While at Fitz, as at most colleges, we struggle to find fifteen players week in week out, the Red Boys of St John’s College Rugby Club not only have enough for two full teams but their strongest team would be made up solely of players who represent the University at some level. They have won the league for the last eight years and Cuppers for the last five and this year could see another double for the boys in red and white; they have already thrashed closest rivals Jesus. The last time John’s lost a match was in 2006 when an under-strength side was defeated by Pembroke.

This split between John’s and the rest of the University sucks the fun out of what should be a competitive league and makes College rugby less enjoyable for the John’s players and their apparent opposition alike.  Indeed, Rob Wells, Red Boy for nine years, admitted that “you start to feel like there is no upside anymore. If you win no one is surprised but the next time John’s lose will be gutting”. Who is to blame for this unfortunate situation? 

The bitter, jealous side of every College rugby player in the University secretly hopes that St John’s are somehow cheating the system to feed their hungry rugby squad and that they will be found out and stripped of their bulging trophy cabinet.  Surely it is the fault of the admissions tutors at St John’s, letting in applicants based solely on their prowess on the field and ignoring their more academic but less physically gifted counterparts, right?

Yet the picture of their success is not so straightforward and there are no signs that applicants swimming in sporting achievements have any advantage over those who have never stepped foot on a rugby pitch. Dr Helen Watson, the admissions tutor at St John’s, said that sporting ability was “irrelevant” to an application and added “admissions decisions are solely driven by considerations of academic excellence and potential”.

More pertinently, a huge number of the best rugby players apply to St John’s.  Over half the Red Boys asked in a Varsity questionnaire had played rugby at or above county standard before making their application. Part of the reason for this is that good players are aware of the College’s rugby record: two thirds of the team said rugby was a factor in their decision to apply to the College and over a quarter admitted it was the major factor.

Add to this the fact that St John’s has a high proportion of private and public school students, who tend to have a stronger rugby playing tradition, and also a large number of students in traditional rugby playing subjects. Helen Watson pointed out a high proportion of engineers, for example, and indeed only 22% of the team are studying arts subjects.  Given this, with a yearly intake of 175 freshers, there are bound to be a few top class players.

It is also undoubtedly true that playing in a highly skilled squad helps an individual excel, giving the Red Boys the edge in training up potential stars. One team member called it a “self fulfilling prophecy” in which a high standard of rugby attracts more players who subsequently improve.

The uncomfortable truth is that John’s have not gained their position at the top by improving beyond any other College, but that the rest of us have taken a significant step backwards. Referee Tony Kennedy remembers a time, only fifteen years ago, when College rugby was good enough and prestigious enough to attract four hundred spectators per match.

Kennedy said of St John’s that “it’s not their fault - it’s everyone else’s failure.” In today’s Cambridge, where academic standards are all that matter, the level of College rugby has fallen. If we want to reverse this trend and reclaim a sporting tradition that goes back for centuries we must recognise that St John’s are a symptom of the modern problem and not its cause. Within Cambridge we can do nothing but work hard on and off the field to promote college sport. This is the only way to draw the best rugby-playing applicants away from St John’s and regain a healthy and competitive league.