There were proposals floated eight years ago about a possible breakaway in the Women’s Six Nations. This breakaway wasn’t billed as the new super elite trying to get more money in the game in a race to the top, rather it was like a dumbing-down to try and put less money in the game in a race to the bottom.
few weeks after the Ireland women’s team won the Grand Slam in March 2013, it was reported that money and a shift of focus to the sevens game were behind the Scottish and Welsh unions’ push for a new two-tier structure.
The idea went that these two nations, along with Italy, would play in tier two and play fewer games (and therefore require less investment), while England, France and Ireland would be in tier one and play more games.
Breaking up the Women’s Six Nations got the expected blowback, with MPs in England writing letters to union CEOs asking them to reject the reported proposals. Public, player and political power won the day.
After a meeting in April 2013, a statement from the Six Nations council said it “confirmed its continued support for the present format”.
The Women’s Six Nations is a two-tier structure in all but name now. There is always a gap in any tournament but at least there’s generally the optics of a level-playing field that leads to a competition being ‘competitive’.
After the rescheduled men’s 2020 Six Nations finished last October, for example, it looked like England and France had opened a gap on everyone else. That flipped pretty fast. Less than five months later, France finished second and England fifth.
If the disparity in scorelines in the 2021 Women’s Six Nations continues for another few years then this competition will look like it’s not fit for purpose, because having full and part-time professionals play against elite amateurs has resulted in deflating scorelines in games which lack the jeopardy the sport needs to entice more of the general public.
The margins of defeat in the six games in this Women’s Six Nations so far have been 42 points, 53, 64, 45, 41 and 21 (Scotland’s 41-20 loss to Italy last weekend was the lowest margin). These are horrendous bottom lines for any tournament.
The final day today should be more competitive but it can’t take away from the fact that the Women’s Six Nations is at a critical point.
Ireland have spent this Women’s Six Nations searching for context with where they’re truly at. Before their second game in nearly 13 months, Ireland head coach Adam Griggs said their opening game against Wales will give them “a good idea of where we are at”.
Their brilliant first-half display in a 45-0 victory had to be balanced against an incredibly poor Welsh performance (Wales have yet to score a point in this year’s competition).
Griggs said Ireland’s second game against France would be a chance to see “where we’re at in our journey and see how we match up”.
Ireland under-performed in a 56-15 defeat yet that had to be balanced against a superb French team that are semi-pro and whose players don’t have to work full-time during this championship, unlike some Irish players.
In the build-up to their final game against Italy in Donnybrook today, Griggs said “it’s a good weekend for us to really see where we’re at”. At least today’s game against an improving Italian side will give Ireland some clarity.
The context of today’s finale comes against a wider backdrop of confusion and uncertainty. The day after a good debate on the women’s game on RTÉ’s ‘Against the Head’, Griggs was asked a very straightforward question in a press conference about who is in charge of the women’s domestic game.
The IRFU keep telling us that growing the girls’/women’s game is where their focus is.
Griggs’ response was astonishing. He said he didn’t know who was in charge.
Two days later, Griggs started his press conference by returning to this question, and clarified that “it’s important to acknowledge the work that Colin McEntee (director of rugby development) and Amanda Greensmith (women’s development manager) do in running our pathways”. Griggs said he “didn’t want to come across that we were putting it under any one person”.
OK, but that comes across like one person in particular isn’t in charge, which should be the case.
In fairness, Griggs – who obviously had an important Six Nations game to concentrate on – said it was an understandable question. But it’s strange how we all know who’s in charge of the women’s game in South Africa. There is no similar figurehead to Lynne Cantwell in the IRFU which is why the question about who exactly is running the women’s game here was asked in the first place.
In the IRFU annual report 10 years ago, CEO Philip Browne noted the “women’s game continues to grow under the leadership of Michael McLoughlin”. McLoughlin spent two years as a volunteer in this particular position and travelled around the country to meet development officers in the provinces.
This week, McLoughlin pointed to the work being done but he also believes not enough progress has been made at grassroots to grow the girls’ game.
“The onus should be on the clubs and there should be incentives from the union to get people to get coaching in there,” McLoughlin says. “You’ve got to have a strategy and a structure in place and I think that’s beginning to start. It depends on the mindsets of the clubs involved. A number of the top clubs do not have a women’s section.”
Club responsibility is one layer in what has to be a multi-layered conversation about the women’s game. Cantwell was on the money on RTÉ on Monday night when she said that what works for the men’s game may not automatically work for the women’s game. There are so many off-shoots to this way of thinking.
The idea that the sole focus has to be just on growing the game from the bottom up is to assume that the results in 20/30 years’ time will be the same for girls as it was for boys or that the IRFU will put in the same investment as it’s done for boys or that even private schools will step up for girls.
The idea that the women’s game must wash its own face before anything like part-time contracts can be countenanced ignores the years of taxpayers’ money, through government funding, the IRFU receive – the tickets bought, the fundraisers done by the women and men to support the men’s game.
Believe it or not, there are women in this country who’ve helped make the men’s game what it is today. To assume that the same starting point and structure should be applied to the women’s game as it was for the men’s game is one-dimensional. This has to be a multi-faceted and tailored approach for females and which should not exclude our national team from falling further behind their English and French counterparts.
Where are the flawed arguments like entering an Irish team in the Premier 15s in England, for example, if only for a season as the grassroots game starts to grow and which could compliment the outrageous notion of a player being part/full-time? The women’s game here deserves an alternative way of thinking that doesn’t make ‘fast-track’ sound like a dirty word.
Of course, there is no confusion about who’s really in charge. David Nucifora’s current contract as IRFU performance director finishes at the end of next season. He seems to split opinion, especially with the club game, but there’s a lot he’s done right with the men’s pro game. His legacy will move beyond that. His legacy will also be how he leaves the women’s game and how exactly it is set up for current and future generations of the girls’ and women’s game to grow and prosper.
