Player Transplants and Cultural Rejection

Occasionally, international rugby throws up some interesting sociological studies that are so compelling they can't be ignored.

For example, Jonny Wilkinson became a legend of the game because his metronomic kicking, born from relentless and some would say obsessive fascination with perfecting the art of kicking goals. This was identified in a national rugby psyche similarly obsessed with close-quarters rugby, a fascination with the technical foibles of scrummaging and the importance of fielding large, possibly immobile (in all senses) forward packs. He sat deep, he kicked a lot. He nailed the 3 pointers. He became highly proficient at the drop goal, as did the rest of the team in setting up opportunities.

Now what would've happened if JW was born in NZ? Imagine for a second he was transplanted there, all ready to hit the international stage. Possibly there is a comparison with Gareth Anscombe. Anscombe starred in age group NZ rugby, covering a similar role as Wilkinson. But at super rugby level he is over-looked as a 10, and preferred at full back because (a) super rugby is about tries and (b) NZ rugby franchises do not nurture a set of white orcs to form a forward pack to supply him with the platform to perform the Wilkinson role. Hence, his skills are not as honed in the kicking department and he is encouraged to develop other talents, perhaps not as naturally suited to him.

The current example that sticks out to me is the enigma of Quade Cooper. We know the guy has insane talent, we've all seen him open up a defense like an electric can opener through a tin of beans. But yesterday Robbie Deans must've been watching his shambolic display with a wry grin. So how did this happen?

Well this is what it boils down to, to me. Had Quade stayed in NZ, he would have become Carlos Spencer. But in Australia he's slowly being pushed out like a kidney graft administered with no immune suppressants.

Why? Firstly, Australia has no equivalent of the NPC/IPM/Premiership/Currie Cup level. So the guy goes from a standing start into Super Rugby. Where does he learn the art of pragmatism? nowhere. He's either being heralded for moments of genius, or pilloried for one rush of blood too many. The real boon of NZ club rugby at the top level is its decided lack of fanatical following. Sure kiwis get a bit bushy tailed over a Ranfurly Sheild win, or the ITM final but essentially there is none of the tribal warfare that we see in northern club rugby. Folks largely view it as a spectacle where rugby is the winner. This encourages a more detached attitude amongst players because there is no giant parochial fan base forming heros and pantomime villains. There is no-one to let down apart from themselves. This fosters the commaraderie of team over individual and makes NZ rugby units more cohesive and synergistic.
Quade plays for himself, and not for a team. He just wants to star. Whereas Carlos, despite his undeniable egocentricity, still wanted to star in a team. He learned the art the 80/20 decision, whereas Quade is still plugging for the Hail Mary.

In NZ, Quade would have been managed into an All Black squad, and repeatedly sent back to club rugby in much the way Carlos was when competing with his diametric opposite in Andrew Mehrtens as the AB's conjured the ultimate mid-ground in Daniel Carter. As highlighted in this old article from Rattue I came across which just illustrates the depth of future planning going on around player management and game plan evolution:

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/sport/news/article.cfm?c_id=4&objectid=3512078

Contrast that with the Aussie set up. Where players are randomly plucked and stuffed into different positions in live trials in high stakes match ups. By the time 2005 rolled around, NZ had crafted DC from the laboratory. Contrast Australia 2013 where O'Connor was transplanted into 10 with out immune suppressants and clearly didn't match the blood type.

Medicine on your mind, GE?

I think regardless of where you play it's all about having good combinators.

Cyril wrote:I think regardless of where you play it's all about having good combinators.

 

I think it's an interesting point re which players might have fit in better in different playing cultures. I could definitely see someone like Anscombe being feted more over here in England. Cooper is a strange one though - I sort of feel that if any team was likely to fit him it would be Oz, but I get the point 1) re Deans' approach and 2) even the more mercurial Oz 10s have been more structured and team oriented.

Do you think Spencer though was ever fully integrated into the ABs?

