A couple of seasons ago, I exchanged posts on these boards with our expert and doyen Brett McKay about the need for rugby media to not only entertain but to educate.
Our game is way too complicated for its own good and provides its own barrier to new entrants, something the competitor sport in rugby league has over us in spades.
To capture the new fan we don’t really the fan-boy commentary we see when either the Brumbies or the Blues play at home, and we all know who the culprits are for those, but within 80 minutes the opportunity is there to improve the knowledge of the current fans and make things like scrums, mauls and why cut passes are generally a bad thing just that little bit clearer.
One of the reasons I like the writing here on The Roar is that people live up to their expert designations, good observations, clearly defined, well defended with examples and numbers and well explained in the main, while local biases are acknowledged and obvious.
I get the reasons for the networks, and these are the people who are paying the biggest chunk of the revenue for the product after all, to want things to be exciting (even if they’re not) and want the commentators to be creating heroes and hyping up major plays.
But surely there is a duty to the existing audience to get things right, to be accurate, to have done your homework and enhance the spectacle for the informed and long-term supporter. After all, we are the people who pay for the merchandise, drive or fly miles to follow our teams (and take that commitment to international level), and, of course, we are the people who pay for the television subscriptions that make the whole thing possible in the first place.
This week, I heard a series of assertions from one an individual accepted as one of New Zealand’s leading rugby commentators – I see little value in naming the individual, but he is in every rugby supporter’s lounge (or loungeroom, depending on your domicile) – that were so far from what most people’s eyes will be telling them that I wonder if there is any performance review or challenge process, or do we just let broadcasters prattle on with their views, unencumbered by accuracy?
This example is particularly timely, as in my last piece on the differing game plans of Scott Robertson and Leon MacDonald versus the Brumbies, I noted some Opta statistics on Richie Mo’unga’s run numbers had been posted on Twitter and they were of such a degree they were worth expanding into a separate article prior to the finals series.
So timely is the opportunity that they are fine example of the need for accuracy in our leading commentators.
On The Breakdown this week, said protagonist made two observations.
The first was that Mo’unga has lost his running game, and second that his distribution has been poor, sitting back in the pocket, and propping before getting very lateral. No matter who your favoured player is for the All Blacks 10 shirt later on this year, you have to go out on a very long limb to get to these conclusions.
An examination of the running game assertion just doesn’t fit with the numbers Mo’unga is posting , and I did say these were a big deal and worth further investigation.
The Opta stats showed that Mo’unga was No.4 for tackle busts for the season to date; add in the Super Rugby stats that have currently have him fifth for defenders beaten and eighth for total offloads.
Worth noting in the tackle busts that what our eyes tell us to be true and that Timoci Tavatavanawai of Moana Pasifika leads the table.
Now, back to the accuracy of those who entertain and inform us on our great sport.
Fair to say I think that the raw numbers tell a story of a player who is having a great season with the ball in hand.
But the key factor for me is that in each of these categories, which are generally dominated by wings and fullbacks, Mo’unga is the first five-eighth in the entire competition represented on any of these top tens.
(Photo by Kai Schwoerer/Getty Images)
The only No.10 – if he is having a poor season with his running game, then it’s not a good look for anyone else. Conclusive and inarguable, I would think.
The assertion that his distribution game is below standard as well doesn’t take long to crumble, either.
A quick look at the leading try scorers list shows Leicester Fainga’anuku on top with ten, and Sevu Reece and Will Jordan tied in second place with eight each. Either Bryn Hall has developed one hell of a pass since last season or the inside backs of the Crusaders are doing a pretty good job at distributing the ball the the fullback and wingers.
Just for the final nail in the coffin of our comments man’s assertions, rugbypass.com has Richie Mo’unga’s try assists year to date at 20!
Some would argue that state of being wrong is an absolute, but there are clearly varying degrees of how wrong one can be. It is wrong, for example, to describe a tomato as a vegetable, but it is more wrong to describe it as a battleship.
The assertions made above are firmly in the ‘tomato is a battleship’ category.
We are the paying public, the core of support for the television networks – we should be getting better, more accurate, quality observations.
A final observation.
Our game changes fast, law changes and tactics can seriously deliver a game that is significantly different, almost from year to year, so why do we persist in wheeling out blokes who played a game that is so different from today’s fare as to be almost irrelevant?
One reason I enjoy the observations of Ruby Tui and Honey Hireme when they are called upon is the recency of their playing careers.
Might be time to update the blokes side of the commentating desk with some players who have played the game when there wasn’t a lace in the ball.