John Reason was a great rugby correspondent. His books on the Lions tours of the 1970s are essential reading. And he could be provocative.
His son Mark followed in his footsteps, writing on the game for a number of British newspapers. Then he moved to New Zealand. He has taken the opportunity to rubbish his national team.
He has just penned a piece for stuff.co.nz (www.stuff.co.nz/sport/rugby/rugby-world-cup/300714977/mark-reason-no-one-likes-england-at-this-rugby-world-cup-and-that-should-make-them-care) which, alongside a couple of provocative proposals*, contains a quite unacceptable and unconvincing appraisal of where Red Roses rugby stands at the moment.
His headline: ‘No one likes England at this Rugby World Cup and that should make them care’ reads like the infamous social media comments about women’s rugby: ‘nobody cares’ and ‘nobody watches’.
He takes issue with the way England played against France. Many people do, including England supporters.
He writes: ‘They are privileged by money and they have used that advantage to crush the life out of the opposition with a style of rugby that is stultifying.’
It makes you wonder if that crunch in Whangarei was the first time he had set eyes on the current team. Their rugby has been the opposite of stultifying, as any list of tries scored by wingers Lydia Thompson, Jess Breach, Sara Mckenna and Abby Dow will testify.
He mocks Sarah Hunter’s post-match comment that she hoped the game would prove inspirational.
His response: ’As a showcase for women’s rugby, it was as bad as it gets. As a showcase for women’s rugby, the match put on display the potential horrors of professionalism’. He reveals that he wasn’t at the match. Proof comes from the disfiguring of his television set.
He quotes the usual stats from the game and concludes: ‘If that is the future of the women’s professional game, then I can tell you that only a few peculiar souls will turn up to watch. Rugby has always had room for all shapes and sizes and all styles of play, that is its unique glory as a sport – but when it becomes stifled by modular coaching, then it becomes a borefest.’
Has he seen the preceding sequence of England-France matches, stretching back, shall we say, to the dramatic contest in Grenoble in 2018? Is he aware of the responses from French and English spectators who have turned up in their thousands to soak in the atmosphere? Or was he blinkered by a single match?
Why did neutrals call this contest the game of the tournament?
Certainly the English disappointed; but if guilt is to rest anywhere, it would be at the feet of the staff, who knew the importance of the game. But they in their turn have helped develop a wonderfully complete approach to the game, standards reaching higher than ever before.
Like other Aotearoa-based commentators, Reason resorts to the word ‘joy’ to describe the Black Ferns’ current playing style. That sits uncomfortably with statements like ‘Woodman tramples on her opponent’, and with the merciless exploitation of superiority in so many a past World Cup match: 134-6, 109-0, 117-0, 121-0… How much joy was on view there?
He goes on: ’Demant and the Black Ferns are showing the way forward for the women’s game if they want to make professionalism work. A sort of pale imitation of the men’s game – which is what the England women are offering – won’t grow a fan base. Nobody wants to watch that apart from a few English people who are only interested in winning.’
‘A pale imitation of the men’s game’ is so far off the mark as to be embarrassing. England, like nearly all women’s sides, keep the ball in play for far longer than men’s teams. Ruck speed is exemplary, the ball is kept in the hands for far longer too. Ex-England male internationals admit the superiority of the Red Roses in some aspects of the sport. The fan-base is growing apace. How has Reason not noticed?
Taking one game to hang your contempt on is unwise and unworthy.
*As he warns of the perils of professional rugby (for that read the overpaid Red Roses), he offers two changes to the Laws:
- Reduce the number of players to 13. Rugby League patented that idea in the 19th century. He doesn’t specify how many reserves should be on call. That is where reductions should take place.
- Replace the sanction of a penalty at the scrum with a free kick. That might attract more support, especially if it reduced the number of rolling mauls that follow a kick to the corner. But the adjustments to the Laws introduced during the pandemic for the English Premier 15s left even backs wishing for more scrums and fewer free-kicks. We have to be careful what we wish for.
