• Help Support The Rugby Forum :

Jake White on SA rugby

the ANC has made it clear they are more interested in making headlines than having South Africa produce more black rugby players

use the actual black exciting players you have: Beast, Sergeal Peterson (not quite a superstar but a potential solid Springbok) etc; and have them tour schools to show how cool being a rugby player can be
sponsor tournaments between historically black schools
get historically black universities somehow involved with the varsity cup, doesn't have to be at the top level but maybe the second tier
 
Heineken

I enjoyed reading your post #19, which answered emphatically, every point @Bruce_ma_goose made. As someone who has both been to South Africa a couple of times (during and after Apartheid) and who has family there, I thoroughly agree with everything you said.

Political interference has NO place in sports, least of all in team selection polices. The coaches and selectors should have the right to select who they consider are the best players in each position regardless of race or skin colour. This is one of the things that the anti-apartheid protestors in South Africa and other countries fought for,; selection based on merit. They didn't fight that fight so that another bunch of racists could come into power and implement reverse racism.
 
Last edited:
Just out of interest what do South Africans prefer to watch Currie cup rugby or Super Rugby?

I haven't watched currie cup rugby for a bit but used to really enjoy it still have a nice old school WP shirt.
 
Thanks for the detailed and informative response Heineken, I appreciate that I am treading on a sensitive subject that ardent rugby fans are passionate about. I remain of the personal opinion that it would do your society or the sport you love no favours to fail to tap into 90% of the population but accept that quotas are far from ideal (even as a relatively short-medium term solution) and totally accept there are robust counter arguments.

A few points I'd make in response are;

a) it is not racist to say that seeing someone with a similar background as you (e.g. skin colour, accent) play a sport might make you as a kid more inclined to pursue that sport. My failure growing up to ever hear a Scottish rugby player who spoke anything like me or my friends is a large reason why I have the Italian flag in my profile rather than the Scottish one. As a kid I never really could relate to the bunch of southern-hemisphere born, non-Scottish UK and/or almost uniformly upper middle class players that seemed to form the entire Scottish team for years on end. They might as well have been from another planet to me (thankfully that is improving and their is now broader social representation in the team, including fantastic and highly skilled ex-fee paying schoolboys).

b) The suggestion that black kids are less inclined to pursue a sport with a lot of physical contact isn't something I can agree with as a long term follower of American football. It's filled with black and white men that delight in some of the most extreme physical contact in sport. I'm sure most of them will have East African heritage rather than Southern Africa, but I don't think that would make a huge difference.

c) If quotas are used extensively around the world in education to increase the chance of a kid from a deprived area to receive a "top education" then I don't see why it should be utterly unacceptable for sport to do similar. Some of the objectives are broadly the same in both arenas. Quotas are widely used in UK TV, for example, no panel/quiz show on state TV is allowed unless it includes at least one female. That's not about beating men on the head, it's about letting young girls know that they can grow up to be a comedian too if they want. This rule is not imposed by female supremacists looking for revenge, but by moderate political forces that considered TV wasn't doing enough to be welcoming to woman and, because it had failed to do so,'direct action had to be taken.

d) I understand that the current quota rule (if it is indeed in place, which your Sports minister confusingly appears to deny?) allows 16 places in the squad of 23 to be held by white athletes. So crudely 10% of the population can in theory hold over two thirds of the places in a match day squad. To try and draw a direct comparison between that and the apartheid situation where (correct me if I am wrong) it was guaranteed that 0% of the players must ever be of colour is not a fair comparison. Two wrongs do not make a right, but we are talking about two very different scales of wrong with different motivations. And the second wrong arguably would never have been seen as being required if the first wrong hadn't made participation in top level rugby and cricket all but impossible for large sections of society. A Kevin Pietersen of this world has never been put in a position that is comparable to being excluded from something because of the colour of your skin. No matter how much he might lose it due to the rules.

e) The Boks had a disappointing 7s at the Olympics but are filled with top non-white talent. It'd be hard to argue there are any players in that side who are not there on merit. I don't see why what is the reality in your current 7s team could not also become the reality in XVs. In a few years time the XVs, like the 7s, might reach the stage that the perceived need for quotas has disappeared, with kids and adults from all different backgrounds being given a fair shake of the stick. I am assuming that there are no quotas for the 7s of course.

