Our opinion of the game: Worthless and uninformed?

[daz]

We have already had the following comments:

1) Matt Burke says unless I have played at the highest level, I have no real understanding of what goes on during a game.

2) Ewan McKenzie tells me unless I have packed a scrum at the highest level, I have no real understanding of how a scrum works.

Now we have AFL people getting in on the act. This from Garry Lyon, former Melbourne Demons skipper and current Ch 9 commentator, discussing how a head coach is perceived by the great unwashed masses. I quote:

"Only those with an intimate understanding of the day-to-day goings-on of a football club are in any position to pass judgment on the suitability or otherwise of the man elected to take responsibility for the on-field performance of the team."

http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-ne...l-for-heads-20110527-1f8k0.html#ixzz1NZXAU3Zl

I should let these comments wash over me, but is this how the majority of top level players and coaches think of the life-long supporter? That having watched games for years and spent every Monday debating the weekend action with like minded colleagues counts for nought?

Thoughts?

 

[Bruwheresmycar]

There are many factors involved in understanding rugby.

- Experience
- Intelligence
- Skill level
- Observation

Just to name a few.

I'd say it is a huge call to say you must have played at the top level to understand it. For a start, super15 players play at club level all the time, and train with club sides.

 

[Richo]

I guess we should just give up on this whole democracy thing. The great unwashed masses have never been involved in the running of a country. Why should we get a vote?

 

[a don]

yeah well i coulda played at the highest level except I was too small, i broke my jaw, did my acl, and don't have any hand-eye co-ordination ... but other than that I coulda.

What I will say is that when I was at school Kel O'Shea , an ex-league international and named as a top 100 player of the last century, took over the local pub. He came up to the school and taught the firsts scrummaging. We were magnificent against the other local schools from that day on. I learned so much in one day about what to do and how to link with the others in the scrum.

 

[Godfrey]

Is that exactly what Ewen McKenzie said though? I thought it was that if you haven't packed a scrum you wouldn't truly understand them - which is completely true. Let's rearrange the equation - would it be ridiculous to say that if you have never packed a scrum then packing in one regularly would give you a better insight into their workings? Not ridiculous at all.

Exposure to the day to day, the inner workings and high-level games/scrums/management etc will of course give new/higher insight. The problem with these statements is that they insinuate that below this level there is zero understanding.

 

[cyclopath]

Is that exactly what Ewen McKenzie said though? I thought it was that if you haven't packed a scrum you wouldn't truly understand them - which is completely true. Let's rearrange the equation - would it be ridiculous to say that if you have never packed a scrum then packing in one regularly would give you a better insight into their workings? Not ridiculous at all.

Exposure to the day to day, the inner workings and high-level games/scrums/management etc will of course give new/higher insight. The problem with these statements is that they insinuate that below this level there is zero understanding.

That logic doesn't seem to preclude fat guys who never ran a backline from apparently knowing all there is about that though...
As we have seen, only a few can do it well.
If we apply this rule to its nth degree, we might need many more sub-fora to discuss each game.

 

[Red Rooster]

That logic doesn't seem to preclude fat guys who never ran a backline from apparently knowing all there is about that though...
As we have seen, only a few can do it well.
If we apply this rule to its nth degree, we might need many more sub-fora to discuss each game.

The scrum is the one part of the game that technically has changed the least over time, they have changed how you get into it, and yet it is still a blight that is "unsolved". Link was suggesting that without packing in one at any level it might be difficult to solve the problems - to date he is right it is still a problem despite all the well intentioned meddling

Daz - you have expressed your opinion on this site - there is nothing forcing you to listen to theirs or stress about it

 

[WB3]

Good old Matt Burke...

I can remember trying to explain to my parents what was going on on a rugby field after a game numerous times and thinking it is hard to convey why things happen as they do. The issue is not the public's inability to understand the intricacies of the game or the team dynamics, it is the difficulty of articulating it (which, sadly, is what Matt is supposedly being paid to do...). Of course having done something gives you more insight initially, but that can be conveyed to others.

 

[liquor box]

I think that if a team relies only on the opinion of those involved in the game then they will only get what they have always got, a little suggestion from outside their comfort zome might actually allow for improvement. I wonder what the thinking was when a Mungo was first employed to teach defence? This was from a different point of view and worked wonders.

