Rugby Players as Role Models

First topic message reminder :

In the professional era, rugby players have had to come to terms with the fact that their commitment to their employers extends beyond the rugby field. Not everybody is equipped with the maturity or the temperament to be put in the public spotlight or at least to have their ostensibly private life brought into the public sphere. Not everybody has the personality or character, the gift of the gab or public speaking ability to make an impression.

There are some who argue that we ask too much of our rugby players. They are there to play rugby and that is their sole obligation. Impress us on the field and we remain impressed when they're off the field. There's much to like about that simple view of things because often we demand too much of our players. We demand humility and yet we want to hear the truth. We want to be entertained not only on the field but off it, too. Dan Carter is a humble guy who is committed to the team but I could count on a clenched fist the number of interesting comments he has made in a press conference. Contrast that with a character like Merths and then to the extreme of a roller-coaster career of Cipriani and who do we like reading more about?

Yet it seems, there are definite lines that can't be crossed. Rugby is a physical game and sometimes that natural aggression spills onto the field in an inappropriate way. We can get upset when somebody transgresses but when that cynical play becomes foul play, there is justifiable outrage. Equally, we want our players to enjoy themselves on and off the field but when things get out of hand, there is little forgiveness. When a personal problem or mistake becomes publicly aired, it's impossible to separate the player and the person. Zac Guildford, Danny Care, Julian Savea, Kurtley Beale and JOC, Tindall, you name the incident and it doesn't matter what they did, they not only let themselves down but they brought their respective unions into disrepute, albeit to varying degrees. Is that fair? No, in the sense that none of us is perfect and we all make mistakes. On the other hand, it is justified in the sense to a certain extent we are all held accountable for our actions. Imagine an employee posts some photos on a social network profile and a company learns of these photos and dismisses the employee. It happens. Is there a link between that private individual and his work? Some might say a tenuous one. The problem is, when you are a public figure, that link, however tenuous it might be, will invariably be made.

Sometimes, it is difficult to know what interpretation to make. SBW has been called Money Bags Williams. Yet he doesn't drink and doesn't make the papers for bad personal judgements other than financial ones. He is an imposing physical specimen but his loyalty is called into question. But is he just not a gifted sportsman who is making the most of his finite opportunities in sport? Can a distinction be made between him and Gavin Henson who didn't make the most of his rugby talents? Recently, Richie McCaw was said to have played a test with a broken rib. Having already played a RWC final with a crook foot, a precedent had already been made. Some might say this demonstrates his loyalty and commitment to the team whereas others might say it sends the wrong message to younger people or indeed other players that putting your body on the line, even when it's not right, is a wise move. Stephen Ferris might want to have a word to potential stars about the wisdom of such thinking. We seem to draw a line with concussed players but playing through injury in rugby is viewed as loyal and courageous. A broken arm, a ripped testicle, a broken rib. Harden up and don't let the team down. Is this an appropriate message.

When a player lets himself down, it reflects badly on his club or union or indeed both. However, when a player does something right, it seems only the individual gets the recognition. Cummins aka The Honey Badger made the selfless move to give up his World Cup aspirations to move to Japan in order to support his family. Cummins was a rare commodity in rugby. He enjoyed himself on and off the field with his rugby commitments. To say in a press conference I was sweating more than a gypsy with a mortgage is not the most politically correct thing you'll ever here. But we forgive him or at least we don't judge him because he speaks from the heart and he doesn't hide his personality or shelter behind the bland media training the players are given. For that reason he is a breath of fresh air simply because he enjoys himself with these often pointless interviews and is not prepared to give a meaningless soundbite. When a player moves abroad on a club contract, we say he's selling out. But how much do we know about the motives of a player? A player like Rene Ranger or Jerome Kaino might also be thinking of his family but because they're not ill, we don't put them in the same light as a Nick Cummins or Bateman. Is that fair? Do we forgive them, if they come back?