f) I am sure certain ethnic groups are not fully supportive of gender equality. It's a shame SA rugby reinforced the perception that rugby is a "man's game" by not sending a women's team to the Olympics. I've no idea the ethnicity of whoever took that decision though, so this point may be off topic. But if it was white men then that ethnic group is also partly culpable for what you highlight.

g) my posting of the link to the aerial photographs wasn't to guilt trip anyone but to genuinely ask if you felt a kid with great physical potential, born into poverty in SA would have any realistic prospect to develop into a top rugby or cricket player if government had not taken steps to encourage the uptake of certain sports in non-white communities. While it's not as much of a problem with football (e.g. the stereotype of poor Brazilian kid who makes it), rugby across many Tier 1 nations has been abysmal in the 20th century (and sometimes beyond) in engaging with kids from poorer backgrounds. I think we'd be sitting with the ocassional Habana, JP Pietersen and Philander somehow making it to the top if SA sport if politics didn't take steps to expand the appeal of the sport. Again, this is not just an SA issue, it's a rugby issue. I think SA society would be poorer if sporting uptake of kids (and support of adults) was largely down to what community you grew up in, with each community largely doing their own thing.

h) Quotas can be considered awful. But they may be less awful than doing nothing and accepting a situation that, to a casual observer, may not look a whole of a lot different to what existed shortly after the end of apartheid.
 
g) my posting of the link to the aerial photographs wasn't to guilt trip anyone but to genuinely ask if you felt a kid with great physical potential, born into poverty in SA would have any realistic prospect to develop into a top rugby or cricket player if government had not taken steps to encourage the uptake of certain sports in non-white communities.

I take it this is just an example, and that you DON'T think the only poor people in SA are black?There are schools in SA where a large part of the (white) kids are fed in public programs at the schools, where that would be the only meal those kids get for the day. Those same kids play rugby.Eye-opener or not?
 
Thanks for the detailed and informative response Heineken, I appreciate that I am treading on a sensitive subject that ardent rugby fans are passionate about. I remain of the personal opinion that it would do your society or the sport you love no favours to fail to tap into 90% of the population but accept that quotas are far from ideal (even as a relatively short-medium term solution) and totally accept there are robust counter arguments.

A few points I'd make in response are;
It is certainly a sensitive subject, and I appreciate the interest from foreigners. But you have to understand how damaging this is to our sport, and not just rugby, but every sport in SA. It's one of the very few things us middle to low wealth income people can look forward to and creates hope to live in this beautiful country of ours.

a) it is not racist to say that seeing someone with a similar background as you (e.g. skin colour, accent) play a sport might make you as a kid more inclined to pursue that sport. My failure growing up to ever hear a Scottish rugby player who spoke anything like me or my friends is a large reason why I have the Italian flag in my profile rather than the Scottish one. As a kid I never really could relate to the bunch of southern-hemisphere born, non-Scottish UK and/or almost uniformly upper middle class players that seemed to form the entire Scottish team for years on end. They might as well have been from another planet to me (thankfully that is improving and their is now broader social representation in the team, including fantastic and highly skilled ex-fee paying schoolboys).
True, but it's not uncommon in South Africa for kids to have role models in sport regardless of their skin colour. Kids under 14 doesn't even understand the concept of racism, hell even some adults still doesn't get that concept.
The point I'm making is that kids look up to players who perform, not feature. There is a difference.
b) The suggestion that black kids are less inclined to pursue a sport with a lot of physical contact isn't something I can agree with as a long term follower of American football. It's filled with black and white men that delight in some of the most extreme physical contact in sport. I'm sure most of them will have East African heritage rather than Southern Africa, but I don't think that would make a huge difference.
That is why I'm suggesting that a study should be done. It's a personal viewpoint of mine because of how I was brought up. I was in a poor primary school where 75% of the kids were traditional black children. During breaks, the black kids would play soccer and the white kids would play rugby, on many occasions we would invite them to play along, as they were just too many to play soccer, and we weren't enough to play rugby. And they were afraid. They would only play if it was touch-rugby.
That perspective has never dissipated and I am a firm believer that it is the case.

