January 22, 2006

Are Glasgow just a "development team for other clubs and Scotland?"

Posted by Assistant Editor on January 22, 2006 07:37 PM | 15 comments | Print | E-mail author

Sean Lamont now plies his trade in Northampton, instead of with his old club Glasgow Warriors
In The Sunday Times, Hugh Campbell questions the lack of support received by Glasgow Warriors and claims a little bit more would make all the difference.

For a team whose game is based on movement, this has turned into a season of stasis. After jiggling Scottish rugby's hierarchy last season by finishing above Edinburgh in the Celtic League and having to be huckled out of a far harder Heineken section than the one they voluntarily vacated this time, the Warriors have been comfortably the least impressive of the three pro teams in both performances and results.

It would be inaccurate to finger a single culprit in the swing, indeed Hugh Campbell himself argues for a sliding scale of responsibility. Somewhere near its upper end sits the Scottish Rugby Union. Ian McGeechan, who left its director of rugby post in April, had promised Hugh that budgetary discrepancies between the professional teams, whereby Edinburgh were granted considerably more funding on account of previous Celtic League and Heineken progress, would be rectified. With McGeechan gone, this did not occur, and Hugh's repeated inquests have brought only blank looks.

Financially unable to hold onto quality like Sean Lamont, or recruit similarly high-brow replacements such as Xavier Rush, the All Black No8 who signed for Cardiff, Glasgow have a squad that looks insubstantial even before the barrage of injuries that has bitten chunks out of their front and back-rows. The youngsters who have stepped in have proved themselves game, but are still low on the acumen required to win some.

"We've got young guys who try to force the game when it's not on, or don't force it when they should," concedes Hugh. "That mental toughness is built through taking responsibility for your game, becoming a leader."

Which suggests that perhaps there aren't enough of them in the side. Glasgow get too close to too many good teams to be themselves a bad one, and while mental crumbliness does not compute with any line-up containing Jon Petrie or Scott Lawson, their infatuation with the losing bonus point takes the biscuit. Last year they picked up seven; this year's tally stands at five. "It's hard to explain. It's not about not trying, or not being physically hard enough," frowns Hugh. "It comes down to silly mistakes, which teams, and players, with experience don't make."

The Warriors, in their defence, do not inhabit the sort of ordered environment conducive to smooth on-field returns. Old Anniesland will become their third 'home' venue of the season on Friday (Firhill is off limits because Partick Thistle will be in action less than 24 hours later) when they tackle Ospreys in the Celtic League, while Hugh can call on no permanent all-weather facility for outdoor training. An approach to share Murray Park with Rangers reportedly met with the approval of David Murray, the Ibrox chairman, but was resisted by others. "We're almost a development team for other clubs and Scotland," says Hugh. "Just a little bit more could make a huge difference."

A little bit more money, yes, but also a little bit more from the people already in place. Hugh Campbell rightly points out that, with the Celtic League table tightly packed, a run of form could even see Glasgow end up bettering last season's sixth place. For all the disquiet, they are only two big wins off Edinburgh in second.

If that improvement doesn't transpire, their invite to Europe's top table will almost certainly be revoked, which could prompt musical chairs at a coaching level.

Read the article in full here.

Comments
Posted by hugh on January 22, 2006 07:53 PM | Reply to this comment

And are Hawks just a development team for Glasgow ?

Posted by JimC on January 22, 2006 08:07 PM | Reply to this comment

the equivalent for Hawks would be if they were a development team for eg Broughmuir! then, Hugh, you would have a point to make!

Posted by hugh on January 23, 2006 12:04 AM | Reply to this comment

I think its rather Northampton not Boroughmuir

Posted by McDruid on January 22, 2006 10:38 PM | Reply to this comment

Sit on it, don't talk through it, JimC! Have you counted the number of Hawks who have gone on to sign professional contracts and the number who have turned out for Glasgow Ws without having pro contracts? Do the arithmetic and then re-examine your conclusions.