Much like the perfect game, we seek perfection in our rugby players. It's an impossible goal and what we demand from our players is beyond what we ask from ourselves or what people demand from us. Unfortunately, players are in the public eye and we judge them because of it. When they do something right or honourable, we praise them for it. When they do something wrong, some never forgive them for it, even if they have done something good, and we all judge them for it. They're paid professionals: they represent their club or country. But for most of the time, we don't tend to focus on the good stories or the players who keep themselves out of the papers. We focus on the players who bring the game into disrepute as if to say we as spectators are removed from the game and only those in the public eye can be judged.

SecretFly wrote:English are 'Ests' - the rest of us - and Martians from the 5th dimension inlcuded - are 'Ists' who are eternally against 'Ests'.

The War for Universal Domination between the Est and Ists is about to come upon us.  Pray some of us will survive to carry on the species.

Secretfly what does that even mean?

beshocked wrote:

SecretFly wrote:English are 'Ests' - the rest of us - and Martians from the 5th dimension inlcuded - are 'Ists' who are eternally against 'Ests'.

The War for Universal Domination between the Est and Ists is about to come upon us.  Pray some of us will survive to carry on the species.

Secretfly what does that even mean?

It's from another thread. A bit of nonsense, 'in joke' type of thing.

Good to see you back. Hope Sarries have a good season (disclaimer: I'd like all the English teams to have a good season)

HammerofThunor wrote:

SecretFly wrote:English are 'Ests' - the rest of us - and Martians from the 5th dimension inlcuded - are 'Ists' who are eternally against 'Ests'.

The War for Universal Domination between the Est and Ists is about to come upon us.  Pray some of us will survive to carry on the species.

Got it. What if you're of mixed heritage? Do you have to pick one side or the other, once selected can't be changed unless you represent the other side at the Olympics?

Now, you're up to date! Exactly. You can change allegiance but only in an Olympic leap year.

Thanks Hammerofthunor. Though I am indifferent to how Saracens do. As far I am concerned there is no way for them to redeem themselves in my eyes.

Players must respect the fans - then they'll respect you back. Danny Cipriani is no longer getting a kicking from the media/supporters because he's kept his head down and is not causing controversy. Got to give credit to him.

Some players unfortunately start to let the fame and profile get into their heads - leading to a feeling of self-importance. This leads to problems.

Unfortunately for a fan it can be disappointing meeting/interacting with a player who you watch on the pitch and admire. A great player does not necessarily make a great person and equally a good person doesn't necessarily mean a good player. Off the pitch some players are far too cold and distant.

To be a good role model you must be able to perform both on and off the pitch. Someone who does that admirably well at Saracens is Schalk Brits - Smiley and engaging off the pitch, exciting to watch on it. He is one of the most popular players in the English Premiership I would say both for fans and players.

It's not exactly surprising to see why.

Wow, that bad? But agree about Britz, from what I've seen.

Yes. Unsurprisingly it's generally the younger players who are more prone to doing something foolish in my opinion.

I do think players these days need to be managed or advised better by their respective Clubs an Unions but some are left to their own devices.

Having grown up in the 70s and been around clubs from a young age I am pretty sure that the players get up to no more outrageous stuff that I seen go on in the club houses of Gwent and then even partook in myself when on rugby tours.

The big difference these days of course is media coverage and social media, every man and his dog as they say pretty much now has a camera phone with the ability to instantly send any pictures or vids of a drunken player straight to the Web.

beshocked wrote:

SecretFly wrote:English are 'Ests' - the rest of us - and Martians from the 5th dimension inlcuded - are 'Ists' who are eternally against 'Ests'.

The War for Universal Domination between the Est and Ists is about to come upon us.  Pray some of us will survive to carry on the species.

Secretfly what does that even mean?

Its from the forth in the Lord of the rings trilogy...

Taylorman wrote:
Its from the forth in the Lord of the rings trilogy...

  I like it.

SecretFly wrote:

Taylorman wrote:
Its from the forth in the Lord of the rings trilogy...

  I like it.

yep...the ests, ists, orks, elves, hobbits and the Martians from upper middle earth...a.k.a... the 6 Nations...  

beshocked wrote:Thanks Hammerofthunor. Though I am indifferent to how Saracens do. As far I am concerned there is no way for them to redeem themselves in my eyes.

