Are Scottish Clubs retaining enough players?

The latest Scottish rugby related news was today’s announcement that Richie Gray, one of Scotland’s brightest prospects, will move to Sale at the end of the season. Sale already have two members of Scotland’s World Cup squad in Alisdair Dickinson and Richie Vernon. Max Evans recently made the move from Scottish club rugby to play for Castres in France, and the concern is whether these moves reveal a difficulty for Scottish pro teams in retaining their most talented and high profile players.

There are some players integral to the Scottish team who have remained loyal and stayed in Scotland throughout their careers, but there does seem to be a trend in the direction of the careers of young players who have had a great impact when introduced at International level. Scotland have been successful in terms of retaining key players such as Mike Blair, Chris Paterson (for the most part), Allan Jacobsen, Graeme Morrison and John Barkley over the years, but as mentioned there does seem to be a trend in which once players gain recognition and status at International level they are quickly lured overseas or down South.

The trend I am talking about is one in which a player joins the pro ranks in Scotland, and works his way up the ladder gaining a call up to the Scotland squad. Many of the players who have done this and impressed once they have reached the International scene, have moved on and decided to play their club rugby in another country. In many scenarios it is as if the Scottish pro teams have acted as a stepping stone for players, and if this continues it is a very worrying trend.

Looking at specific players who have climbed the Scottish pro ladder and moved on once they have gained International status, there are many examples. It is not so much the fact that players leave, as this will always happen, but it is the value of the players who are starting to leave, and the fact that they at the height of their career at the time which is concerning.

There are lots of examples, too many to name, but there are certain players who outline what could become a problematic trend. Big names such as Euan Murray, Kelly Brown, Nathan Hines, Richie Vernon and Richie Gray are all forwards who come through Scottish pro rugby and moved on in their prime. In the backs there are the Lamont brothers, Hugo Southwell, Rory Lawson and Max Evans. There are many members or players of the fringes of the Scotland squad who are now playing out of Scotland, but ones named are all significant names and vital members of the squad.

We cannot expect to retain all of our players in Scotland, but it is important some of the core of the International team remain home bound. If we are to compete with the top Nations then we must compare ourselves to the top Nations. Looking at the rugby Nations ranked above us, with the exception of Tonga and Argentina as they do not have professional rugby teams, most are all successful at keeping the majority of their top players in their country.

The question which needs to be asked is why are some players deciding to leave? I struggle to believe all these decisions are purely financial, so what else is there, and can anything be done? Do players see the Aviva Premiership and Top 14 rugby as more challenging than the now named RaboDirect Pro12 League, and as competitions which will allow them to compete at a higher level week in week out? On the flip side we don’t see many top International players outside the Celtic countries and Italy play in the RaboDirect Pro12 League.

I mentioned that Nations ranked above us are fairly good at retaining players, but Wales seems to be going through a similar problem to Scotland at the moment. Many of their top players are leaving their National district teams to play abroad also, so does the League need to be looked at more closely? It could be argued that teams in the RaboDirect Pro12 League  also have the Heineken Cup and potentially the Amlin Challenge Cup in which they will come up against stiffer competition, but is this enough?

The English Premiership is full of tough matches every week, but can the RaboDirect Pro12 League boast this same statement? I feel Scottish pro rugby clubs need to have more tough matches more regularly, and I also feel they need to play English teams more often. If some players knew these changes were to be made would they agree to stay in Scotland? These changes may not be possible right now, but they need to be looked into happening and be attempted, as Scotland cannot afford to lose too many top players to clubs in other countries.

Lurking with lack of intent

Throughout the World Cup there were instances in which one rule was allowing teams to produce rugby which was useful to their cause, but detrimental to the spectacle of the game. The issue in hand could, if not dealt with, become a major problem in rugby, and is one in which I feel a rule change needs to be enforced in order to eradicate.

I recently read a stat that in the final of the World Cup, New Zealand captain Richie McCaw stood over a motionless ball at the back of a ruck for 16 seconds before doing anything. The All Blacks were in the lead, the clock was running down, and for the sake of ball retention and turnover prevention he was simply running the clock down. Ball retention, possession, whatever you want to call it, this style of play cannot be described as anything but stifling the game. This is just one instance, and New Zealand were one of the teams least guilty of this.

This tactic has become more and more utilised since the game was played in two 40 minute halves with no extra time. It has been used more, and it has also started to come into play at an earlier stage, and there is big concern of where it will lead. What is to stop a team drilling this ball retention, regardless of where is it taking them on the pitch and what they are planning to do with the ball, and winning games by simply not allowing the opposition to compete in the form of playing rugby? Are inferior team in terms of attacking and all round rugby ability being able to use a rule to their advantage to win games, and is it right?

Let's take an example of how a team might use this ploy to beat a better opposition. For the first half possession is the emphasis, and this slow, safe, creeping approach of attacking from the base of the ruck is the platform. If it is working, great, and territory will be gained. If not, territory needs to be gained by another route, and if the team is not strong in attack, this can be resolved by a good kicking game. It's simple, keep the ball, gain territory, and when in distance be patient and wait for a penalty. If this has been drilled and the team can do it correctly they may be able to go into the second half a few points in the lead.

For the second half the same game plan is utilised, but at time goes on, as long as the team are still in the lead, territory becomes a secondary issue, and the emphasis is purely on keeping the opponents from having the ball. As the end of the game is in sight, all other rugby is abandoned, and this clock running and ball retention is all the viewers see. When the 80 minutes is up, the acting dummy half simply kicks the ball into touch and the game is done. But when does it start, this running down the clock? Five minutes from the end of the match? Will this go to 10 15, 20, more?

This is an extreme example of what could eventually happen, but it is one which if possible could ruin the game. In order to eradicate the possibility of this happening, something must be done to the rules of the game. the expression or rule of "use it or lose it" comes into play for mauls, so why not rucks. Picking up the ball from the back of the ruck and going to deck with the mere intention of retaining the ball is not "using" the ball. Fair enough if ground is being made, but if it a team is employing this technique in a negative, suffocating way, it should not be seen as "using" ball. 

Referees need to be aware of this tactic, and be able to recognise the difference of this form of play in terms of good intentions, or stifling the game. The "use it or lose it" rule could come into play, in that if a team has not gained more than a certain amount of ground in say five pick and go's, the opposing team are awarded a scrum or free-kick.

In basketball there is a "shot-clock" and teams must make an effort to score points after a certain amount of time on the ball. could this type of rule come into play? The does not need to be an effort to score points involved, but a team in possession could have a certain amount of time to make an agreed yardage. 

Numbers of passes is another way of looking at it. When a team employs this tactic, there is usually no, or very little passing of the ball. After a certain amount of time it could be enforced that a team needs to employ an attacking pass, perhaps of a certain distance, or to a recognised. The pass would not simply mean a pop to another player close in to use the same ploy, but one in which is seen as an attempt at an attack.

These are just suggestions, there are many ways this potential problem could be solved, but I certainly feel it needs to be done so soon. Rugby is a game made up of many components, and eliminating the majority of them will ruin the spectacle. Ruck ball, and close attack is certainly a part of rugby, but it needs to be recognised when teams are using it in a negative way. Rugby needs to kept a spectacle or viewers and even players may lose interest.