Posted by hugh on January 22, 2006 11:59 PM | Reply to this comment

and who will be next--watch this space

Posted by Highlandbrave75 on January 22, 2006 11:06 PM | Reply to this comment

Hugh Campbell's quite right.

Glasgow are a development team but then again, so are the other two professional sides.

The trio are development teams for the Scottish International setup. They were set as the bridge to support the gap from club rugby in Scotland to International level.

If Hugh and anyone else looks back the SRU paperwork and media releases on the pro game this time around you'll see it stated plainly in black and white!

Posted by Alan on January 23, 2006 12:01 AM | Reply to this comment

of course it's an artificial set-up with the pro teams ..difficult to explain to non rugby fans that all are employed by SRU anyway.
"Financially unable to hold onto quality like Sean Lamont" ..I don't think it was just money there .look what he has at his new club which he didn't have at Glasgow.

Posted by JimC on January 23, 2006 11:25 AM | Reply to this comment

Sit on what Mcdruid? The article was about Glasgow, a pro-team being used as foddder for the other 2 pro-teams; the pro teams were set up to prepare international level players. And as such they should all be on an equal footing.
Surely all the non-pro teams can be viewed as development teams for the pro sides? Where else do the pro players come from? Would you prefer all apprentices or foreign imports?
Credit to Hawks, they have prepared a production line for Glasgow they should be proud of - no other club ANYWHERE has approached their levels and still they prosper. Anyway Hawks are not slow to takes players from other clubs - and why should'nt they? Players will always want to advance, its always been so.

Posted by Highlandbrave75 on January 23, 2006 05:04 PM | Reply to this comment

All three teams should be on an equal footing for funding from the SRU.

However if we think Glasgow Warriors are way behind in terms of "fodder" we should perhaps take a look toward the Borders and see what they are achieving with very limited resources.

Resources that are a helluva lot less than Glasgow Warriors have.

Posted by Gordon on January 23, 2006 05:10 PM | Reply to this comment

"Resources that are a helluva lot less than Glasgow Warriors have."

That was undoubtedly true in previous seasons, but in Saturday's Herald Kevin Ferrie writes that Glasgow's budget was cut this season and is now at the same level as Borders receive.

Posted by Highlandbrave75 on January 23, 2006 05:35 PM | Reply to this comment

All three professional sides should have the same budget to have that "level playing field". As I said before elsewhere all three sides are bridging that gap between club rugby in Scotland and the Internationsl setup...they should all be treated as equal.

Despite the Borders coaching staff coming out a couple of instances in the media there's not been as much mention of their budget worries.

The Border Reivers have more reason to worry as their actual existance and future after this season finishes is really in the balance.

I suppose the worrying thing for Glasgow Warriors foremost and everyone connected with the pro setup is that if they are now being allocated the same small proportion of funding as The Border Reivers are receiving from the SRU then...

where's Scottish professional rugby heading in the near future?

Posted by hugh on January 23, 2006 08:06 PM | Reply to this comment

You are right there Jim-- West did it in the 1970s when Ayrshire's finest suddenly wanted to play in Milngavie

Posted by hugh on January 23, 2006 08:04 PM | Reply to this comment

cut your coat according to your cloth--where is so called private money that is waiting in the wings or is this just spin

Posted by Jim on January 25, 2006 09:06 PM | Reply to this comment

We are under resourced - and look at what we have done with what would have been regarded as 2nd & 3rd choice starters at the beginning of the season...now these players must, in many cases, consider themselves inked in...Jonnie, Stevie, Hefin et al.

Let's keep up the campaign for cash & realy get things moving, (and give some of our players a break that is not injury induced).

Posted by McDruid on January 26, 2006 01:47 PM | Reply to this comment

I heard on the touch-line last week that Glasgow's lease on their offices is about to run out and they have nowhere to go. Is this true? What then?

Add a comment to this article

If you're replying to an existing comment, please use the 'Reply to this comment' link above the entry. This will display the comments in a way which is far easier for other readers to follow.