What can Scottish football learn from Scottish rugby

[Paco]

I think first of all you need to acknowledge Scotland probably aren't the fifth best side in the world at the moment. Just as the football side were never 13th best under McLeish. South Africa, France, even Wales regardless of Saturday are either better or at least very comparable. There are technically over 100 nations playing rugby but even going outside the top 10 you immediately see countries like Japan, Georgia, Tonga, Romania. Scotland are, and should be, comfortably better than them. It'd be pretty difficult for Scotland to go below 10th for any significant length of time. 

To be honest I think a comparison with the Welsh football team is fair. Shite for a long time then suddenly you have most of your team playing at a good level (swapping the stand Edinburgh/Glasgow players for solid football pros like Collins, Gunter, Vokes, Williams, etc), along with a couple of exceptional talents to drag the team up an extra notch.

It;'s great to see and I agree if England were coming to Murrayfield, and there weren't so many injuries, Scotland would be in a great position to win the tournament. Are there lessons to be learned? Possibly, but if there are you need to be looking at Edinburgh/Glasgow training methods 5 years ago. A lot of is down to luck with a coupe of great players coming through, and the sports are barely comparable. 

The football team is run by complete morons. That's what holds us back, with their desire to change everything every time we go out of a tournament, and I don't see it changing any time soon. 

[ICTChris]

We should get Richie Gray playing up front for the Scottish football team.  Just think how well he'd be able to defend corners.

[Bully Wee Villa]

it's why rugby stayed amateur and so much more violent than football, pre welfare state if you broke 2 ribs and a leg and couldn't work then poorer players were stuggling to feed their families, slightly different if daddy was the earl of Norfolk or somewhere!

 

Quite like this argument and will use it next time somebody spouts the tedious, clichéd "real men's sport" bollocks.

 

 

[itzdrk]

14 hours ago, The Algebraist said:

Given how miserable our football team has performed recently I've been enjoying the rugby as some welcome relief. Today saw us rise to our highest ever world ranking of 5th - http://www.bbc.com/sport/rugby-union/39106346. We boast a young team brimming with confidence, including one of the world's great talents in Stuart Hogg and it's less stressful than watching Sir Murray (hero of mine though he is). If England were coming to Murrayfield this year I would be predicting we would win the six nations, as it is I'm not so sure, but there is loads to shout about

However it was not so long ago that I considered Scottish rugby completely unwatchable, you know, like the football team. That got me thinking about what football could learn from their rugby counterparts. Below I set out where I think rugby is going right and football is going wrong. 

Management -  The average tenure of the rugby team's national manager is over three years, this gives managers time to impose themselves on the team. There is also excellent continuity between managers, with the new appointee often made well before his predecessor has departed and plenty of dialogue before the change. Conversely we change football managers far too much and there seems to be no grand plan, or a new one every year or two.

Selection - The Scottish rugby team have been a work in progress for a while. We've kept a few ageing heads but largely played the youth and stuck with them through mistakes, wooden spoons, the lot. Not all have made it but those that have are now really firing. Note - Rugby has certain advantages in this respect because you don't need to qualify for tournaments in anything like the same way, however does that really matter? Surely if the team is good enough? Eg Wales. Although it doesn't apply to every ageing player are some old legs that have to go from the Scotland football setup in my view, they aren't good enough and they won't be good enough, so what's the point?

Philosophy  - It is easy to see how the Scottish rugby team plays, our pack is not heavy enough to be competitive so we give quick ball to hand and use pace to punch holes in the oppos line. I have no clue how the current Scotland team is trying to play, in the early days of Strachan we were playing a lot of passes in tight areas and seemed to be evolving into a decent ball playing team, but that is fading away. I think we need to pick a strength and stick to it, we have two lightening wingers now for example.

Desire - Everyone in the current rugby team, wherever they were born, really, really wants to be there. I can't really fault the current football team on this. I have played in a lot of teams (albeit only at a decent amateur level and at a different sport) and when it isn't going well you really feel it. Turning out for Scotland regularly must be pretty soul destroying. However I would have two suggestions for any manager, never beg someone back (if they come to you that's fine), and play the guys who really, really want to be there. Often they are young and hungry, so refreshing to hear Oliver Burke recently go on and on about how he really wants to play for Scotland.

What are other's views? Load of pish? Anything else we can learn from rugby or other sports?  

 

 

That no matter how bad we are at football it will always be more entertaining than fucking rugby

[ICTChris]

10 minutes ago, Bully Wee Villa said:

Quite like this argument and will use it next to somebody spouts the tedious, clichéd "real men's sport" bollocks.

 

The requirement for players to be compensated for missing work was a major consideration when the split in rugby occurred with the predominantly working-class Northern teams leaving to form the game that eventually became today's rugby league.

 

[The Algebraist]

12 minutes ago, itzdrk said:

That no matter how bad we are at football it will always be more entertaining than fucking rugby

There is a reason I am not posting on Craftbeerandposhfishandchips.com thank you.

