks. And they donât know much about rugby. Especially the English ones. They have to niggle other teams and their fans because they donât have much positive to write about their own team.
So long as after the game the players themselves respect each other as is generally the case. And rugby fans never behave like English football fans. Itâs all good.
Scotland. 1 point.
This was literally one podcasts amongst 100s from Ireland on the Wales-Ireland match.
Wales lost 43-0 to France. Is nobody allowed crack a joke?
I didnât see any Welsh person who really gave a sh1t about it.
The problem is a lack of understanding about modern media. You are going to get all viewpoints even the extreme. If several major Irish Rugby publications were doing it it might be news, one Mickey Mouse outlet isnât, thats just modern media.
It would be more correct to focus on the scores of Irish broadcasts that are going out of their way to be sensitive to Wales. Not sure that has happenned before any international to date.
If most of New Zealands Super Rugby sides can beat the Lions Leinster should surely be able to beat Wales on a good day (era).
What the fcuk does this mean!?
When did the Welsh ever hear that from the English? At least that would be based on England's position as the Hemisphere's most successful nation. The BBC werenât sparing English feelings - we know they all have their hang ups about England, they just didnât want the fans of other nations to look so pathetic.
Letâs find the middle ground, which I think is what this article is encouraging. If the game wants to grow and stay relevant into the booming sports industry, it must modernize and adapt. I think we all want to see this sport grow and I think this is one of the paths it must take.
What does that mean?
Yeah, letâs implement more trash talk to have more clickable articles on a rugby website.
I feel like the pundits who get most of the applause and are entertaining in rugby are probably the ones who are the most expert, empathetic and just guys: Squidge and Eggchasers.
Most of the people here are already using their rugby passion to escape from their real life problems, and some of them pour their frustration into debates about guys they donât know doing things they (the fans) have no control over, through a rather unhealthy identification.
More identification and trash talk will certainly help more clickbait and hence more money for the website.
But for the sport?
Itâs slowly having more and more in common with football, and that is not good news, because football has become terribly toxic. And paradoxically, amazingly boring IMO.
So no, Iâm fine with respect and light hearted jokes, thanks.
At least one notable rugby analyst on this site thinks Squidge is rubbish.
The trash talk extends to pundits between and about themselves.
Itâs very hard for many men not to pull out the tape measure. Especially the ones from Ireland and the UK for some reason. đ§
Do you mean objectification, not identification? Whats that mean.
âClickâ. There ya go (no need to read article).
The main problem with âOff The Ballâ is that they are sh1t at slagging!
We owe Wales about 80 years of taking the p1ss and this is a bad start!
The Welsh can take a slagging but it must be good quality-observe the great Gareth Edwards:
I think healthy debate and lighthearted banter are absolutely fine, but letâs not veer into the realms of boxing and cage fighting shall we.
The âPunditsâ whom revert to disrespect, do so because they lack the cerebral capacity to fully orate their opinion in balanced and measured terms.
Letâs face it, who couldnât be a pundit, itâs merely stating the blindingly obvious, whilst trying to convince people you have the insight of the Oracle of Delphi!!
Banter is fine but respect and chivalry are a big part of rugbyâs appeal to me. Being able to batter someone on the pitch then shake their hand, give em three cheers and go for a pint is what makes rugby special.
I don't think we should be encouraging division. There's too much division in this world already. If rugby is deemed less entertaining because players don't smack talk each other before matches and fans don't organise brawls in the street, so be it. Rugby should continue to set an example. If people say we're âpreciousâ because we don't act like d**heads then that's up to them, I can live with it.
Tom. You are going to get the full spectrum of views including someone taking the p1ss. The remarkable thing about the Irish coverage was the scores of broadcasts going out of their way NOT to say anything that could be perceived as disparaging rather than the one broadcast that cracked a joke.
100% with you. Thereâs already plenty of sports heavily reliant on controversy/drama driven media model, no need for rugby to become just another.
Itâs also good for the general public, if thereâs a sport with role models who can behave like civilized people.
Hard disagree on pretty much everything you write.
The value of rugby is precisely in this seeming paradox of the viciously physical action on the field, and the gentlemanly behavior off it, and after the whistle.
I wouldnât watch rugby, if it turned into just another goon sport, yielding to the savage urges like the 1970âs NHL, or like pro boxing where the participants pose as tough guys and befoul one another through the media. Thatâs just yielding to the least common denominator audience, and we have plenty of sports, that already serve this segment of the entertainment market. No need for rugby to become just another one of those, and lose its key distinction. Itâs much better for rugby to keep itâs uniqueness and intrigue.
And yes, if youâve done any contact sport, youâd know, that the participants generally respect one another. They KNOW how much it hurts, and they know, that even though the other guy might be worse, he still has the courage to put his body on the line. And this goes way beyond sport: there have been so many historical examples of enemies at war respecting one another. Soldiers from WW1 and WW2, who stood on the opposing sides, have met years after those wars had ended, and shook each otherâs hand, and talked. They are bound by respect and shared experience.
Ancient Romans erected statues of Hannibal, who was the biggest threat they have ever faced. They did it out of massive respect for a formidable enemy, whoâd almost brought them down.
I agree that the conversations on rugby should be respectful and constructive. Not needlessly inflammatory, while adding nothing of substance.
One of the key aspects of sport, especially sports like rugby. Is that it teaches self-control and mutual respect. That when the whistle blows, play starts, you try (within the rules) to use violence and guile to achieve victory. The whistle blows again, you stop and revert to being civil. It teaches us that there is a time and place for violence, but the rest of the time we should be civil, and to let go of what happened on the pitch. Players/fans etc. taunting and insulting each on or off the pitch and off it is also a blight on the game.
Taunting and being emotive/needlessly provocative goes against this true message of sport. Play hard and fair, but after the game socialize together and have a laugh, beer etc.
Of course, civil, constructive debate after the game can occur. But the type of interactions the author suggests are juvenile, and frankly beneath rugby (and the ethos of sport in general).
Also, it reduces the commentary of rugby from something where people discuss the game, growing their knowledge and appreciation for the game. To juvenile nonsense that just cheapens the game and takes up valuable space.
The people who engage in this type of behavior, generally, have little of substance to offer to the conversation.
The Romans also destroyed Carthage, covered their fields with salt, pulled down every building and killed every person living in the city. Thereâs a reason we have the term âCarthaginian peaceâ.