SARU attempts to keep junior stars in SA

[saulan]

You missed the update to my last post

Ah yes, I didn't see that before I left. Agreed, I think all national teams should think about doing it really, it's the best way to lock in all of your talent, as they come out the gates. It also means they capture more players because that U20 tournament is played yearly locking in about 30 players a year versus, for example, a South African A who I think last played in 2003.

On a slightly unrelated note, what is the racial makeup of the SA youth teams? With SA quotas and the possibility of the quota being moved towards larger black representation, are there enough good black players coming through youth level to make it viable?

Honestly we are probably in the best position we could be in terms of players coming through our U18 provincial tournaments, our age group currie cup games and our Varsity Cup tournament. So there is no shortage in that regard. I can't remember the exact quota requirement, but the Stormers I think are meeting the requirements playing their best players, the Kings (although so far being fairly useless) are also meeting requirements. The Lions, Sharks, Bulls and Cheetahs are currently lacking in diversity, pretty much having two or three black backline players (with some props like Nyakane and Beast in the forwards).

 

[TRF_heineken]

On a slightly unrelated note, what is the racial makeup of the SA youth teams? With SA quotas and the possibility of the quota being moved towards larger black representation, are there enough good black players coming through youth level to make it viable?

The Quota system is certainly in full swing with the youth teams. During last years JWC, the team had to consist of 12 Black players out of the 28 players selected. But it doesn't help we look at the policies in place as they chop and change it as they go on, so maybe this year they might even bump up that quota even higher.

The other thing is that South Africa plays matches every year against touring sides for the youth team. Usually it's against Argentina or France. So even though there isn't a JWC every year, we play against another international U/20 team.

Due to our Craven Week, we have a pretty good scouting system in getting the best youth players selected for the Baby Boks. Sure we'll always have a guy that maybe slip through the cracks, but at least it's public knowledge that the Baby Boks are now South African representatives and can't become "project players". This might even result in SA Rugby trying to organise more matches for them, in order to give more players a run and in doing so, stop the mass exodus we face every year.

 

[saulan]

The other thing is that South Africa plays matches every year against touring sides for the youth team. Usually it's against Argentina or France. So even though there isn't a JWC every year, we play against another international U/20 team.

It is every year:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2015_World_Rugby_Under_20_Championship

 

[dullonien]

The document in question was last updated 1 January 2016, so it is quite possible it has been updated since the Shingler incident.

Consider me re-educated.

 

[TRF_heineken]

It is every year:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2015_World_Rugby_Under_20_Championship

My bad, I thought it was every 2 years...

 

[TRF_stormer2010]

On a slightly unrelated note, what is the racial makeup of the SA youth teams? With SA quotas and the possibility of the quota being moved towards larger black representation, are there enough good black players coming through youth level to make it viable?

Its difficult to say simply because we don't get to see the guys that don't make it but even though the number of black players playing rugby vs the total population %-wise isn't great and there is some 'fast-tracking' for a certainty I feel the development and scouting side of things are going better than one would think- at leat than what I'd have thought. Black players tend to be either performing or be relegated to certain position only though; front row, back row and outside backs.

I used to be quite pessimistic about our prospects but have to say its going better than I expected and maybe worth the initial pains long term if we can get the best of our entire population rather than just the minorities.

 

[TRF_heineken]

Its difficult to say simply because we don't get to see the guys that don't make it but even though the number of black players playing rugby vs the total population %-wise isn't great and there is some 'fast-tracking' for a certainty I feel the development and scouting side of things are going better than one would think- at leat than what I'd have thought. Black players tend to be either performing or be relegated to certain position only though; front row, back row and outside backs.

I used to be quite pessimistic about our prospects but have to say its going better than I expected and maybe worth the initial pains long term if we can get the best of our entire population rather than just the minorities.

This!

I have to say that I'm very surprized at how well some of these young "used-to-be-quota" players are performing in the Super Rugby. Guys like Edgar Marutlule and Jamba Ulengo as well as Ox Ntshe.

It seems like "forced move" is starting to pay off and could pay dividents from this year onwards. There is still the odd "dead weight" in every team, but it's slowly being worked out.