Players must respect the fans - then they'll respect you back. Danny Cipriani is no longer getting a kicking from the media/supporters because he's kept his head down and is not causing controversy. Got to give credit to him.

Some players unfortunately start to let the fame and profile get into their heads - leading to a feeling of self-importance. This leads to problems.

Unfortunately for a fan it can be disappointing meeting/interacting with a player who you watch on the pitch and admire. A great player does not necessarily make a great person and equally a good person doesn't necessarily mean a good player. Off the pitch some players are far too cold and distant.

To be a good role model you must be able to perform both on and off the pitch. Someone who does that admirably well at Saracens is Schalk Brits - Smiley and engaging off the pitch, exciting to watch on it. He is one of the most popular players in the English Premiership I would say both for fans and players.

It's not exactly surprising to see why.

I think I have a very different view, and may be on my own. My thought is we're constantly told that rugby is a business now first and foremost. In which case, beyond an employee turning up and doing their job to a satisfactory standard, I have no problem with them being role models or not. Obviously I'd prefer them to all be great fun, decent blokes you'd have a pint with, and there are things they may do on a personal level that means I dislike them. But I don't think they owe their clubs anything beyond turning up and doing a decent job on the pitch. But that's because that is what I view more broadly about employment - no you don't have to LOVE your job, no you shouldn't have to do huge amounts of unpaid overtime. You should have to do what you're employed to do well. I suppose if your contract includes community/charity work than that should be part of the deal.

Otherwise anything else is a bonus.

Thats a bit bland though isnt it hood? Has it really got to that point? ie that rugby players are just there to clock in and out?

The revenue they generate is our fun money, our entertainment dollar. We pay to 'watch' them do their work so like any entertainer they're job is not just to play rugby, but to entertain, to excite, to get us wanting more, to come back and pay some more of our dollars, so they have a duty to be likeable, approachable as well as be high value rugby players.

That attracts the dollars, the corporates the sponsors. Indiscretions impact that significantly- themselves, their employers, the fans etc.

I think to excite and inspire you have to love what youre doing, othewise people will see through it, like any one paid to perform on stage, in a band etc. Perhaps thats just my view as I'd like to think it hasnt got to that stage yet, but I agree that it sometimes feels like it with players chopping and changing their sides so often.

As soon as rugby players take money for sponsorship, etc they're effectively agreeing to act as role models. If they don't want to then don't endorse anything. Although my expectations of them are pretty low, don't break the law being the main one.

I love Jonah Lomu. Brilliant and humble.

I always found it interesting trying to figure out why some players are so loved while others are not. O'Driscoll is probably the most beloved man in Ireland. While Robbie Keane, who's goal scoring record for the Irish soccer team would be off the charts for a big soccer team let alone such a weak one, has never come close to being as popular.

I think the Irish want a few boxes ticked before they bestow love on their sportsmen and sporting ability is only one of them. They also have to be comfortable and engaging with the media which O'Driscoll is and Robbie isn't. And they also have to be the "warrior" type of player, which the Irish love. And a reason Richard Dunne is such a cult figure.

Then there's the strange case of Paul McGrath, who is the recipient of as much affection from the Irish as even O'Driscoll. However unlike O'Driscoll he's probably the absolute worst role model for children, displaying some of the most unbelievably self destructive behavior you could imagine. I'd recommend his autobiography "Back from the Brink" to even non-Irish, non-soccer fan readers. Most sport autobiographies are very dull, this one is a compelling read.

Do you think there are differences from nation to nation around what the fans demand/expect before they give their devotion?

Feckless Rogue wrote:O'Driscoll is probably the most beloved man in Ireland.

Apart from Garth Brooks obviously.

Taylorman wrote:Thats a bit bland though isnt it hood? Has it really got to that point? ie that rugby players are just there to clock in and out?

The revenue they generate is our fun money, our entertainment dollar. We pay to 'watch' them do their work so like any entertainer they're job is not just to play rugby, but to entertain, to excite, to get us wanting more, to come back and pay some more of our dollars, so they have a duty to be likeable, approachable as well as be high value rugby players.  