I like to think that my opinion can be as important as anyone elses, but admit that for every good idea I have Matt Burke will have about a thousand of them, but the big question is which of those 1001 ideas will win a game?

 

[daz]

Daz - you have expressed your opinion on this site - there is nothing forcing you to listen to theirs or stress about it

I did, didn't I? Isn't that what a forum is for? I'm sure I will continue to do so.

I am offering a discussion point based on comments from ex-players at the top level v. the perceived knowledge of the supporter.

I suppose there is nothing forcing you to read this thread, but you did.

 

[Scarfman]

To give Link his due ... it's one thing to be a critic of the Waratahs' composure under pressure, and the general direction of their game plan. It's another to say that too many of us on this forum could teach Ben Daley much about scrummaging.

In my opinion, the following is completely consistent:
1. Chris Hickey knows more about rugby than me
2. I might be right about a couple of things that he is wrong about

 

[Gnostic]

Given this place tends to be inhabited by the die hard feral Rugby fan is it unreasonable to assume that many would have at least a smidgen of Rugby knowledge? They may not be elite coaches or players but it would be arrogant in the extreme to assume that the avid fan doesn't understand at least some of the finer points of the game.

 

[Riptide]

Like Daz, I find myself irritated by such comments. While a surgeon can justifiably call into question the opinion of a butcher with respect to optimal techniques for the removal of a blocked heart valve, sport is eminently more accesible, and we dont need formal training at an accredited campus to have an opinion. And while we can acknowledge that many of the game's subtleties and intricacies may elude "average" viewers, there are many informed students of the game on this site, even if few can claim with any confidence that we know it all especially as it relates to the scrum. However, we know if the damn scrum is going backwards, we know if the TH is dropping his bind and we know if the ref subsequently blows his whistle for an infringement. Moreover, we can read the scoreboard.

Burke's comments and those like it (would excuse Link from this as I believe his comments were directed at those looking to police the scrum), are usually made by those who are under the cosh, or who are struggling to justify poor performance. Burke looks more and more like an ass behind a circled wagon for saying what he said, and he didn't look too hot at the time. I've played the game at a high level, and I dont believe I should have to produce my credentials every time I offer an opinion. My opinion should stand on it's merits.

And I'd ask what is being done to enhance our limited understanding? It is enormously frustrating to watch certain broadcasts where the analysts offer sweet fuck all other than being a tiresome cheerleader for his favored home team, or where they just regurgitate what we have seen with our own eyes (are we blind too?). They pander to the lowest common denominator and fail to elevate understanding of those "subtleties" we can't graps. Coaches also do this as well with idiotic, banal press conferences or post-game comments in which nothing of any real import is said. What exactly are we failing to understand about the grand scheme of things that you (coaches, administrators etc) find so incomprehensibly difficult to articulate even with all the tools available to you. Inform the public; we ultimately pay your wages, and dont take us for granted.

As an aside, I enjoy listening to Grant Fox or Austin Healy; they at least inject real insight to complement their bias and are refreshing given that so many of their peers are just bullshit smiling personalities in studios who offer precious little.

 

[Scotty]

I love watching the sa games as they have the most even handed commentators in the three countries and therefore often provide more accurate analysis.

 

[vidiot]

McKenzie has yet another interesting piece on the media and he pretty much states the opposite to the thread title:

The last category of media is blog sites and forums.

Lots of interesting discussion goes on in these mediums and the level of background information bloggers have is quite extraordinary.
I regularly read Green and Gold Rugby and The Roar – something you need to do so with your flak jacket on.

Nobody gets spared a mention and you need to take the good with the bad as there is plenty of both.

These are the diehards and the passionate, even if their memories over time get a little jumbled.

It’s worth visiting these spaces as perception is reality and if you want to know what people are thinking you may as well start with the ones that truly care.

Read more: http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/rugby-union/reds/feeding-the-beast-20110526-1f5gb.html#ixzz1NgeRZDnQ

 

[Riptide]

Personally, I dont care if the commentary team reveal its bias or focuses on one team, or if even if the analysis is not particularly even handed. It's annoying but I'd prefer to get some insight on a game that I dont necessarily get when watching a close-up shot on TV. Have there been any defensive adjustments, or has the analysts identified something from alignments that suggests one team is attacking perceived weakness in a specific way?