Good post  

GE, I'm not sure I buy your argument. I don't see why the NZ environment would turn Cooper into Carlos. Martin Johnson was one of your white orcs, but played much of his formative rugby in NZ. You've also given a pretty lazy caricature of Wilkinson. Wilko's rugby is a product of his environment but that's because he plays to the situation and the talents around him. You only need to watch his play for Toulon or even just the England games where it clicked to see that

Yeah yeah - all JW could do was kick. Yawn..

Maybe if Wilkinson was born in New Zealand he would have developed into a different playmaker altogether with a different emphasis on his role in the team than he got growing up in England?

You see my argument is he wouldn't. He would not have fit in, as I said. And become Gareth, they would've shuffled him to full back and he would have warmed the bench for Charles Piatau.

We'll never know.

Personally if you have Wilkinson in the NZ side he plays 60 minutes ahead of Carter who comes on to open things up. Wilkinson is a bit older than Carter and wouldve arrived on the scene before him, he therefore wouldve hampered Carters career in the early stages and noone knows how Carter wouldve responded. Especially given that Wilko in his younger days had a hell of a strong running game, could distribute and tackle like no 10 has ever been possible of dreaming of let alone performing near!

Also with a young Wilkinson in the NZ team they probably would've won 2 world cups.

The argument could be made that Wilko wouldn't have made it, but just as likely Carter wouldn't have made it because of Wilkinson, but then I don't expect a rationale argument from this poster.

ps I was giggling at '(a) super rugby is about tries' is that why every player coach and pundit comes onto the TV talking results being the main aim of the game?

I see you've missed the point entirely butterfingers. Have another read through and see if you can grasp it.

I'm sure carter would have had plenty of chances during any of Wilkinsons many injury breaks, but as I said, he never would have been selected anyway.

GloriousEmpire wrote:I see you've missed the point entirely butterfingers. Have another read through and see if you can grasp it.

I couldn't get past (a) super rugby is about tries. I imagine it's just the same as all of your threads...

'WE RULE NH sucks ner ner nerner ner'  

Not at all BF, im not interested in childish name calling and one up manship. 

I'm about exploring the reasons for SH supremacy. There have to be good reasons for it, don't you think?

There has to be good reasons for it...

Craig Joubert
Bryce Lawrence...

 

Whats amazing is that this game is about respect, decorum and gentlemanship, things the majority of your semi literate, very transparent bragging lacks. Happily every kiwi I have met have been far more gracious (if not grumpy) than yourself, and your net bravery seems to be hiding your real life insecurities. If you enjoy this continuous bragfest of negativity please be my guest, but please note that it does take away huge amounts of what great posters such as kiwi, kia, black, and others are trying to discuss. You rub numerous posters up the wrong way, and when on occasion you try to make a valid point your pretty much laughed at.

Please don't take this the wrong way and complain, report etc, I just thought I'd put my older more experienced arm around your shoulder and highlight the damage you do to yourself, nation and fellow kiwi posters.

Some advice butterfingers: my observation of the successful WUMs on this sight  is not to present your WUM directly, but use it as an axiom of a tangential point. Look at some of the expert WUMs like Saint or Hersh or Cyril. If you want to be a good WUM follow their lead and learn their style. For instance fewer posts are often more annoying than your spamming approach and never address a poster directly.

Better still, why not post on a topic you are knowledgeable around?

butterfingers wrote:There has to be good reasons for it...

Craig Joubert
Bryce Lawrence...

 

Whats amazing is that this game is about respect, decorum and gentlemanship, things the majority of your semi literate, very transparent bragging lacks. Happily every kiwi I have met have been far more gracious (if not grumpy) than yourself, and your net bravery seems to be hiding your real life insecurities. If you enjoy this continuous bragfest of negativity please be my guest, but please note that it does take away huge amounts of what great posters such as kiwi, kia, black, and others are trying to discuss. You rub numerous posters up the wrong way, and when on occasion you try to make a valid point your pretty much laughed at.

Please don't take this the wrong way and complain, report etc, I just thought I'd put my older more experienced arm around your shoulder and highlight the damage you do to yourself, nation and fellow kiwi posters.