c) If quotas are used extensively around the world in education to increase the chance of a kid from a deprived area to receive a "top education" then I don't see why it should be utterly unacceptable for sport to do similar. Some of the objectives are broadly the same in both arenas. Quotas are widely used in UK TV, for example, no panel/quiz show on state TV is allowed unless it includes at least one female. That's not about beating men on the head, it's about letting young girls know that they can grow up to be a comedian too if they want. This rule is not imposed by female supremacists looking for revenge, but by moderate political forces that considered TV wasn't doing enough to be welcoming to woman and, because it had failed to do so,'direct action had to be taken.
If Quota's were used as an educational tool, then implementing it in sports is the worst showcase they can use. They are then basically taking away the fundamentals of what sport is. A competition where the best prospers. Implementing Quotas basically says that Sport is nothing but a Montessori idea, where participation is the only aspect one should look at. Why keep score and have a winner then?

d) I understand that the current quota rule (if it is indeed in place, which your Sports minister confusingly appears to deny?) allows 16 places in the squad of 23 to be held by white athletes. So crudely 10% of the population can in theory hold over two thirds of the places in a match day squad. To try and draw a direct comparison between that and the apartheid situation where (correct me if I am wrong) it was guaranteed that 0% of the players must ever be of colour is not a fair comparison. Two wrongs do not make a right, but we are talking about two very different scales of wrong with different motivations. And the second wrong arguably would never have been seen as being required if the first wrong hadn't made participation in top level rugby and cricket all but impossible for large sections of society. A Kevin Pietersen of this world has never been put in a position that is comparable to being excluded from something because of the colour of your skin. No matter how much he might lose it due to the rules.
But there is a massive difference. During Apartheid we weren't a Democracy and we didn't have a Constitution or even human rights. In 1993 we drafted an interim Constitution and in 1996 the final version was implemented. One of the fundamental rights is that there must be no discrimination based on sex/race/religion/sexual orientation. This Constitution was the baby of Nelson Mandela, who was the leader of the ANC. He was one of the advocates against the Quota system and said that it has no place in SA sport. Now his own party, the ANC, are violating the Constitution, the democratic policies and the wishes of Mandela.
There has been many polls over the last few years with regard to the Quota system, and every time the South African public votes against it, and by a very large margin. So why keep on forcing it down our throats?? Because they can.

e) The Boks had a disappointing 7s at the Olympics but are filled with top non-white talent. It'd be hard to argue there are any players in that side who are not there on merit. I don't see why what is the reality in your current 7s team could not also become the reality in XVs. In a few years time the XVs, like the 7s, might reach the stage that the perceived need for quotas has disappeared, with kids and adults from all different backgrounds being given a fair shake of the stick. I am assuming that there are no quotas for the 7s of course.
This is a very narrow viewpoint. For 7's you need skills and speed. Something our black players always have (one or the other). And that's why we will always have great black wingers. But the black props and hookers and flankers. We struggle to get good Locks, Scrumhalves, Fly Halves, Centres and Fullbacks. Those are all positions where the skillset isn't always necessary to be good at 7's.
But if you look at our 7's team, you would see that it was only Seabelo Senatla and Gigaba that were ethnic black players. De Jongh, Kolbe, Specman, Geduld, Afrika, are all coloured (mixed race) players, so the problem is basically the same as in the XV's.

f) I am sure certain ethnic groups are not fully supportive of gender equality. It's a shame SA rugby reinforced the perception that rugby is a "man's game" by not sending a women's team to the Olympics. I've no idea the ethnicity of whoever took that decision though, so this point may be off topic. But if it was white men then that ethnic group is also partly culpable for what you highlight.
We have a 7's women's team. They just didn't qualify for the Olympics. We also have a XV's team for the women, and they compete every year in tournaments. Perhaps you should go do the research first.

g) my posting of the link to the aerial photographs wasn't to guilt trip anyone but to genuinely ask if you felt a kid with great physical potential, born into poverty in SA would have any realistic prospect to develop into a top rugby or cricket player if government had not taken steps to encourage the uptake of certain sports in non-white communities. While it's not as much of a problem with football (e.g. the stereotype of poor Brazilian kid who makes it), rugby across many Tier 1 nations has been abysmal in the 20th century (and sometimes beyond) in engaging with kids from poorer backgrounds. I think we'd be sitting with the ocassional Habana, JP Pietersen and Philander somehow making it to the top if SA sport if politics didn't take steps to expand the appeal of the sport. Again, this is not just an SA issue, it's a rugby issue. I think SA society would be poorer if sporting uptake of kids (and support of adults) was largely down to what community you grew up in, with each community largely doing their own thing.
As stated in my previous post, SA Rugby is doing everything in their power to develop the sport. But the obstacles they face are just too big. And they are fighting against SAFA (South African Football Association). But due to SAFA having a much bigger wallet, SARU is fighting a losing battle.
Again, you need to differentiate between coloured and ethnic black. Habana, Pietersen and Philander are all coloured players, not ethnic black players like Nyakane, Kolisi and Notshe. We have plenty of coloured players, but not enough ethnic black players.
h) Quotas can be considered awful. But they may be less awful than doing nothing and accepting a situation that, to a casual observer, may not look a whole of a lot different to what existed shortly after the end of apartheid.
True, but again, the implementation is wrong. Rather use it on kids from age 8 to 18. And then let the kids decide if they want to make the step up to the professional arena where they are picked on merit and not on the colour of their skin.
 