 

[Red Rooster]

McKenzie has yet another interesting piece on the media and he pretty much states the opposite to the thread title:

Agree - sounds like Link values the opinions for their honesty at least

 

[fatprop]

:angryfire: Rant begins .............../

The argument that ex "doers" are the only worthwhile critics is an old one that doesn't meet any scant analysis.

If it was really the case should it hold for all endeavours?

Should a film critic be only acceptable if the have an won an Oscar, or a restaurant critic be only acceptable if they once were a Michelin starred chefs, or an business analyst be only be considered worthy if he/she had run a successful multi national company? etc etc

Of course not.

The argument is simply used to try to make a vocal public shut up, faun to our betters and simply accept what is provided because we really don't no any better.

Bugger that, if we are wrong, communicate with us and educate us.

Try explaining what you are trying to do, what you didn't do, admit failure to execute and talk about plans to improve - we all can accept failure if that team goes down fighting, with purpose and nothing left in the tank.

Just don't bring out stats explaining how good you are playing when you are not and losing matches playing negatively and dumb.

We may not be all be ex test players, but we aren't dolts either.

/ Rant ends ......................

 

[RedsHappy]

As 'the non-insiders' that have likely never packed an S15 scrum, nor have ever played in a Test, or never gossiped with coaches over tactics and players after a big game, we definitely should all stop offering opinions and advice when the following outcomes have been achieved as a new high water mark in Australian rugby:

- we have won another RWC. and;

- we have won 2 S15 Finals sequentially, and;

- average Aus S15 crowds are 22,000 + per match 2 years in a row, and;

- we have won a 3N in 2 out of 3 years.

Umm, does it not strike the reader that we are today a tad off achieving these benchmarks of Australian rugby (and fan supporting) excellence? Thus, could it be rationally argued that the capacity for constructive critique of all things rugby (coaches, players, game tactics, team cultures, business management, the lot) needs, if anything, extending and bolstering in this country, vs the opposite?

Wide-ranging capacity for critique in an equally wide-ranging assortment of media is to a professional sport's long term health what the rights of free speech by every person are to democracy's preservation. That every opinion is not necessarily as worthy as another in terms of its merit is understood, but the wholesale absence of opinion, or the decline of the validity or bulk of the general opinion, for whatever reason, is the mark of a dying society. And precisely the same will be true of a major sport.

Which brings me to my final point: the only free-thinking, and deeper-thinking, mainline rugby journalist in Australia today is Wayne Smith, period. The rest are narrow-range journeymen largely following a banal, status quo line, or one that lovingly follows the line favoured by the code's governing bodies. The idea that the only counter to this sad lack of quality mainstream analysis is for 'proven experts' to comment is absurd. If the alleged proven experts, including Matt Burke (doing as he is such a fine job with the Tahs' 2011 kicking stats), were the crucial place of call for the key opinions to right the recent decline of real success (playing and commercial) in Aus rugby, we would surely not have the performance problems we have in the sport today. Hence my suggestions above as to the achievement levels required when (for example) daz, Scarfman, Hawko, LG, Bruce R, Gagger, Gnostic, Barbarian etc etc, should all pack it in and go home in satisfied raptures witnessing then the new peak in the code's achievement.

 

[RedsHappy]

:angryfire: Rant begins .............../

The argument that ex "doers" are the only worthwhile critics is an old one that doesn't meet any scant analysis.

If it was really the case should it hold for all endeavours?

Should a film critic be only acceptable if the have an won an Oscar, or a restaurant critic be only acceptable if they once were a Michelin starred chefs, or an business analyst be only be considered worthy if he/she had run a successful multi national company? etc etc

Of course not.

The argument is simply used to try to make a vocal public shut up, faun to our betters and simply accept what is provided because we really don't no any better.

Bugger that, if we are wrong, communicate with us and educate us.

Try explaining what you are trying to do, what you didn't do, admit failure to execute and talk about plans to improve - we all can accept failure if that team goes down fighting, with purpose and nothing left in the tank.

Just don't bring out stats explaining how good you are playing when you are not and losing matches playing negatively and dumb.

We may not be all be ex test players, but we aren't dolts either.

/ Rant ends ......................

A top-notch rant, fp, if I may say so. Spot on to the power of 5.