Twist facts how you like, Tests still reign supreme
“The re-starting of the game has clubs and unions battling each other over primacy”
AS THE old saying goes: “There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics.” The inference, of course, is that statistics can be used to defend a weak argument by the use of numbers, not facts.
The long debate in the rugby world as to whether professionalism has delivered a better game has again been opened up to fill the space left by the lack of games.
A number of stats are used to show how different the game is now compared to the amateur era by comparing games at World Cups.
The argument that the ball was in play for an extra 11 minutes during all games in the last World Cup and there were more passes, rucks (which surprises me as there are no rucks in the professional game!) and mauls with fewer penalties, means, say its supporters, that the professional game is better.
It is a perfect example of statistics not telling the whole story because although those figures are right, it doesn’t explain how the game has changed to gain all those extra minutes etc.
Much of the modern professional game is about short drives at the side of breakdowns (neither a ruck or maul as in the amateur days) which occur at tackle situations.
This has increased the number of phases of play while not actually gaining much ground or improving the game as a spectacle because they all end in either a box kick or a popup pass to a forward who is tackled more or less level with the previous breakdown.
In the stats of the game there are more passes and more phases of play adding minutes of ball in playing time, but are those phases adding to the enjoyment of the game for either the players or the fans?
Some try to say that players in the amateur times were less fit and skillful – but that is certainly not the case at international level where even the bigger players were able to compete for the whole 80 minutes of the game, unlike many of today’s professionals.
In my opinion, it is the structure of the game itself that has changed with professionalism, creating a more organised game with less space for creative thinkers and the need to physically dominate your opposition.
Is the game better or worse in these professional times? No, it’s not better or worse. It’s different. And it brings different things to different people.
Another area where stats were used was by Colin Boag in this paper when he was arguing that the club game was more important than the international game and internationals should not take primacy.
I love Colin’s logic and how he used figures from the 2018/19 season, the last full season, to prove his point.
Colin wrote that England attracted around 550,000 people to watch their seven games at Twickenham during that season while the clubs attracted around two million.
Although those stats are true, what Colin didn’t say was that the clubs played a total of 135 matches with an average audience of just over 14,000 per game to make up the two million, while Twickenham attracted over 74,000 to each of its seven internationals.
The clubs have a potential total seating capacity of 204,162 but for that season attracted an average total audience of just 84,000 each week, less than half their total capacity. Whereas Twickenham has a maximum capacity of 82,000 and attracted an audience of over 90 per cent to each of its games.
He also forgot to mention the television audience, which, for just one of the England games, was over 8.5m viewers, easily making the international game by far the biggest viewing audience in the game.
I have to admit I am as guilty of using stats to suit an argument as Colin because although the seating capacity of the club grounds is 204,162, only half the grounds are used each week.
With the average ground capacity around 17,000 per club, the clubs were averaging around 80 per cent capacity at each game they played.
The re-starting of the game has got every body in a mess with clubs and unions battling each other over primacy.
Sadly the symbiotic relationship that the FFR appear to have with their professional clubs in the LNR is something we in England can only dream of.
The LNR are not reliant on funding from the FFR and there are laws that guarantee certain aspects of the game in France that underpin the authority of the FFR.
Most French clubs play in stadiums owned by the municipality in each of their home towns and pay a minimum fee for the privilege of representing their town.
However, Colin’s comments about World Rugby not truly caring about the club game are to a certain extent true.
The prime objective of World Rugby should be to grow the game, protect and help fund smaller unions and help stop those minor unions having their best players taken from them.
While at all times overseeing a common interpretation of the laws of the game in each of the countries where the game is played.