What is the club scene like in SA or is it mainly schools that are looked at as the best way of being scouted?
 
What is the club scene like in SA or is it mainly schools that are looked at as the best way of being scouted?

It is very strong and very competitive. You have the schools levels, then from that school kids either go to varsity and play in the Varsity Cup (televised in SA) or they move to a local club. At their local club (where some players will be paid individuals) They will play in leagues similar to what you find in English football. This club has the tables for most of the leagues in the Western Cape:
http://www.villagerfc.co.za/match-centre/league-table/
Super league A, B and C are the main ones and then I think the relegation/promotion from there gets divided into multiple tables.
Anyway, there are these leagues around the country and then the winners of each main league in a region gets put into a national competition that gets played after the normal league season (here is the log for that: http://www.falsebayrugby.com/2016-gold-cup-log ). Some of these matches get televised and I think there is increasingly more money being put into it.

I would say the strength in club rugby really started properly about 7 or 8 years ago. I think most likely with the intention of losing less talent after schools and having a greater skilled player base. When I finished school (and rugby) in 2010, I had the local clubs calling trying to recruit me for their next season. Seems they started getting a bit of professionalism kicked into them.

Disclaimer: I am basing this all of my experience of the Western Cape club scene, but it seems just as active in Gauteng.
 
Domestic Rugby as a whole in SA is very healthy. No arguments here.

The Club scene especially has grown tremendously the last few years. Mainly due to Francois Pienaar's involvement and the support from Steinhoff.

We now have a yearly club championship tournament, where the top club teams of a province/area compete against each other in a 4-pool type tournament. Some of these players even make the step up to Currie Cup (especially in the Eastern Cape).

and to just come back to the question regarding Currie Cup. I personally enjoy watching both the Super Rugby and the Currie Cup. But I think most Saffas would agree that the Currie Cup has a special place in our hearts and that if we were to choose between the SR and the CC, then most of us would pick the CC ahead of the SR.
 
But I think most Saffas would agree that the Currie Cup has a special place in our hearts and that if we were to choose between the SR and the CC, then most of us would pick the CC ahead of the SR.

I disagree, not the younger generation. It means quite a lot, but I think attendance numbers at SR and CC level say something about which tournament the nation is more interested and invested in. CC meant more when we couldn't compete against other nations and CC was the best versus the best that we could access. Now the best is New Zealand, and we like to push ourselves against the best.
This article touches a bit on it. http://www.dailymaverick.co.za/arti...d-expectations-how-legacy-breeds-entitlement/
 
Currie Cup has a boat load of invested sentimental value true but SARU has decided to toss that product out the window.
 
Could anything be done to raise the expectations on the Currie cup again? Or would it rely solely on getting more money in the system to stop SA players leaving? Would players be put off more if they was no chance of playing for the boks (like NZ and Eng) or maybe a cap or player limit (like Aus or Wales)
And if so would it really help.

Or is the economy and off field stuff like politics etc really that bad as well in SA.


Interesting sounds like SA and England are quite similar in that the club scene has started to develop a lot. (Although Uni sports mean fek all here unfortunately, which is prob the biggest difference).
 
Could anything be done to raise the expectations on the Currie cup again? Or would it rely solely on getting more money in the system to stop SA players leaving? Would players be put off more if they was no chance of playing for the boks (like NZ and Eng) or maybe a cap or player limit (like Aus or Wales)
And if so would it really help.

Or is the economy and off field stuff like politics etc really that bad as well in SA.


Interesting sounds like SA and England are quite similar in that the club scene has started to develop a lot. (Although Uni sports mean fek all here unfortunately, which is prob the biggest difference).

Well I think things need to change on 2 fronts.

