THE DAILY TELEGRAPH REPORTS TODAY
Scottish rugby: Which way now?
By Alasdair Reid





If England fans have been dumbfounded by their side's improbable march to the Rugby World Cup final, then at least there seems to be some sort of consensus over Scotland's performance in the tournament.


Frank Hadden's men, it is generally agreed, achieved a decent pass mark at France 2007, doing no better or worse than was expected of them. They came home neither in triumph nor with their tails between their legs.

From the day the draw was made, it always was the likeliest scenario that Scotland would take their leave of the tournament at the quarter-final stage.

In a World Cup enriched by unexpected twists and turns, the Scots stuck to the straight and narrow, resolute bastions of the predictable. They made it into the last eight, but couldn't quite stretch to the last four. Five of the six World Cups staged to date have now ended the same way.

Those inclined towards a glass half-full point of view might argue that Scotland were denied a place in the semi-finals by a margin of less than one converted try in their 19-13 defeat by Argentina; that victory would have been theirs had fly-half Dan Parks weighted his last-minute chip to the corner just a little bit better for the chasing Sean Lamont.

The half-empty faction could counter with the observation that the Scots only reached that stage because Italy full-back David Bortolussi missed a late penalty against them by just a few inches in the critical pool match the previous weekend.

On balance, a qualified thumbs-up seems appropriate. They came into the competition lying in 11th place in the IRB's world rankings. When they left it they had moved up to eighth, having overtaken Wales, Italy and Samoa along the way.

Coach Hadden could set off for his well-earned break feeling reasonably confident there would be no calls for his head while he was gone.

So much for Scotland, the team. But what of Scotland, the rugby nation?

The Rugby World Cup does far more than just identify the best team on the planet in a given place and at a given point in time; it sets the tone of the sport for years to come.

As fascinating as any contests between the English and Australian scrums might be, the more significant compare-and-contrast exercises are those that highlight changes in rugby's wider cultural backdrop. And in that regard, Scotland have not fared so well.

Broadly speaking, rugby takes one of two forms among the leading nations. In one, power is centralised, the governing body taking detailed control of every aspect of the game down to the level of directing which players should play for which sides. In the other, power is devolved, and the game is shaped by competition between clubs.

The former is rugby's version of the command economy; the latter is rugby's free market.

Australia and New Zealand are the foremost examples of the centralised model, while England and France provide the beacons of the laissez-faire approach.

In which light, the clear-out that took place on Oct 6, when the Antipodean sides were both beaten by their European cousins, was profoundly bad news for those who have set their stalls against the culture of the competitive economy in rugby. Those such as Scotland, as it happens.

When the amateur era ended, leading figures at the Scottish Rugby Union decreed that the professional game would be directed from Murrayfield, that all effective power would be retained by the governing body.

Their model, unashamedly, was New Zealand, their version involving four sides based on the old Scottish districts. And despite a dozen years of administrative turmoil in which the four-team dream became a two-team reality, that is the blueprint they are still following.

Has it achieved the aim of developing a thriving and self-sustaining professional domestic tier? No, crowds are still dismal.

Has it kept Scotland's top players at home? No, a raft of them have just left for more remunerative employment elsewhere.

Has it been a burden on the Union's finances? Massively, as relief from crushing debt is only likely to be achieved through the sale of capital assets.

The keen-eyed might have noticed that South Africa will also be taking part in the final and that their system is substantially similar to New Zealand's. True, but it is also significantly different, particularly with regard to the powers that are devolved to the game's provincial administrations. In many ways, rugby in South Africa is closer to France and England than it is to Australia and New Zealand.

Remember, too, that Argentina's players were mostly honed in the finishing schools of English and French clubs. In effect, then, all four Worlds Cup semi-finalists represented truly competitive rugby cultures rather than those centralised, bureaucratic administrations where players are hot-housed, micro-managed and generally kept out of harm's way.

Sign up to the Daily Rugby World Cup email
Paul Ackford: Boks not all they're cracked up to be
Wales and Ireland, neither of whom even reached the quarter-finals, are hardly the best advertisements for regional rugby either.

In rugby terms, there is little chance of Scotland acquiring the economic clout of France or England in the foreseeable future. Going down the Argentinian route of reverting to an amateur game could also be fraught with danger.

But while Scottish rugby still needs new ideas, it should no longer be assumed that Auckland and Sydney are the places to go looking for them. your view

Which model should Scottish rugby adopt?

This article was originally posted on 18-Oct-2007, 14:35 by Hugh Barrow.
Last updated by Hugh Barrow on 18-Oct-2007, 14:36.