36
A Critical Look at Rugby in Nelson
A few weeks ago Nelson lost its 1967 challenge for the Seddon Shield against Marlborough after a stirring match on Trafalgar Park. But, unfortunately, the records will show only one more loss, the ninth in succession suffered by the Nelson representative team this season. While the team's form in this latest game was a tremendous improvement on that displayed in recent years, we feel the time has come when the Nelson Rugby Union must stop and take stock of its standing in New Zealand Rugby and consider very seriously just what can be done to improve the game within the province.
The team's record on its six match southern tour was indeed a dismal one, and while the tour results can not be used as a basis for criticism of the standard of play at representative level in Nelson, the tour record, added to its record over the last 20 years, highlights the need for a searching assessment of our Rugby shortcomings. This we intend to do.
Why is Nelson Rugby at such a low ebb? Why has Rugby in this province not progressed at the pace of most other unions? We cannot be compared with major unions, but our record doesn't look at all impressive when compared with unions of similar or smaller size. We did say Rugby in the Nelson "province", and since the province embraces also the Golden Bay-Motueka union, which disaffiliated from the Nelson union in 1920, our views can be applied, in the main, to both unions. Their records are very similar, and very poor. Let's have a look at them in the chart below.
| Nelson | ||||||
| Points | ||||||
| P | W | D | L | For | Ag'st | |
| 1947 | 9 | 4 | 1 | 4 | 95 | 92 |
| 1948 | 9 | 4 | 1 | 4 | 76 | 75 |
| 1949 | 8 | 4 | 2 | 2 | 80 | 67 |
| 1950 | 6 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 37 | 44 |
| 1951 | 7 | 2 | 1 | 4 | 85 | 111 |
| 1952 | 8 | 3 | - | 5 | 83 | 115 |
| 1953 | 8 | 4 | 1 | 3 | 75 | 84 |
| 1954 | 7 | 3 | - | 4 | 64 | 75 |
| 1955 | 9 | 7 | 2 | - | 106 | 59 |
| 1956 | 1 | 3 | 1 | 3 | 82 | 70 |
| 1957 | 7 | 2 | 1 | 4 | 81 | 99 |
| 1958 | 11 | 4 | - | 7 | 145 | 177 |
| 1959 | 9 | 2 | 1 | 6 | 92 | 116 |
| 1960 | 11 | 1 | - | 10 | 111 | 231 |
| 1961 | 8 | 3 | - | 5 | 137 | 183 |
| 1962 | 10 | 6 | - | 4 | 145 | 82 |
| 1963 | 10 | 5 | - | 5 | 157 | 101 |
| 1964 | 7 | 4 | - | 3 | 111 | 94 |
| 1965 | 7 | 2 | - | 5 | 59 | 73 |
| 1966 | 8 | 2 | - | 6 | 97 | 169 |
| Total | 166 | 66 | 13 | 87 | 1918 | 2116 |
| Golden Bay-Motueka | ||||||
| Points | ||||||
| P | W | D | L | For | Ag'st | |
| 4 | 2 | - | 2 | 39 | 47 | |
| 4 | - | 1 | 3 | 11 | 51 | |
| 4 | 1 | - | 3 | 21 | 56 | |
| 5 | 1 | 1 | 3 | 20 | 50 | |
| 3 | 2 | - | 1 | 43 | 39 | |
| 5 | 1 | - | 4 | 25 | 92 | |
| 5 | - | 1 | 4 | 45 | 66 | |
| 5 | 1 | - | 4 | 37 | 49 | |
| 7 | - | 1 | 6 | 63 | 128 | |
| 8 | 3 | 1 | 4 | 80 | 77 | |
| 6 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 69 | 88 | |
| 12 | 4 | 2 | 6 | 112 | 234 | |
| 7 | 3 | 2 | 2 | 67 | 91 | |
| 10 | 3 | - | 7 | 69 | 164 | |
| 7 | - | 1 | 6 | 44 | 142 | |
| 8 | - | - | 8 | 45 | 162 | |
| 7 | - | - | 7 | 31 | 134 | |
| 7 | 1 | - | 6 | 52 | 124 | |
| 11 | 1 | - | 10 | 71 | 225 | |
| 9 | 2 | - | 7 | 96 | 180 | |
| 134 | 26 | 12 | 96 | 1040 | 2199 |
Depressing records, aren't they? And, let's face it, there's no reason to suppose, judging by this year's results, that we can hope for better things to come Unless An Effort Is Made To Find The Root Causes For Our Weaknesses And Eliminate Them. A quick look at the histories of many unions reveals a pattern of successful years and poor ones. Going back through the years we noted that with the exception of 1955, when Nelson did not lose a match in its nine games, neither Nelson nor Bays has really had a successful period. Taranaki, Hawke's Bay, Wairarapa, South Canterbury and many other small unions have had their moments. Not so Nelson, nor Bays.
