Is Rugby Canada’s commitment to an attacking style costing the National Senior Men’s team a chance to increase their profile at home?
It’s a valid question considering the massively disappointing 2014 campaign.
With rugby shuffling along as a low-profile sport in Canada, there is value in trying to put an entertaining product on the pitch. It’s also a practical approach, given that Canada can field a group of truly world-class backs, as evidenced by the overseas success of players like Jeff Hassler and D.T.H. van der Merwe.
Unfortunately, 2014 was a spectacularly poor advertisement for Canada’s ambitious philosophy. Coach Kieran Crowley’s squad was error-prone right from outset in the June tests, and bagged only one victory from six capped test matches over the course of the year. Perhaps most frustrating of all was that none of the five losses came against drastically superior opposition.
The disturbing low point was the season-ending loss to Romania. Against an Oaks team making no pretense of ambition with ball in hand, Canada’s attempts at offense were easily countered by a Romanian commitment to a ferocious, forward-based strategy designed to draw penalties. This lead to a deadly dull contest which felt like a shot-for-shot remake of the same match-up from 2013, another tedious affair in which Canada was bullied into submission.
In other words, amongst the many other disappointing losses, Canada has been convincingly beaten twice in two years by a team which is their ideological opposite. This should concern those at Rugby Canada who have put their faith in the program’s current emphasis on an expansive style. Admirable though it may be, the downside of such ambitious rugby is that it tends to be vulnerable to small mistakes; one simple knock-on can sometimes be enough to derail an entire half of well-executed offensive rugby.
This is why the All Blacks are so highly praised for their precision—yes, they are outstanding at creating scoring opportunities, but they also tend to capitalize even when their chances are limited. Canada has plenty of skill—though they are not in the same universe as the All Blacks—but their mistakes with ball in hand have become both numerous and maddeningly ill-timed, making it little wonder that they have experienced such disheartening results of late.
The critical question, then, is twofold: would a more conservative style give Canada a better chance at winning, and: would more wins equal increased interest on the Canadian sporting landscape? Distasteful as it may seem, perhaps shifting the emphasis to a forward-based strategy is worth exploring.
Canada’s secret weapon in such a scenario could be this nation’s propensity for producing skilled backs. Unlike Romania’s national program, Canadian rugby seems to attract athletes who are both fit runners and able ball handlers—the success of the national Sevens program is a testament to this. Perhaps the entire fifteens branch of Rugby Canada has the leeway to shift their emphasis to the forwards—and a more grinding game—while allowing the COC-funded Sevens team to be a conveyor belt of attacking talent.
Unfortunately, though such a strategic adjustment may seem tempting, it would also be dangerous ground. A philosophical switch to rugby’s version of the neutral zone trap is no guarantee of wins, and could undermine the possibility of widespread fan interest. Fringe Canadian rugby supporters with no great investment in outcomes are likely content to watch entertaining games; surely scrum resets and penalty kicks would be a lousy sales pitch. And it shouldn’t be forgotten that Canada’s up-tempo style led to some notable on-field successes only one year ago, as 2013 saw them chalk up impressive victories over the likes of Fiji and Tonga.
As it stands, being exciting but mediocre looks to have rugby stuck in neutral in Canada. Though entertainment value is nice, is it enough to push rugby into the mainstream? Possibly, but in the long run wins will be sorely needed if the oval ball game is to gain any traction on the Canadian sporting landscape. And no matter the on-field gameplan, the glass ceiling separating the Tier One and Tier Two nations will remain bulletproof for Canada until rugby can forge a reputation at home as a profitable commodity for athletes, sponsors, and broadcasters.
Thank you for reading. Please take a moment to follow us on Twitter – @nomadenhaft. Support LWOS by following us on Twitter –@LastWordOnSport and @LWOSworld – and “liking” our Facebook page.
Have you tuned into Last Word On Sports Radio? LWOS is pleased to bring you 24/7 sports radio to your PC, laptop, tablet or smartphone. What are you waiting for?