1. Inside Rugby South Africa

The whole farce that is the EP Kings has brought disrepute into SA rugby, and not just at Super Rugby Level but also at Currie Cup level. As the Kings were told that they will remain in the premier division of the Currie Cup because they are a Super Rugby Franchise. that has lead to other unions remaining demoted to the first division, yet they are way better than the Kings.

This has caused a whole ripple effect and affected every aspect of the domestic game.

2. South African Economy and Politics

Here is the biggest issue. Our Economy as at an all time low, and the in-fighting within the ANC are not helping us in any way. The most recent war between our President and our Finance Minister is the one the could send us to junk status as a global economy. So we're hanging by a thread. This has lead to big sponsors to withdraw from sponsoring major sports events and team. The Currie Cup doesn't have a main sponsor this year, like it did in the past with ABSA bank. Our Springboks are being sponsored by Blue Label Telecoms, who was up to the Irish series, a relative unknown entity in South Africa.

Our Currency rate is dropping every week, we had one of the worst droughts in our country's history and the ANC just keeps on trolling along making the country a worse place than it was.

If this doesn't change soon, then South African sport is in deep trouble.
 
Belated response due to absence, but thanks again for posts. I always enjoy seeing the other side of the coin.
 
Could anything be done to raise the expectations on the Currie cup again? Or would it rely solely on getting more money in the system to stop SA players leaving? Would players be put off more if they was no chance of playing for the boks (like NZ and Eng) or maybe a cap or player limit (like Aus or Wales)
And if so would it really help.

Or is the economy and off field stuff like politics etc really that bad as well in SA.


Interesting sounds like SA and England are quite similar in that the club scene has started to develop a lot. (Although Uni sports mean fek all here unfortunately, which is prob the biggest difference).


Tigs Man

In New Zealand, we have "bitten the bullet" when it comes to our equivalent of the Currie Cup; the National provincial Championship. It was once the premier rugby competition in NZ, but fans accept, somewhat grudgingly, that it has been lowered to the level of a feeder/development competition for Super Rugby which is now almost universally accepted as the "real deal" of domestic rugby in NZ.

However, in South Africa, fans largely refuse to accept that the Currie Cup has been "demoted". Its been more difficult for them because of the nature of the rivalry between their provinces. Its more fierce than our inter-provincial rivalry, and it goes a lot more beyond just sports than it does here. Our transition was made easier because our five franchises have become truly regional. At one time, they were merely the five top NPC sides in different jerseys with the occasional player added from outside the main centres, but now, they have players from all 14 NPC sides spread throughout the franchises.

In South Africa, the regionalisation of rugby has not gone well. Their franchises are largely just Currie Cup sides with the odd extra (Blue Bulls ~ Bulls, Western Province ~ Stormers, Natal Sharks ~ Sharks, Transvaal ~ Lions, and Orange Free State ~ Cheetahs) There are many fans who much prefer the Currie Cup over super rugby, and many who will go to Currie Cup games who would never be bothered going to a SR game. While the NZRU are prepared to duck shove the NPC to fit in around everything else, SARU just about went into open revolt when we argued that they need to move the Currie Cup to accommodate Super Rugby; its one of the key reasons why we have a compromised competition structure in Super Rugby.

For a lot of South African fans, the Currie Cup is sacrosanct
 
A bit of fun-

35 000 AUSTRALIAN RUGBY FANS TO INSTITUTE CLASS ACTION - AGAINST SOUTH AFRICA

Strong rumour has it that about 35000 spectators who attended the rugby match between Australia and South Africa on Saturday 10th September 2016 have decided to institute Class Action against the South African Rugby Board, the South African Minister of Sport, the Rugby Selectors and South African Government as well as all the players of the so-called Springbok rugby team who played against them.

Legal eagles agree that this may turn into the biggest Class Action in world history, as it could be followed worldwide by more sport-fans, should this group succeed.

The representative for the group, Mr Bruce Jones from Melbourne Australia said that the decision to institute this action was taken after serious consideration by the large group. The base for the claim is that the South African team were not made up from the best possible players available from that country, but from players based on racial quotas prescribed by politicians.

The political interference in the selection process robbed the spectators from “getting what we paid for".

That is to see the best possible teams of both countries playing against each other and not a political showcase made up from players who were not even in the National top five on merit.â€

Based on advice from their legal team, they would like to test the term “match-fixing†in the highest possible court.