 Got him down to a tee.

The problem is that you have focussed on a single aspect of a certain player and have totally ignored the other elements of his abilities.

IF Wilkinson was only there to kick penalties, conversions and drop goals this could have been a thought invoking post.

However as you started with a personal assumption, it really derails your argument from the start. By totally ignoring any other facets of the players skills and making your vision of this edited version of a player the central core of your post, surely you realise that you are creating a closed argument and are not inviting debate but merely asking for people to agree/disagree.

I'm sure carter would have had plenty of chances during any of Wilkinson’s many injury breaks, but as I said, he never would have been selected anyway..

This is one problem with your argument – you are saying (or I think you are saying) that Wilkinson became a kicking machine and was selected by England because he was a kicking machine because that’s the game plan in England (although some would strongly disagree with this). He became a kicking machine because that’s how any 10 in England develops. THEN you say he would not be picked for the AB’s because he’s very one dimensional kicking machine (although that’s the limits YOU have imposed on him), however if he had developed in NZ surely it would have been the other aspects of his gameplay (which you have chosen to ignore) that would have been brought to bear.

And the other glaring holes in your argument is that there is a least one team of the SH Holy Trinity that has a similar love of forward play, and not all of the NH play 10 man Rugby, so where does that leave your

I'm about exploring the reasons for SH supremacy

I’m not sure of what you are trying to say here apart from ‘you lot suck – we AB’s are cool’

AB's never ever pick one dimensional kicking machines either. I am sure there was more to, say, Grant Fox's game than kicking.

GloriousEmpire wrote:You see my argument is he wouldn't. He would not have fit in, as I said. And become Gareth, they would've shuffled him to full back and he would have warmed the bench for Charles Piatau.

Wilkinson was actually very skillful at the start of his career, made good breaks, great hands and a ferocious tackler. It is only as his career progressed that his style became more focussed. I think its more a case of his style evolving to suit the team he played for rather than a lack of skill in other areas. I think he would have done just fine in NZ.

GloriousEmpire wrote:Occasionally, international rugby throws up some interesting sociological studies that are so compelling they can't be ignored.

For example, Jonny Wilkinson became a legend of the game because his metronomic kicking, born from relentless and some would say obsessive fascination with perfecting the art of kicking goals.  This was identified in a national rugby psyche similarly obsessed with close-quarters rugby, a fascination with the technical foibles of scrummaging and the importance of fielding large, possibly immobile (in all senses) forward packs. He sat deep, he kicked a lot. He nailed the 3 pointers. He became highly proficient at the drop goal, as did the rest of the team in setting up opportunities.

Now what would've happened if JW was born in NZ? Imagine for a second he was transplanted there, all ready to hit the international stage. Possibly there is a comparison with Gareth Anscombe. Anscombe starred in age group NZ rugby, covering a similar role as Wilkinson. But at super rugby level he is over-looked as a 10, and preferred at full back because (a) super rugby is about tries and (b) NZ rugby franchises do not nurture a set of white orcs to form a forward pack to supply him with the platform to perform the Wilkinson role. Hence, his skills are not as honed in the kicking department and he is encouraged to develop other talents, perhaps not as naturally suited to him.

The current example that sticks out to me is the enigma of Quade Cooper. We know the guy has insane talent, we've all seen him open up a defense like an electric can opener through a tin of beans. But yesterday Robbie Deans must've been watching his shambolic display with a wry grin. So how did this happen?

Well this is what it boils down to, to me. Had Quade stayed in NZ, he would have become Carlos Spencer. But in Australia he's slowly being pushed out like a kidney graft administered with no immune suppressants.

