No winners, no loosers cont'd

[Ian_Cook]

I have no objections to:

"winning or losing isn't the be all and end all" -Davet

" I'd rather my squad plays the best rugby it can and lose, than play poorly and win" - didds

Or any other philosophies holding that "the playing of the game is important"

What I object to is;

1. A system that does not even allow for the possibility of one player/team winning.

2. A system that discourages, in some cases, forbids the keeping of a score.

3. A system that rewards the winner(s) and loser(s) equally.

Sport, especially team sport, is about competition. Without winners and losers, the whole point of competition is lost. I don't want losers to feel good about themselves., I want them to feel bad, so that in itself becomes an incentive to avoid that feeling. This is how mediocrity becomes excellence.

I applied the same philosophy to refereeing. I would never go into a match "expecting" or "accepting" that I was going to make some mistakes; I went in with the intent and expectation that I would have an error free game. That it never happened is irrelevant, but that didn't mean that I should go into it expecting errors. I hated making mistakes on the field, and was hard on myself when I made them. I made absolutely sure that I learned from them.

Excellence and diligence go hand in hand. If you don't strive for excellence, you will never achieve it, and this is doubly so when losers are rewarded.

 

[didds]

!!!!!
Not the ones who play one season and know all there is to know about rugby, or who don't train then lose badly, clearly cos the ref is an idiot and the opposition all cheat?!

no... the ones that tell each other in the changing room before (in effectr) the relegation playoff that this is the most ijmportant game of the club;s history. So important that at training two days earlier there was one member of the starting Front row, one member of the 2nd row, one member of the back row and three backs. Couple of benchmen too.

That consistently were within at least a shout of the oppo at 60 minutes... and week in week out got buried in the final twenty - so what might they do about the reasons for that (ie fitness!)? Apparently - nothing. If that much.

I guess your #2 is it!

didds

 

[didds]

Didds.

But, if given the choice would your players choose winning or losing?

Simples.

They would rpefer winning - I think. But it all seems to be unimportant to them about 1 minute after the game is finished ... so... maybe its not that important!

don;t get me wrong - we play a game of rugby to do our best to win it. That's why we keep score! But... winning by 30 points, fluffing half a dozen chances, involving just half the side, missing tackles but getting away with it because of the oppo's bigger errors is not a "win" in my books although it is on the scoreboard and in the papers!

didds

 

[Donal1988]

Seeing how it was the IRFU who started this whole debate I should probably clear some things up. Despite being currently the game we are performing best in (since 3 Heineken Cups, 3 Magners Leagues and a Grandslam within 4 years) Rugby is still Irelands 4th choice sport in terms of playing. Hurling, Gaelic Footbal and Soccer all outrank rugby. It is seen (rightly or wrongly) to be dominated by the private fee paying schools and the large AIL clubs both systems a strong advocate of tribal warfare and competition. Some argue that it is the reason we are doing quite well.

What the IRFU seems to be aiming for is to get people playing and exposed to rugby from a young age in a pressure free situation. Where I come from every game is a derby match. Every game is a local rival and the matches were hard. But sportsmanship is at an all time low. We heard this season that teenage rugby was currently yielding more red cards for referee abuse from players and coaches than ever before.

The system they are currently advocating is that when kids are playing mini rugby they play each other and a score is kept. There is no league, no standings, no trophies, just games against local teams. The aim is obviously to get familiar with the game this is aimed at kids aged 8-12. When they turn 12 competitive leagues are introduced. It is a pilot programme being implemented only in Ulster.

 

[Davet]

Didds, Ian - I would always want to keep score, and to try to win.

Not trying to win defeats the object of any game.

Not allowing winners seems to be one of those good intentions that pave the road to hell - sounds sort of all about equality, and seems to be in line with the ethos of "it's the game that matters", but really isn't. It seems to be a philosophy adopted by those who have never really played a sport in their lives.

Winning is about doing something really well, and playing and competing against your peers. Tigers or Crusaders would probably beat my local club - but would gain little pleasure in doing so. Equality of ability is important - and sides do need to be able win from time to time.

I suppose we alll feel sorry for the side - generally kids sides - who lose every game in the season umpteen to nil, but what that signifies is they're playing the wrong opoosition, mismatches are a curse.

 

[didds]

Didds, Ian - I would always want to keep score, and to try to win.

Not trying to win defeats the object of any game.

no problems with that at all davet

and yes, winning having played poorly is a better feel that losing having played poorly (as Fitzy used to say... we'll take the win) ... but it's a fairly hollow feeling and doesn't please _me_ as a coach.

didds