That attracts the dollars, the corporates the sponsors. Indiscretions impact that significantly- themselves, their employers, the fans etc.

I think to excite and inspire you have to love what youre doing, othewise people will see through it, like any one paid to perform on stage, in a band etc. Perhaps thats just my view as I'd like to think it hasnt got to that stage yet, but I agree that it sometimes feels like it with players chopping and changing their sides so often.

Not sure it is necessarily dull. The entertainment is on the pitch, doing their job well is entertaining us through their actions on the pitch. The likeable, approachable stuff money kills - I don't like it, I think it's a real shame, but to the owners bank-rolling it my attitude is 'you've created this, now this is what you should expect' . You could probably also make the argument that indiscretions positively impact it from a corporate perspective. Which I guess comes down to then how you determine a 'role model'.

If their job isn't to just entertain us on the pitch, where does it end? I'm not expecting them to pop down the Dog and Duck with me afterwards for a night of revelry. Do your job, do it well, entertain me through your ability....then do what you want. IMHO

Cyril wrote:

Feckless Rogue wrote:O'Driscoll is probably the most beloved man in Ireland.

Apart from Garth Brooks obviously.

Ha. That goes without saying Cyril.

Taylorman absolutely agree. Hammerofthunor very true.

Hood83 completely disagree.

there are certain expectations that rugby players must meet when the 80 minutes is over. They must conduct themselves in an approachable manner if they don't want to incur the wrath of fans or the media. The players don't need to be able to crack jokes every other minute but just be friendly. Also the higher the profile of the player, the higher the expectation.

The higher profile players get paid the most amount and they need to earn it. It's also the higher profile players who are the role models (particularly for youngsters).

O Driscoll is basically Mr Leinster and Ireland. Conducting himself in a good manner is expected of him and he reaps the benefit of being Leinster and Ireland's golden boy.

As I said in a previous post Brits is one of the most popular Saracens players because he's got a great attitude on and off the pitch.

Players have to earn praise - fans won't just hand it to them on a platter.

The saddest part of the loss of the Amateur ethos is in this area,during major tours 1972-3
being the last by NZ to Europe[32 or so matches].
Seniority was cherished and the back seat of the Coach a status symbol younger members
were taught they had to earn that right.
PR jobs like going to boring functions for "Suits"but more important visiting Schools and
Local Clubs.
The line in the sand was drawn Union or League once crossed no way back even today that
could be reinstated.
Once commited loyalty to contract should be honoured by each code.

I don't even think players need to be friendly. That's not a word which describes Martin Johnson but he commanded enormous respect, and a good deal of affection from Leicester and England supporters.

Sports fans can forgive a lot of less than admirable traits in their heroes. Before anyone gets too wrapped up in good old days talk, it's worth pointing out that wife beating and alcoholism were often ignored in the past.

In Johnson's case, his demeanour wasn't a character defect, it was part of the package you got with the man. I think it would be just as effective now as it was over ten years ago.

I went to a golf day a few years back with an ex Bulls player, will keep names out of it to protect him, a very well known SPringbok player came under discussion.

He told me how they sat in the change rooms after a training session where this player (call him X) phoned his favourite restaurant to arrange with te manager that him and his wife wanted to come through the back door as he wasn't in the mood for the "scum".

Now that is the type of info that makes you lose all respect for a player.

It is his fans tat pays for the salary he earns as a player.

Maybe the scum were the people working on the front door...

Or maybe it's a common term in S.Africa for the paperazzi

Anyway, I wouldn't let one or two bad apples spoil the bunch

Biltong wrote:I went to a golf day a few years back with an ex Bulls player, will keep names out of it to protect him, a very well known SPringbok player came under discussion.

He told me how they sat in the change rooms after a training session where this player (call him X) phoned his favourite restaurant to arrange with te manager that him and his wife wanted to come through the back door as he wasn't in the mood for the "scum".

Now that is the type of info that makes you lose all respect for a player.

It is his fans tat pays for the salary he earns as a player.