We have these weaknesses. They're several, varied and co-related. Firstly and foremostly, there is the lack of knowledge of the fundamental, basic skills among our senior players and representatives, and the main cause for this lack can be traced back to the kindergarten of the game - the colleges. Even before we began making inquiries to support this article, we had heard stories of boys at the Colleges (but Nelson College in particular), having received little coaching on the fundamentals of the game from coaches who were, from what we have heard, unskilled themselves to pass on this information.
As is only right, the First Xv'S of the colleges get the best coaches. The 2nd Xv'S get the next best, and so on down to grades where the colleges enter sometimes as many as four teams in the union's Saturday competitions. The "A" teams normally have coaches with a reasonable knowledge of the game and its fundamentals, but we have heard (from players and club officials), that players in the "C" and "D" teams are not catered for as well as they should.
Amalgamation Yes Or No?
Within this article are the views of Nelson and Bays officials and former players and selectors on the thorny question of a possible amalgamation of both unions or alternatively the combination of both unions to play major unions. To ensure that this last possibility would be permitted by the N.Z.R.F.U., we rang council chairman Mr Tom Morrison, He told us the council would certainly not object.
The time comes when the pupils leave school, and those anxious to play Rugby join the clubs. Many of these players have already suffered in not having received a good grounding in fundamentals. Now, in some instances, they are to suffer yet again, this time at club level. Often, because of a lack of experienced coaches, clubs have to use coaches who themselves were victims of the school coaching system. These are the men who now have the task of moulding players who come to them without a reasonable knowledge of Rugby's fundamentals. Not having received a thorough training themselves in the basic skills, how can such a coach guide players along the right road to the top? A vicious circle.
In the past there have not been the number of secondary schools in the province to make an intersecondary schools' competition feasible. In many other centres such competitions are played on sports afternoons, during the week. In recent years, however, Nelson College has been joined by Waimea and Nayland Colleges, and Tapawera District High School and Motueka High School are not that far away that they would be precluded from joining such a competition. We feel that the time has come for the secondary schools' authorities to consider the possibility of such contests, leaving only the First XV's in the union's Saturday competitions. If such a step were taken, boys in the lower grades who wished to play Rugby on a Saturday, could join Nelson clubs.
Such a course of action would undoubtedly affect the large numbers of boarders at Nelson College who would be left with no organised Rugby on the Saturdays. But this situation is by no means peculiar to Nelson College. Every boarding school within unions where secondary schools do not participate in the unions' Saturday competitions, has found no difficulty with the system. In fact, many welcome it since the masters are permitted to spend the Saturday the way they want to spend it.
It is high time the Nelson union awoke to its responsibilities. The union has, up to now, tended to administrate in favour of the boarders at Nelson College. An example of this is the closing of most competitions during the May holidays because so many college teams are affected by the absence of players - the greatest majority of them boarders. If the colleges ran their own competitions, no longer would there be the need to close the competitions for three Saturdays during the May holidays, and interest among players in the training and play would not be impaired.
