I love watching rugby. I shout and scream and get excited during matches and watch with bated breath until the outcome is clear. I have never played the game, but that doesn’t stop me from enjoying every moment of watching it. All that being said, I feel that a play set within the world of rugby is right up my street. 

Writer Joshua Baty tells us in the programme that his aim in creating the play is to look beyond the team in rugby, and instead to focus on the individuals that play the game. The play opens with these individuals in the dressing room – the simply-realised sole set for the entire play – re-living a story of drunken hi-jinks that made one of their number late for his own parents’ wedding.

The scene really hits the ground running, with plenty of energy and totally convincing interactions between the players. As the conversations quickly flow back and forth, James (Josiah Robertson) immediately stands out as the high-octane joker, and Robertson is a delight to watch as he bounces around the set relating the story, mocking the others and drawing the audience into this moment with this group of mates. Although Toast (Samuel Goodger) is the butt of much of the humour, since he is the one who was late to the wedding, he tries to give as good as he gets, while his brother Abel (Sebastian Dudding) quietly enjoys the story. Carlos (Matt Nati) is more restrained and seemingly mature than the others, but still happy to join in with mocking whoever is in the frame at any given time. 

It’s an engaging start to the play, and it is very topical in its discussions of recent All Blacks matches, so much so that I suspect some of the script has been updated very recently. This is a clever way to invite the audience into a world that is very much of the present moment.

However, as the scene goes on, I do notice other topical issues that are less positive. The partners of the players are referred to almost exclusively as ‘the missus’ (I see from the programme that the only female character in the play is named somewhat contemptuously as ‘girl’) and much of the ‘banter’ in this first scene revolves around perceived sexual orientation. Many barbs are aimed at James, implying that because he has performed in a play and does not have a girlfriend, he must be unmanly and gay.

I’m not sure how to feel about this, and I hope it is here purposely to make the audience feel uncomfortable (although many of the comments gain huge laughs from the audience on the night I attend). I presume these remarks are presented as ‘authentic’ conversations that may be heard in dressing rooms, but I am concerned that the casual sexism and homophobia on display is never clearly called out or addressed by any of the male characters, and so it is left entirely to the audience to decide how they feel about what they see and hear.

No doubt many people will feel that this play is not the time or the place to address the issue, but if there is one thing that has become very clear in a world that has Donald Trump as a President who claims that degrading ‘locker room banter’ is OK, naming an evil is absolutely necessary before it can be confronted.  

When a scene in the second half of the play has an opportunity to address the sexist attitudes on display, it does not do so clearly. If nothing else, I hope we should absolutely feel uncomfortable that such sexist and homophobic attitudes are accepted as ‘normal’ by players of sport. 

As the conversations continue, we hear much about Brock, the team’s star player who is soon to leave for the Rugby Academy. The other players seem to admire him while acknowledging that he can be a selfish and egotistical player. When Brock (Saale Ilaua) finally appears in the dressing room, we see immediately that he is preoccupied and troubled. He is keen to get the match started, sidestepping questions about his ‘missus’ as he gets changed, and refuses to even consider coming off during the match so that Abel can get some time on the pitch.

The first half of the play takes us through the result of this match, preparations for a night on the town, introduces us to James’ girlfriend (‘girl’) and exposes us to Brock’s incandescent rage when things don’t go his way. The action moves along at a brisk pace and the direction in this first half is tight and effective.

The second half of the play deals with Brock’s final match for his team, which he is determined to play despite an injury. The stage is set for revelations from a number of sources, but I begin to feel that the story is taking too long to get to that point. It feels like the pace of the play dips in this second half, with almost too much action to cram in, so that I am convinced that the play is about to finish at least one scene before the actual end.

The opportunity to address the issue of sexism in the sport is given when ‘Girl’ is called on to referee the final match. However, despite Sally Brady’s physically and vocally compelling performance in calling out Brock’s behaviour, it is only his poor sportsmanship that is really addressed.

I enjoy the twist that shows us a completely different side to Toast, and Goodger plays this section effectively, showing a completely different physicality and attitude. There is a wonderfully choreographed (uncredited) fight during this half of the play that is swift, brutal and convincingly performed.

James hears some home truths in the second half of the play, and Robertson plays this more subdued section appealingly. I am greatly heartened when he comes to a realisation after the match and acts on it. Carlos continues to lead the team, and Nati’s measured and engaging performance helps us to navigate the action. As Abel, Studding is given little to do, but is effective in showing his character’s ambivalence and growing discomfort towards Brock.

As Brock, Ilaua works hard with a character that is designed to be unlikeable, since he seems to consist mainly of bile, condescension and self-righteousness. Ilaua plays him with an often bemused expression and a seeming lack of physical grace that makes it hard for us to empathise with him. There are some wonderful moments when the tables are turned on him but, for me, he doesn’t quite earn the sympathy that the play aims for at its conclusion. 

I enjoy much of this play but not all of it, perhaps not helped by various audience members who play videos on their phones, loudly send messages and rustle every type of food packet possible during the show. The performances are committed and the characters are diverse enough to suggest that we are seeing a pretty convincing slice of grassroots rugby life. However, I feel there are some important messages in the play about the way that pushing too hard for something can spoil it, that are not quite fully resolved.

The second half of the play does not quite match the energy and clarity of the first half, and I would love to see the issues of prejudice addressed more clearly. This is an interesting peek inside the mind-set of those who love and play our national game, without offering any resolutions to some of the issues that are raised.  

Copyright © in the review belongs to the reviewer