Rugby player poaching – it cuts both ways
View(s):
Cross over, change, or buying in club rugby is about consenting adults at whose age they should understand what they are doing. As always these lead to confusion as well as pointing fingers as in the recent case of Havelock’s vs Kandy and Shehan Pathirana.
In the midst of allegation and counter allegations, the question pops every year in school rugby while the shout of ‘imports’ continue. The losing school calls this poaching while those who thieve call it nurturing talent.
Participating at the preliminary stage tournament last week involved the lesser known rugby playing schools. There was much discussion and accusation by coaches that talent scouts are around; look after your players.
Those who offer a better rugby-future call this a search, transfer and nurturing of talent. What comes to mind when we talk of talent search is the popular reality show.
The argument supporting this variety is that they bring out what would have been unseen to make celebrities. Scripting, editing and behind the scene prompts are part of making a celebrity.
Those who scout for rugby talent to build the team of their choice make a similar argument that they are taking talent to nurture and polish while improving their game.
The not-so-affluent schools grumble that the players they nurture are taken over and the game of theirs suffer. They are confined to the lower division of schools rugby while the 12 top teams are almost always the same.
The going offers are tempting say the coaches of schools in the lower divisions. These offers however give rise to different thinking of those who are for or against.
The coaches of the top schools say that whoever is taken are players of good talent who need to play more competitive games to show themselves and proceed to club and national level.
The claim is that players rise through a player development pathway: which is considered a win-win situation. This is not only about rugby but developing a life around rugby. It is not about short term gains and forgetting.
At the end some end up not getting colours which they may have cherished if they were awarded. The criteria at this end probably become different.
Many names in the Sri Lanka teams such as Dhanushka Ranjan, Niroshan Fernando, Sathya Ranatunge, Anuradha Dharmatilleke as well as Thalagampola, Suranga Arunashantha, Saliya Handpangoda are quoted as examples.
They acknowledge that the adopted school benefits from the imports but the child too benefits in terms of a scholarship that looks after the education as well as being directed towards employment.
A leading school from Kandy had placed an advertisement last year in the Sinhala newspapers offering scholarships to recruit talented sportsman. A very transparent process open to all and directing a population of students that may need the push.
The coaches also have another view and accuse some schools of investing with a short term view of playing for the school and have no plan for player-development pathway which is not the same as the long term player development plan.
They say that a very selfish approach is adopted by some who look at short term glory that can be brought to the school forgetting the boy may have cultural issues after being uprooted.
Some of these players are irregular in attendance and records less than a month of attending classes. The privileged disturb the equilibrium and such absenteeism not only damages the student but also harms the behavior of others.
At the recently played lower division Schools Sevens qualifying games most coaches were crying of their inability to develop a good team as the players were taken by the more affluent.
Coaches and Principals of these lesser advantaged school argue that the problem is the clandestine operation that goes to poach players. It is not limited to offering scholarships but the incentive that are offered to parents exploiting the pecuniary disability.
Is this not selling the children is what they ask? There is a school which in desperation had imposed a fee to be paid to the school before the player was released.
A new trend which may be not be the best direction considering the future of children in sports. A principal speaking in anonymity did say that they have to think twice in participating in pre-league matches as the approach by talent scouts is not something a schoolboy should be exposed to.
Another did say that there are only a few grounds for rugby and they cannot send the students to use the grounds as they fear other schools that use the grounds approach the better player.
The question to me is not about the opportunity the better rugby playing school offers the talented players but the going conditions that are in place.
This is something a young school player may not be able to handle and may get confused. The possible damage that can be caused to the young is about a psychological aspect. As one school gasped “what’s the difference between buying and selling the kidneys and the barter of children”.
Parents whose children have been in sport and in the system who now do not have a place when it comes to team selection too have an axe to grind.
They talk of the stress and disappointment of children who may be attaining a PhD without going to University. Which means; “permanent head damaged.”
The people who spoke to me form a cross section of school stakeholders including coaches; following the column last week about the ad lib use of supplements.
They told me that if you say supplements have to be taken with care; what do you say about the saga of imports. Is what is happening in line with the values of rugby?
The problem is not about securing talent but procuring. How do you start talking to a player you want to procure? At this time what is moral is important as offering a desperate parent a handshake is like selling the body parts.
The stakes in school sport are getting higher and higher and we are seeing some not so good practices that many are unhappy with.
* Vimal Perera is a former player, coach, referee and an IRB Accredited Referees’ Educator