Refusing to learn remains Murrayfield administration’s biggest failing
KEVIN FERRIE March 05 2009
As a colleague and I walked towards Murrayfield on Saturday, we were initially astonished to be confronted by a ticket tout.

The cockney accent gave the lie to any notion that this was a Scottish or Italian supporter with one ticket too many on his hands.

On turning towards one another to register our bemusement that anyone would think he could get a mark-up on tickets for a match that was far from sold out, the penny suddenly dropped.

The Scottish Rugby Union have, in refusing to sell tickets on the day of a Test match, created an artificial black market.

The only way someone who made a match-day decision to attend last Saturday could get in when there were some 16,200 empty seats was by buying from one of these touts. No wonder his trip from London felt worthwhile.

It is an extraordinary state of affairs and, even when supporters were criticising the SRU last autumn for this customer-unfriendly policy, this particular consequence did not occur. It is, though, what can happen when you refuse to learn a lesson; that is the biggest failing of the current Murrayfield administration.

A battalion of media advisers demand the right of reply to every comment passed on events at the SRU at a time when supporters and clubs line up to criticise them, they are quick to talk but slow to listen.

Take, for example, this week's announcement that the Scottish Schools Cup sponsors have signed up for another three years.

Was there any reference in the press statement they released to any discussion having taken place to ensure this competition works better in developing rugby across the country?

There was a self-congratulatory passage about increased participation numbers, yet the competition is still dominated by the same handful of schools that can devote substantial time and resources to a sport that depends on organisation and drilling.

Not a cheep, though, by way of response to the comments of Frank Hadden, the national coach no less, when he called last year for the schools cup and the national youth league to be brought together.

His concern, like that of everyone involved in professional rugby in Scotland, is that the current environment is not sufficiently competitive to breed youngsters who are ready for the challenge of earning their living playing the game. It is the single biggest issue for Scottish rugby.

Unlike those entering rugby academies in England, Wales, Ireland and France, Scottish lads face a huge culture shock when confronted with the realities of the Magners League and Heineken Cup, let alone Test rugby. They are, invariably, years behind in their development, which is why players in their mid to late 20s are often still described of as projects by professional coaches.

Hadden's comments - they were made following the much less heavily promoted Scottish Youth League final - should have sparked nationwide discussion about the way forward. Not only is he the Scotland coach, but he initially made his coaching name at Merchiston Castle, yet was speaking out against a system that has benefited his old school enormously down the years, protecting them from having to compete with the leading under-18 youth teams.

That in turn has allowed them to collect much silverware, which seems to count for quite a lot when it comes to a private school's standing as it tries to recruit pupils. This, it must be said, subsequently reinforces an unhelpful image of thesport as elitist.

It was to Hadden's great credit that he could see beyond their success and look at the overall good of Scottish rugby. The simple fact is that much greater intensity of competition is required and there is an obvious way of achieving it.

Admittedly some seem to believe that, even as late as under-18 level, the emphasis should be on player development rather than competition. Even if that is right - which is highly debatable - playing numbers remain tiny by comparison with rival nations, so it would still best be achieved with the best youngsters playing and measuring themselves against one another.

Just as with so many other issues, though, it has all been decided by Murrayfield administrators, who seem to sit around in offices, secluded from the wider rugby community, reinforcing one another's opinions.

So we continue to have a couple of national under-18 tournaments running in parallel with one another, just as we have, in successive seasons, risked turning members of national league clubs away from the sport by throwing teams out of competitions because there has been a lack of effort and imagination when seeking to deal with fixture congestion.

No doubt there will be more complaints about people's feelings being hurt at any suggestion that they have not had the game's best interests at heart.

Without the ability to learn lessons, though, that road leads to rugby hell.

This article was posted on 5-Mar-2009, 08:21 by Hugh Barrow.