Remember Parks With Balance
In the immediate aftermath of Scotland losing to England I tried to refrain from rash comment on the game. Analysis, if it is to be done properly, means using facts. So I waited until the simmering disappointment and loss-fuelled anger had dissipated before forming an opinion.
Then the Dan Parks story went out.
It was a shock because as an announcement the timing was horrifically ill-planned. Then it surfaced that it was thusly because Parks himself had tried to retire after the World Cup, only to be dissuaded from that by Robinson, but ultimately changing his mind yet again after crawling out of the wreckage of an England loss and hearing an angry, disoriented fan base venting their frustrations.
Everything happened under a dark cloud. It also happened pretty quickly.
Taking my time to mull things over I received the press release about Parks' decision. At the exact moment this came out there was also a string of dare I say it, rehearsed tweets and comments about how much Parks would be missed.
I say this, not to besmirch Parks' or aim fingers at his team, but merely to point out that there appeared to be a collusive and collective movement to say 'he's gone so everyone had better get ready to move on sharpish'.
Parks may be carrying the can for a poor result, borne out of a team not taking their chances, but understanding situations is about balance. That is why it would be pertinent to point out that by attempting to retire and then coming back Parks was playing last weekend in a game that, a few months ago, he was not willing to play in.
He did not play well against England, but then neither did those he was meant to be facilitating. He was not the worst player on the pitch. Fans were quick to judge, though. That's that loss-fuelled anger: it needs a target.
Parks is no stranger to that hostility. Fans distrusted him for some reason. Perhaps it was the sharp sideburns or the way he always shot out of the defensive line looking for the intercept. Perhaps it was the way he kicked the ball around the corner, zinging it low into his target area. Perhaps it was his fondness of drop goals.
For those that disliked him, though, I would urge you to look for balance.
Yes he made mistakes. Sometimes that defensive shot, taken instead of a man on man tackle, led to a try. Sometimes his kicks were knocked down. He never showed any sign of scoring a wonder try. His cross field kick attempt in the last play of Scotland versus Argentina in the quarter final of the RWC2007 almost made me cry with rage.
Also, I am always wary of automatically praising someone because of how many games they served. Baroness Thatcher was Prime Minister for eleven years...
However, Parks was what we had and he knew his role. He was not ashamed to admit what he was and he was not going to change that. In a tongue in cheek piece I did for www.greenandgoldrugby.com before the match I wrote:
"I respect Parksy. He is resilient. Not in the traditional sense, but he has bouncebackability (it's a word!). No matter the set back he picks himself up and dusts himself off. Nothing sticks to him. He is also the Celtic League's all time points scorer, ahead of Ronan O'Gara himself.
Now, I stand by those words. What's more he was liked by his fellow professionals. They knew he had limitations, but they also respected that his style could win games. A friend of his told me that when his kicking was not on he could suffer in games, but when he was on form there were few in the world that could run a game like he could.
He was a gambler. Sometimes that intercept came off spectacularly. If one played the percentages then the drop goal could bring down the house. Territory meant a tactical gain.
I once said that he would have looked perfectly at home in the 10 spot for South Africa when they won the World Cup in '07. He had the ability to win international rugby matches. Those drop goals that the fans disliked could be the signifier that Scotland were winning.
I cheered with everyone when he chipped in to win at Croke Park. He beat Argentina and South Africa. He won three Man of the Match awards in the 2010 6 Nations. He was a man who could kick beautifully when the pressure was on.
He will no longer be doing that for Scotland. Yet it should be said that despite how shocking the announcement was, how supported he was by those around him or how much resistance he got from the fans, it would be insulting to Parks and insulting to the team and insulting to the nation if there were to be a fostering of this budding 'fans versus players' mood that many are trying to promote.
Fans feel passionately about their team and are within their rights to have strong opinions either way. By the same token the players need to be supported and helped through issues, rather than facing mindless abuse. Energies should be used productively. What everyone wants now “staff and Parks included “is for all to quickly move on and support the new 10, not making rash calls about them.
Balance. No mindless abuse or praise just because everyone else is doing it. Look at everything the man has achieved. Take in all of the factors. Only then can you make a judgment. You'll find yourself respecting them more if you do.
One final thought. If I were Robinson would I have picked Parks to face England?
Had I known he had attempted to retire: no, I wouldn't.
Had he not tried to retire: yes, I would have started Parks. With the tactics Scotland had set up with it was primed for a back that could kick out of hand and set targets. In his pomp Parks was untouchable at that.