Jones said that the present acceptable definition for the term “match-fixing†is as follows: “Match-fixing is any act that violates the ethics and integrity of sport. Whether related to influencing betting or to sporting objectives, it is a form of corruption and as such sanctioned by criminal law.â€

An emotional Jones, added that after carefully analysing the situation they decided that they did have a case. Not only for refunds of money paid for tickets, but also for associated expenses such as fuel, time wasted etc. but most of all, for emotional stress and even permanent damage suffered by the group.

Thousands of Australian fans are currently consulting available psychiatrists in their country to determine the damage they suffered emotionally, especially during the first half of this mentioned game.

Jones was reminded that they did win against the Springboks, after losing to all-comers for six matches in a row.

A reporter actually remarked that, “You should be happy and not angry, as you seem to be!â€

An emotional Jones replied, “We realise that we won the game after losing six in a row."

"Our problem lies in the fact that before they arrived to play against us, the Springboks were beaten by Argentina and they lost to Ireland as well."

"We knew beforehand that their selectors did not select the best team to play due to political interference and race quota rules. This guaranteed us of our first victory in seven games.â€

“So, what is your point?†another reporter wanted to know.

“That is exactly the point! During the first half we were falsely brought under the impression that our team was in fact so bad that we were going to lose against a team that was deliberately selected to lose, or a team that was at least not made up from the best possible players to represent South Africa.â€

“The fact that we won in the end, did nothing to repair the damage done. We suffered emotionally in the first half, experiencing unnecessary stress, thinking that a half-baked team was going to beat us. During the second half, although we enjoyed seeing all the errors made by the Springboks, we still only just, managed to beat them! This due to the fact that they did not even use the best goal-kicker on the field.â€

He added that what worries him most was that the real rugby fans will stop attending the games where Sprinboks played, as they would know that a Springbok team was not made up from the best players available from that country and that no matter how far you beat them, they would always have the excuse that they were chosen based on something other than their talent - insinuating that they would have won, had the situation been different.

"This is unfair to all and we are convinced that if a result is not real or not based on the rules of the game, due to political, or any other prescriptive interference that will affects the outcome, then it is match-fixing and we are going to deal with that!"

He concluded emotionally, “We pay good money to see the best players possible play the game against each other, not to win against a team that can openly admit that they were subject to match-fixing through interference from the outside and that no win against them can be seen as genuine! That is absolute bullsh$t!â€

It is said that this claim could run into billions of Australian dollars and that all games played against the Springboks may be stopped or classified as "exhibition" games played fo fun, rather than the real thing!

You can not beat a boxer, if his dad gets into the ring to fight you!

CONCLUSION.

No worries Mr Minister of Sport and Interference, no worries Mr President or anyone else, this article was only a bit of legal science fiction for what I believe may happen somewhere someday.

Fortunately for the world of sport and other things, it seems that the ANC will run out of steam before anyone on the grandstand wakes up and sues the hell out of you for ……. well, to be honest, I believe any summons for anything wrong under the sun will find a place to stick somewhere on the forehead of an ANC “comradeâ€.

What worries me most is that Bafana Bafana - the “blackest†team in the country, well sort of on International level, has no excuse for their inability to beat almost anybody!

In this case, we - the "whiteys" may be sued because we do not do much to get into that team, where in South African fairness we should at least have two whites and a small Indian joining the fiasco?

Then it suddenly dawned on me that the match-fixing in the case of Bafana-Bafana may be through the selection of coaches.

How can I make such a statement?

Mr Minister of fun, if you can explain to me why Bafana keeps the players the same, except if they do not pitch for a match, but changes the coach almost every six months, then I will withdraw the statement.

Match-fixing - I tell you!

© Leon Botha 2016 aimed at 2020 when International Law will start being taken seriously!
 
That's just mean...here I thought SOMEONE got it right.....up to where it states something about billions of Australian dollars....and I realized we don't HAVE a billion Aussie dollars in South Africa. Wouldn't it be great if something like this happens?
 
Let me just check my calendar.......................................... NOPE, its not April 1st!!! Must be legit.!


GO Aussie GO!!!
 
Imagine this happening everytime the Boks play a different team. Worldwide riot on our hands. :D

- - - Updated - - -

For a lot of South African fans, the Currie Cup is sacrosanct

If there's two things that will make rugby die in South Africa it's

1) The death of the Springbok
2) The death of the Currie Cup
 

Latest posts

Top