Rugby’s conundrum - the strong get stronger

Theo Garrun says the game of rugby in our schools is in trouble, which means the game itself is struggling.

As is usual at this time of the year, I’ve been collecting rugby fixture lists ahead of the busy second school term.

They are, I guess, nothing but a bunch of schedules in a folder that will determine where I am going to be spending my Saturday mornings over the next few months, but they also tell a story.

They tell the story of how the game of rugby in our schools is in trouble, which means the game itself is struggling.

A million years ago I used to be the fixture secretary for the local schools' rugby association. I’m not so old that computers didn’t exist in those days. They did, but maybe there wasn’t anyone clever enough to write a programme that could work out who plays who and when - so I used to puzzle it out with pen and paper.

It was quite a task, and an exciting time for everyone - finding out what your season looked like.

It must be a lot easier now. There’s a handful of schools (the stronger ones) who all play each other, and fill in with fixtures from out of town, and a handful of schools (the weaker ones) who, again, play each other only, with fewer teams and fewer matches across the season.

There is no crossover between the two groups, except for the odd occasion when one of the bigger schools will play a few lower teams, junior games against a smaller one to fill some gap in a fixture against a school with fewer teams than they have.

It wasn’t that way in the old pen-and-paper days.

There used to be what we call the Wednesday games - matches that crossed the divide between the 1st and 2nd divisions. They provided a chance for the weaker schools to test themselves against the stronger ones - a welcome release from the pressure of big derby games for the stronger teams.

Nowadays, the gap between the two groups is just too big for that to happen. So, it’s ‘Test’ matches all the way for the big schools, while the rest play low-key, poor-quality rugby among themselves with fewer fixtures per year and fewer teams per fixture.

The upshot is that in the top half, the competitiveness is leading to all sorts of dubious practices (and sadly, some of those have already become apparent this season), while the game is all but dying in the bottom half.

The reasons given for the dropping of those Wednesday games had to do, among other things, with too much rugby being played. It was decided that two matches in a week was too many.

And, more sinister, some of the smaller schools became reluctant to expose their better players to the big guns for fear that they would be poached and end up there - something which happened regularly and, it seems, still does.

Having longer rest and recovery time between matches makes perfect sense, I guess, although you have to wonder how they justify the Easter period when, this year for example, some schools have just played four matches in 10 days.

It’s still a pity that there is no crossover any more. It’s led to a situation where the talented players are attracted to the stronger schools (or lured there).

The strong get stronger - which is great in pure rugby terms - and the weak get weaker to the point where they stop playing altogether.

That’s not good for the game. The educational values it imparts are being kept from the majority of schools, and the numbers at the base of the player pyramid are decreasing.

And transformation is being hampered - how can rugby become a majority sport if only a minority of schools play it?

That said, there are some tantalising Saturday clashes ahead, in my folder of fixtures, and one or two Wednesdays on which I’ ll have a good excuse to slip out of the office.

Roll on the season!