[knee jerk reaction]

50 minutes ago, The Algebraist said:

I gave up rugby at university because I wasn't part of the private school cliques (ended up playing a lot of hockey instead) so do understand where you're coming from. However what reason, apart from bitterness, is there for people to stop enjoying something now just because people were dicks in the past? Why not just go and have a good time in a friendly atmosphere? No segregation, no sectarianism, no chants about wife beating (one I hear four times a season watching my own team), a better family day out than a lot of football grounds.

Edit: I should add that if this is the case football should be taking a look at itself and wondering where their clientele is going, it's not rugby's fault that watching it is fun.

Can see what you're saying and could agree with that, was a long time ago but rugby changed not out of good intentions but chasing cash! As for the clientele, the vast majority that go to watch Scotland at rugby has so much "passion" for the sport they wouldn't cross the road to watch a club game for free. I agree again that football crosses the line with sectarianism and the rest but that rivalry when it's close to but not over the line gives football an atmosphere and passion that rugby cannot match.

[troopio]

Liking the debate on here and the original post also!

For me it is quite simple, short term we get rid of the muppets Strachan and McGhee along with a certain few players then the only way can be. Easy really

[Northboy]

16 minutes ago, knee jerk reaction said:

As for the clientele, the vast majority that go to watch Scotland at rugby has so much "passion" for the sport they wouldn't cross the road to watch a club game for free

Rugby does have a passionate fan base but there is also an element who like the like the idea of trekking along to Murrayfield a couple of times year but show no other interest of support for rugby throughout the year. Of course, you'll get some hangers on at Scotland football matches too but I'd guess that they could still tell you who was top of the football league - unlikely like a couple of rugby 'fans' I've challenged.

 

 

[LondonSons]

The dismissive "rugby is pish" replies on this thread are symptomatic of everything that is wrong with Scottish football. The SFA should clearly be learning from football successes outside of Scotland, and in other sports, in terms of management, professionalism, preparation and even philosophy. We seem to have some bizarre notion of exceptionalism whereby repeated failure can be blamed on circumstances we think are unique to Scotland and therefore cannot be changed.

Bad weather, bad infrastructure, poor coaching, bad diets etc etc have all been overcome elsewhere. What on earth is stopping us?

[The Algebraist]

49 minutes ago, LondonSons said:

The dismissive "rugby is pish" replies on this thread are symptomatic of everything that is wrong with Scottish football. The SFA should clearly be learning from football successes outside of Scotland, and in other sports, in terms of management, professionalism, preparation and even philosophy. We seem to have some bizarre notion of exceptionalism whereby repeated failure can be blamed on circumstances we think are unique to Scotland and therefore cannot be changed.

Bad weather, bad infrastructure, poor coaching, bad diets etc etc have all been overcome elsewhere. What on earth is stopping us?

My favourite was the boy so desperate to show his love of the game he looked out a .gif just to say he hadn't bothered actually reading anything. Equivalent of fingers in ears.

What concerns me is how many people seem to think the key factor is luck, it's not.

[forameus]

It's a balancing act.  You get lazy comparisons drawn from the media, wanting Andy Murray to go in and chat to the players, (because he's won something, so obviously he'll make winners in a completely different sport) or just pointing to another successful Scottish iteration of a sport and saying "copy them".

It's about looking at these things objectively and picking out any things that we can take inspiration from.  We shouldn't be sticking our fingers in our ears and scoffing because it's not football, but nor should we be just lazily expecting that a successful rugby team can easily translate quickly to success in football.  

But that takes planning and sense unfortunately.

[Bully Wee Villa]

Didn't Southampton attempt to copy the structure used by England's World Cup Winners and end up going to shit?

What's good for one sport might not work so well for another.

I think some ideas, such as increasing the number of coaches and "specialising" in certain areas (not just goalkeeping) might work, but you'd think such initiatives would have to take place at club, rather than international level, and where is the money going to come from?

[come on shire]

3 hours ago, itzdrk said:

That no matter how bad we are at football it will always be more entertaining than fucking rugby

Lolol if you say so.

2 hours ago, Northboy said:

Rugby does have a passionate fan base but there is also an element who like the like the idea of trekking along to Murrayfield a couple of times year but show no other interest of support for rugby throughout the year. Of course, you'll get some hangers on at Scotland football matches too but I'd guess that they could still tell you who was top of the football league - unlikely like a couple of rugby 'fans' I've challenged.

 

 

Spot on Northboy. I don't follow much amateur club games but I'm an avid fan of Scotland (like I mentioned earlier) and Glasgow Warriors. However, the amateur clubs are all actually aligned to the 2 pro teams for what it's worth.

On the other hand, many traditionalists in the borders only follow their local club and refuse to get behind a pro provincial team as such. Possibly why the Borders Reivers failed. The same is also true in the Welsh valleys and possibly why the Liberty Stadium is sparse when Ospreys are at home.