Why? Firstly, Australia has no equivalent of the NPC/IPM/Premiership/Currie Cup level. So the guy goes from a standing start into Super Rugby.  Where does he learn the art of pragmatism? nowhere. He's either being heralded for moments of genius, or pilloried for one rush of blood too many.  The real boon of NZ club rugby at the top level is its decided lack of fanatical following. Sure kiwis get a bit bushy tailed over a Ranfurly Sheild win, or the ITM final but essentially there is none of the tribal warfare that we see in northern club rugby. Folks largely view it as a spectacle where rugby is the winner. This encourages a more detached attitude amongst players because there is no giant parochial fan base forming heros and pantomime villains. There is no-one to let down apart from themselves. This fosters the commaraderie of team over individual and makes NZ rugby units more cohesive and synergistic.
Quade plays for himself, and not for a team. He just wants to star. Whereas Carlos, despite his undeniable egocentricity, still wanted to star in a team. He learned the art the 80/20 decision, whereas Quade is still plugging for the Hail Mary.

In NZ, Quade would have been managed into an All Black squad, and repeatedly sent back to club rugby in much the way Carlos was when competing with his diametric opposite in Andrew Mehrtens as the AB's conjured the ultimate mid-ground in Daniel Carter. As highlighted in this old article from Rattue I came across which just illustrates the depth of future planning going on around player management and game plan evolution:

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/sport/news/article.cfm?c_id=4&objectid=3512078

Contrast that with the Aussie set up. Where players are randomly plucked and stuffed into different positions in live trials in high stakes match ups.  By the time 2005 rolled around, NZ had crafted DC from the laboratory. Contrast Australia 2013 where O'Connor was transplanted into 10 with out immune suppressants and clearly didn't match the blood type.

I think you're right GE.  If QC had stayed in NZ he would have been a much better rugby player.  Our system is very flawed.  You have to wonder, with a kid as talented at rugby as young Quade would have been, why did his parents leave NZ?

It's not all about rugby Boomeranga - we go to Aus for the mining.
and the snakes... don't have our own snakes here... we've got some spiders but they're mostly harmless...our reptile is little and moves slowly...most of our birds don't fly and the only native mammal is a bat...

For all these reasons we move to Aus.

nganboy wrote:It's not all about rugby Boomeranga - we go to Aus for the mining.
and the snakes... don't have our own snakes here... we've got some spiders but they're mostly harmless...our reptile is little and moves slowly...most of our birds don't fly and the only native mammal is a bat...

For all these reasons we move to Aus.

You forgot the women are hotter in Australia.

GloriousEmpire

I was lucky enough to see Cliff Morgan play many times in the 3/4 years before he retired in 1958.  As far as I know, also recorded in his biography, Cliff never dropped a goal in senior rugby, never even attempted one.

On the other hand he was a wonderful running talent, whom I saw more than once dart past attempted tackles for the sheer joy of it.  It's true that defensive organisation by teams is now much superior to what it was in his era, but an often-overlooked fact is that the flyhalf, specifically, had less protection back then from opposition wing-forwards. Cliff's trademark move was a searing outside break, which showed at its best in a magnificent solo try against South Africa in 1955.

An interesting question is - why did Cliff never drop back into the pocket for a drop goal?  In consequence, why was his game all about running the ball except for tactical and touch kicks when necessary?

The answer seems to go back to his schooldays in the 1940s.  Not surprisingly he was a star player for his school in the Rhondda, Tonyrefail Grammar. In one game he secured victory for the team with a late drop goal. A drop goal up to 1948 was still worth 4 points, with a try worth only 3.  Expecting praise, Cliff was shocked to be dropped for 2 weeks for playing rugby in the 'wrong' spirit.  The master in charge, whom he greatly respected, insisted that running and handling in open play - not dropping a goal - was how a flyhalf should operate.

People may or may not agree with that, but it does seems that Cliff didn't even have to leave the Rhondda for his cultural shift!

Ha! Great story. Thanks.

I never knew drop goals were worth 4 points.

GloriousEmpire wrote:

nganboy wrote:It's not all about rugby Boomeranga - we go to Aus for the mining.
and the snakes... don't have our own snakes here... we've got some spiders but they're mostly harmless...our reptile is little and moves slowly...most of our birds don't fly and the only native mammal is a bat...

For all these reasons we move to Aus.

You forgot the women are hotter in Australia.

and they all talk like Julia Gillard.