While whiling away these drear days of not quite Christmas by sifting through my Mediazone video downloads to try to answer some of my outstanding technical questions about the 2007 World Cup (What happened to Ireland? Did England actually change their game after the South Africa debacle?) I suddenly found myself with another series of questions to answer.

These largely fall under the heading of:
“Why is general TV coverage of rugby so bad?”

To my mind, the only thing that can explain this lamentable state of affairs is that the TV companies believe their audience to be a bunch of rugby-illiterate morons who are looking only for thrills and spills and are probably half drunk to boot! This criticsm, by the way, goes for all of the rugby channels Mediazone, Sky, Canal+, BBC, RTE etc. etc. (I am well aware that the transmitting companies usually share the video feeds and add their own commentary and analysis, by the way, but why do they compound the shortcomings of their commentators by accepting the available slovenly and uneducated video direction? Maybe, heaven forbid, there’s really only one company world-wide responsible for it all and I’m now in danger of slandering a single poor soul who never wanted to do it anyway. If so, my advice is, “Do yourself a favour, my friend, and go back to day-time game shows where you belong.”)

So enough of the rant: with nearly a couple of months to go before the Puma-less Six Nations what do I, as a reasonably intelligent and often sober, ex-rugby player want to see on TV?

1. The actual grounding of the ball to score a try is only interesting if there’s a question about it’s legality. What I want to see is how the try came about. Where and how did the movement start? What were the key moves and mistakes that made it possible? The average try takes only 45 seconds to score says Sir Clive Woodward so why can’t I have the 45 seconds of play leading up to it (maybe from a better angle) instead of three fifteen second sequences of an unopposed player crossing the line, dotting down and receiving the soccer-style intimate caresses of his team-mates? (There’s plenty of time for such replays while the kicker goes through his interminable ritual, anyway. Again, unless there’s a question about the kick 3 seconds is more than enough.)

2. I want to see the scrum in action and this means seeing the props’ feet if possible. When will video directors understand that the ref is almost always in the way on the put-in side? (The overhead camera at Stade de France gives a great view but why is it so rarely used?) And while on the subject of the scrum, once the ball is heeled and in the scrum-half’s hands I want to see his options - i.e. the camera needs to pull back immediately to show the attacking back line AND the defence. You can substitute ‘lineout’ for ’scrum’ and ‘lifting pod’ for ‘prop’s feet’ in the above if you wish.

3. Speaking of evaluating options available, yes it’s exciting to be close-up to the ruck or maul but it’s the possibilities for attack and defence that these actions open and how the options are exploited that are really interesting.

4. Why is the camera always on the kicker and NEVER on the kick receiver? Is it possible that our mythical director really doesn’t understand how kick-offs work?

5. I want to see a lot less personality boosting. I don’t care (Bill McLaren excepted, of course,) if the children in his class at Aughtermochty Mixed Infants are cheeering for this player or that one or about the doings of his celebrity spouse either. Let’s leave the cult of celebrity to soccer for a few more years.

Well, those are the wants. What I’d LIKE to see and hear is just a little more informed analysis. I’ve noted that it’s not the commentator’s or the colour guy’s fault if the director has no idea which bit of action to replay for illustration but with modern technology isn’t there a way of at least providing some re-play options? How about allowing the commentary team to direct the video also so that we’d find out if one video/commentary team is better than the others.

I do want to know who is carrying the ball but I can make up my own mind whether he’s doing it well or not. However, if the commentator/colour guy has an observation about WHY he thinks something is happening I’m prepared to be interested.

I’d like it, too, if the statistics could all be gathered into sequences and shown at reasonable times - the half-time and final whistles, for example - and not scattered like confetti into the proceedings.

Will I get my New Year’s wishes? What do you think?

In this series of critical review of rugby websites there will be no winners or losers. My links are to be found at Media Links Worldwide .

What to expect: Well, it depends which flavour you choose!

The Kiwi site is seemingly streets ahead in coverage with plenty of news headlines on its front page - both sites are effectively re-formatted newspapers, written largely by newspaper reporters and composed by newspaper-influenced composers - and the Aussie site is certainly more parochial but since both rely heavily on the local newswires there probably isn’t a lot to choose between them newswise. Both sites have a heavy Antipodean bias, of course, which isn’t all bad if that’s your compass.

There are some subtle differences, however. Since the Aussie site has had some sort of historical association with the Sydney Morning Herald it prints columnists, the “Experts”, from that paper - at one time relying heavily on the predictable fulminations of Greg Growden and the folksy wisdom of Spiros Zavos. In contrast the Kiwi site has a more straightforward format not, so far at least, betraying any marked editorial allegience. Both sites feature opinion from a range of rugby personalities - Grant Fox, Tony Smith, Ewen McKenzie and John Connolly among them - and as a result while the mainstream is well represented there isn’t quite the broad range of opinion that www.stuff.co.nz serves up.

As for video the Kiwi site has a certain amount of interview-type coverage - useful if you don’t know what Robbie Deans looks and sounds like - but not exactly at the cutting edge. Notably it does feature a Women’s page, a healthy departure for rugby news coverage.
Strong points: Very much the authentic voices of the Antipodean mainstream.
Weak Points: Apparently satisfied with mainstream issues - a little more controversy or at least dissenting opinion wouldn’t hurt.