The system is vastly different to the football set-up so that can be more difficult to compare however.

3 hours ago, ICTChris said:

The requirement for players to be compensated for missing work was a major consideration when the split in rugby occurred with the predominantly working-class Northern teams leaving to form the game that eventually became today's rugby league.

 

Good point but I'm sure League formed in the late 19th Century when a lot of the rugby fraternity thought the game was too slow and turgid. They had a famous meeting to draw up the rules at a pub in Huddersfield. There's a plaque on the front. However, I have no interest in rugby league thankfully.

[placidcasual]

The dismissive "rugby is pish" replies on this thread are symptomatic of everything that is wrong with Scottish football. The SFA should clearly be learning from football successes outside of Scotland, and in other sports, in terms of management, professionalism, preparation and even philosophy. We seem to have some bizarre notion of exceptionalism whereby repeated failure can be blamed on circumstances we think are unique to Scotland and therefore cannot be changed.
Bad weather, bad infrastructure, poor coaching, bad diets etc etc have all been overcome elsewhere. What on earth is stopping us?

To be holding the Scottish national rugby side up as some sort of paradigm of virtue is an absolute nonsense. They've been awful for the last decade.

Rugby is for farmers, fatties, dullards and public schoolboys. It's a shite sport involving no skill whatsoever. We're world beaters at bowls and curling. We'd be better holding those sports up as an example to the football team.

[The Algebraist]

14 minutes ago, placidcasual said:

To be holding the Scottish national rugby side up as some sort of paradigm of virtue is an absolute nonsense. They've been awful for the last decade.

Rugby is for farmers, fatties, dullards and public schoolboys. It's a shite sport involving no skill whatsoever. We're world beaters at bowls and curling. We'd be better holding those sports up as an example to the football team.

 

Not even a good troll. Voted down.

[placidcasual]

23 minutes ago, The Algebraist said:

Not even a good troll. Voted down.

I'm not trolling. I'll say it again. Rugby is utter shite. It is absolute torture to watch. Look at the crowd at an international match. The sort of losers who probably have to ask their wife a year in advance if they can go to the rugby with Torquil and Finbar. 

[HibeeJibee]

I think the truth lies somewhere between the 2 extremes playing-out in this thread.

There is much less competition in rugby - until now it's been largely restricted to the Commonwealth and western Europe, although obviously the Americas and places like Japan and Georgia are coming through. Despite this the Scotland rugby team has been pretty poor, in the eyes of rugby supporters, for a long time. At the World Cup we haven't made it beyond QFs since 1991 and didn't make it out of the group in 2011. In almost two decades of the Six Nations, our best performance has been to finish 3rd a couple of times - most commonly it's been 5th or 6th. In almost 2 decades of pro-rugby Glasgow have won 1 Celtic League, and made the European Cup knockouts for the first time this season... Edinburgh have won nothing and made the knockouts twice. More people watched football in Dundee last season than rugby's 2 pro-teams in Edinburgh and Glasgow.

Equally, the recent trajectory of the national rugby team and the pro-teams has been upward - whereas the national football team has been downward and the clubs at best static.

[come on shire]

Haha Placidcasual is hilarious. He probably thinks that I'm a Tory No voter to boot.

[Jaggy Snake]

While there are certainly parts where football can learn from rugby on the whole, the set-up is fundamentally too different to get any huge benefit from comparisons.

Scotland only has two professional rugby teams, where the SRU play a huge role in how each club is run, including signing players. Last year Duncan Weir moved from Glasgow to Edinburgh, and Mark Bennett is about to do the same, because whilst they have done well for Glasgow, they are Scottish internationalists and will get more game time at Edinburgh. Imagine Celtic having three good, Scottish centrebacks and the SFA announcing one had to move to Rangers/Aberdeen/Hearts to get more game time. This also means most Scottish rugby players will have, at one point anyway, played for Edinburgh or Glasgow so the international squad already know each other very well.

As far as I can see, the closest thing Scottish football could do to replicate this would be requiring a very high number of Scottish players in each team, eg 7 out of 11 starting players have to be qualified for Scotland. This could in the short term also damage Scottish football as Celtic, and whoever else is getting knocked out in the qualifiers each year, could struggle more in Europe.

Which leads to the other big difference. Glasgow and Edinburgh play in a European league that includes most of the best Welsh, Irish and Italian players (obviously with a few other players off playing in England/France). So, though there is generally a step up in overall quality at international rugby, the players have plenty of club experience playing against similar calibre opposition from other major rugby nations.

Until either, Scottish football teams improve in European competitions or, we get more Scottish players playing for top clubs around Europe, getting a whole squad of players who can comfortably adjust to high level international football* is a long way off. And, of course, the only way of improving the standard of Scottish player is by improving Scottish football on the whole – through grassroots football, a better league structure, better finance etc.

 

*Note, I say high level international football as even with the players we currently have, we should be more competitive than we have been of late.