US Edition
I will never forget that night at Kingsholm. As a very inexperienced Nottingham side, we faced the formidable Gloucester front five of Gordon Sargent, Steve Mills, Phil Blakeway, John Fidler and Steve Boyle. In the first scrum Fidler sent a punch through and smacked me square on the nose. Back then, I had not learned that discretion was any part of valour and unwisely said to him, “Is that the best you can do?” As we stood up, he caught me again, twice, and I thought: ‘No, it wasn’t, was it?’
I have always liked Gloucester. It is what I consider to be a proper rugby club; rooted in the town, populated by ordinary fans and run without the largesse of a sugar daddy. If you have played in front of the Shed, you know that Gloucester fans can be sharp-witted and loud but, ultimately, they respect good rugby and good players, from wherever they hail. I will always treasure the standing ovation they gave me when I retired from top-flight club rugby with Harlequins.
Given this affection, it was the saddest of sights to see Glaws hammered 90 points to nil by Northampton on Saturday. If it was a harrowing experience for the players, consider the lot of the fans who made the journey to the Midlands and paid to watch the capitulation. Having scanned the various fans’ forums, to say that the Gloucester faithful are unhappy is a gross understatement. They are embarrassed, not just at the scoreline but the way in which their side failed to compete in virtually every area on the pitch.
This disaster stems from the decision of Gloucester head coach George Skivington to rest all but three of the players that qualified for the European Challenge Cup final the previous week. Making no concessions to fan sentiment, Skivington stated after the game that selection decisions were based on the fact that the club does not have a large squad and he had to manage a number of “banged-up” players before the final, which takes place two weeks hence.
Skivington’s claims cut little ice with many fans, some of whom demanded he step down for devaluing the club’s image. Other observers tried to widen the debate, claiming the loss proved the decision to disallow Premiership relegation was wrong and was an indirect cause of the record losing margin. We need to take a pause and consider the realities before supporting either of these claims because they do not add up when scrutinised.
Before we do this, it is right to say that uncompetitive games like this do nothing for the image of the Premiership, which this season has produced a raft of entertaining games. It is also right to feel sympathy for fans who wasted time and money to go to watch. The question is then, what do you do about it? Are you in favour of introducing a rule that any team is required to field a certain number of its international or top players? If so, you further advantage clubs with bigger and more expensive squads, as they can rotate players with far greater ease. In any event, how would you rule on what was/was not a top player?
Let us not pretend that this is the first time a club has done what Skivington did. Several other teams have made similar selections, including Saracens, the league’s leading club in recent times. The fact that Saracens could still be competitive with a virtual second team actually supports, rather than detracts from, Skivington’s logic. In the end outcome bias will decide on Skivington’s wisdom. Win the final and nearly everyone will forget this debacle, whatever they say now. Lose, well, this is the sort of decision that can get you sacked.
I do not support those who would take the sacking line because the reality is that this decision will give Gloucester their best chance of winning a game in which they start as decided underdogs anyway. What you also need to consider is that their opponents in the final, the Sharks, decided on continuity of selection and lost three Springboks who were injured over the weekend. What would have been the fans’ response had Skivington done similar?
Lastly, the relegation claim is erroneous. Given that only one team went down before ring-fencing, Gloucester are not in that position anyway. Further, we have seen similarly heavy defeats when relegation was in place. Witness the 83-10 points win of Leicester over Newcastle (2005) and that year the Falcons finished seventh. The suggestion that relegation would rectify this problem is nonsense. There is no evidence to suggest that Ealing Trailfinders would have done any better, given the same selection dilemma.
We should wait and see what happens over the next two weeks for Gloucester. We should also credit them for investing in their women’s side, which is running away with Premiership Women’s Rugby.
Gloucester embarrassed by 90-0 thrashing – but win European final and it will be forgotten
George Skivington’s decision to rest players and leave his team open to a hammering will be justified only by silverware