Parks and Pumas

by Tom Philip


This issue of discussion is one which has concerned me for some time now, and it is was brought to my attention again 70 minutes into the Scotland versus Argentina game on Sunday. After 70 minutes, Dan Parks took to the pitch replacing Ruaridh Jackson at fly-half. Scotland lost the game, but this isn't my first topic of concern. The derogatory comments and negative opinions of Dan Parks which were pasted on Facebook walls during and after the game were not only unnecessary, but quite frankly unacceptable.


The comments which had nothing to do with the outcome of the game took me back to one particular game I watched Scotland play at Murrayfield. In this game Parks was on the bench, but replaced Phil Godman, taking the reigns at fly-half. I was completely shocked and quite frankly disgusted to hear a Scottish crowd actually boo a Scotland player as he ran on to the pitch, and it certainly gave me an insight into the mind-frame of some so called Scotland rugby fans. Even as a former International and passionate Scotland rugby supporter, the experience made me question whether watching the games live was something I wanted to do.


Dan Parks may be Australian born, but since 2004 he has dedicated himself to Scotland and put in performances over the years which have essentially won Scotland matches. I've heard all of the anti-Parks opinions, and I am sure he has too, and I often wonder if they are racially based. Not only are these opinions most often incorrect, but they can have a negative affect on both the player himself and the team. Dan Parks has been through a lot in his career, on and off the park, so why do fans of Scotland insist on bringing him down? He doesn't pick himself, he is selected by the coach to do a job, and in my view he does what he is good at very well.


I have played alongside Parks at International level, and I know how he performs and carries himself on the pitch, so perhaps this is why I find the issue is so distressing. As a 20 year old kid I was playing in the centre for Scotland with Dan Parks acting as the outside half. Of all the players Parks was the loudest voice, offered the most communication and was genuinely the most upbeat, encouraging player on the pitch. He made an extremely daunting job for a young player a lot more comfortable, and often gave me confidence when other players were more concerned with their own game.


Supporters and fans often concentrate on the limitations of Parks' game, which I won't deny he does have. His defence can let him down and he is not blessed with athleticism, speed or strength which some fly-half's possess. However, Parks is one of the most gifted ball handlers Scotland have. He may not often take the ball to the line and create multiple options for his outside runners, but if we are being honest do we have a back-line which is consistent enough and of enough quality to be able to play off a fly-half of this style? 

Dan often gives himself space and lies deep, and although this can sometimes eliminate wide attacking opportunities, he can use his kicking game to gain territory like no one else. Dan Parks is the best kicker from hand in the World, full stop. If a team is looking for territorial advantage in a game I struggle to think of a player better suited to doing this. Essentially this is not the rugby people want to see, and it is not always pretty, but the truth is Scotland have struggled to score tries for a long time, and still do. Players in Scotland should be, and I believe are being developed to be able to play a more expansive game i order to score tries, but on Sunday, against Argentina, was picking Jackson ahead of Parks the right decision?


Argentina are renowned for stifling teams, slowing them down and stopping them play, and this is exactly what they did on Sunday. Scotland tried to be expansive, and Max Evans as usual beat the first defender every time. Other players had an element of success in evasive running, but the Argentines got to them before their support, isolated them and caused turnover after turnover. It was a brave effort from Scotland and we came close, but was it the correct game to play?


Ok, Scotland couldn't have predicted the weather, but they did know how Argentina would play, and with the territorial advantage Parks would have given, in a game in which only one try was scored, could his style have caused a different outcome? Don't get me wrong, Jackson is an exiting and promising player, and in some games his style may be more effective than Parks', but the question still lingers, what if Parks had played the whole game?


I realise there will be people who read this and completely disagree, and in some cases I'm sure very strongly, but this is not only an expression of my disappointment in the way Parks is sometimes seen and treated, but a consideration of whether the outcome of Sunday's game could have been different. Scotland now have a huge task at hand in beating England and progressing to the quarter finals, but with two more points on Sunday the story would be completely different.