I'd be hesitant to pass judgement without knowing the context. If he really did say "scum" and really was referring to the general public then that's not great. But you only have it on hearsay and there are many ways it could be misinterpreted - your Bulls player might have misheard "scrum", or the Bok might have been referring to the papparazzi or some other specific element. You don't know the tone of voice either - it sounds very different (if still a bit tasteless) if he were joking with his manager. It's hard to know if you weren't there.

Nick Easter was widely condemned for his "That's £35k down the toilet" comment in the England dressing room after their RWC 2011 QF defeat, and his claim that it was an attempt to lighten the tone with a little gallows humour largely fell on deaf ears. But knowing what he's like for Quins his explanation is totally consistent with his personality. The comment might have been ill-judged but it probably was well-intended. Very few people have come out and condemned the player who (protected by anonymity) reported a comment not intended for public ears in a manner that was likely to be leaked to the public.

I suppose it depends whether you think the general public should know about controversial incidents/foolish errors of judgement by players. Or whether you think it is best to protect the club/team as a whole to prevent reputations being besmirched, for the good of the game etc.

The words of Nick Easter didn't just make him look bad, they damaged the England team,if we look at the England tour as a whole we see that it was just a handful of the whole squad who were marred in controversy - Manu,Ashton,Haskell,Tindall,Hartley and Easter yet the rest of the squad were tarred with the same brush.

It's the whole dilemma of whether the truth can do more damage than a white lie.

It is also a bit of a shame when role models are shattered with the brutal reality. E.g. Lance Armstrong and Tiger Woods.

Poorfour the player might have felt that the public had the right to know Easter's comments. His words were likely taken out of context but it was a very foolish thing to say given the circumstances.

Beshocked the player didn't report it to the papers. It was mentioned it in a review with the RFU and it leaked by them to the press (when that clown Thomas was in charge).

You don't have to see many interviews with Easter to be sure how he meant it, and black comedy/gallows humour is pretty obvious, it's the sort of thing I would have said myself. The big issue with the comment was that withint the camp there was a player who didn't understand the meaning and felt it needed raising at a review. Unless it was Haskell trying to free up the No. 8 shirt.

Beshocked I think you underestimate the range of opinion. There is no black and white in what is appropriate or inappropriate in many instances.

The Nick Easter example is a player who said something in private that somehow found its way into the public sphere. Is it to be judged in the context in which it was uttered or in the context of when it was released: a witch hunt for a poor showing at the RWC?

When Ashton was in good form doing his swallow dives, there were those who thought he was just enjoying his rugby and expressing his enjoyment of the game. Others thought he was a youtube video away from making a right tool of himself and others thought he was already there. He did a toned down version in the second test but unfortunately the poor lad only got press about his turnstile defence. Given the choice, probably many England fans would welcome more the press over his swallow dives rather than his woeful defending. The two have always been with him throughout his career but one has overshadowed the other at the same time.

Moral of the story? We suffer ´fools' a lot more gladly when we're winning. Tuilagi jumped off a ferry and it wasn't good timing. He does his L salute as a try celebration and we're not really sure what it means but in the context of the NZ match in 2012, I'd be surprised if any England fan really cared.

I don't mean to single out England as culprits of this flexibility in how players are viewed. I could point out Jane and Dagg in the RWC before the semi final who were caught smoking and drinking. Imagine the uproar if they had lost. Did it raise an eyebrow after the semi final result. Did it f...

Kiakahaaotearoa I agree.

Ashton is certainly a player who gets criticised on a frequent basis. Some of it fair and some of it unfair.

To be honest I do still feel that the furore that surrounds his swallow dive is a bit crazy. It's just a type of celebration. Shane Williams did something similar but he's a hero in Wales.

From my personal experience of meeting Ashton he seems like an approachable and down to earth chap.

Unfortunately he's got into a situation where he's more scrutinised than most other players.

If for example Yarde defends like a wet blanket then it's more acceptable because at least his name is not Chris Ashton.

You're right about Manu - he gets a free pass because he's one of the most exciting players England have at their disposal.