 

[smartcooky]

Just an update

The U20 Provision in Regulation 8.3 (d) was added in 2014, so participation in earlier tournaments won't apply, however that will only affect a small number of players because most of the two SA U20 squads played Wales and/or France in 2013.

 

[johnmac99]

Sorry

 

[saulan]

So to sum up the situation for the Saxons tour of SA.

Because South Africa have nominated their 'A' side as their 2nd senior side for this tour, then all England players that are used as a replacement, sub. or player will be tied to England in future, as will SA players to SA.

Surely not, South Africa's nominated 2nd senior side is our U20 side, we can't chop and change it whenever we want for a tour as far as I am aware. I think any players in this match can play for whoever they like and are eligible for afterwards.

 

[TRF_heineken]

Surely not, South Africa's nominated 2nd senior side is our U20 side, we can't chop and change it whenever we want for a tour as far as I am aware. I think any players in this match can play for whoever they like and are eligible for afterwards.

True, but it makes a lot more sense to have the U20's as our 2nd senior side instead of the SA A team. for one, the SA A team or Emerging Springboks or whatever you want to call them doesn't feature as much as the U20's. And most of the players that play for the SA A team were once probably either a Springbok or an U20 springbok.

 

[saulan]

True, but it makes a lot more sense to have the U20's as our 2nd senior side instead of the SA A team. for one, the SA A team or Emerging Springboks or whatever you want to call them doesn't feature as much as the U20's. And most of the players that play for the SA A team were once probably either a Springbok or an U20 springbok.

I 100% agree with this. The stat I saw said the SA A's last played in 2003. Honestly I don't really care about them, whereas I do care about the U20s. Our SA A cricket team plays quite frequently, but whenever I see results for them my reaction is generally "Oh, that's nice". U20s have a great tournament to play for and are a good showing of our futures stars.

 

[johnmac99]

Surely not, South Africa's nominated 2nd senior side is our U20 side, we can't chop and change it whenever we want for a tour as far as I am aware. I think any players in this match can play for whoever they like and are eligible for afterwards.

World Rugby says,

"Next Senior Representative Team
In accordance with World Rugby Regulation 8, the current listing of Member Unions' Men's and Women's Next Senior National Representative Teams is available here (link to Pdf) as provided by the respective Unions to the World Rugby.

A Union is entitled to notify the World Rugby no more than once per calendar year of a change to its next senior National Representative Team provided that in doing so it shall take account of any Matches such team may be scheduled to play and shall advise the Union of any senior or next senior National Representative Team it is scheduled to play reasonably in advance of such Match. The identity of a Union's next senior National Representative Team can be verified with the Union concerned and/or World Rugby."

 

[saulan]

World Rugby says,

"Next Senior Representative Team
In accordance with World Rugby Regulation 8, the current listing of Member Unions' Men's and Women's Next Senior National Representative Teams is available here (link to Pdf) as provided by the respective Unions to the World Rugby.

A Union is entitled to notify the World Rugby no more than once per calendar year of a change to its next senior National Representative Team provided that in doing so it shall take account of any Matches such team may be scheduled to play and shall advise the Union of any senior or next senior National Representative Team it is scheduled to play reasonably in advance of such Match. The identity of a Union's next senior National Representative Team can be verified with the Union concerned and/or World Rugby."

So this year, for the tour of the England Saxons, South Africa have nominated the South Africa 'A' team as its next senior National Representative Team, as opposed to its baseline Junior Springboks (U20).

You should open the pdf. We have listed our U20s as our next representative team for 2016.
Document can be found second on this search list.
http://www.worldrugby.org/search?s=list+of+senior+representative+teams
England change their team, but South Africa didn't. Which means that England seems to have changed their team for no reason.

 

[TRF_stormer2010]

Yes, it just makes more sense to have your u20 side as your nominated 2nd team. That's one of the few things SARU has done right.

 

[johnmac99]

You should open the pdf. We have listed our U20s as our next representative team for 2016.
Document can be found second on this search list.
http://www.worldrugby.org/search?s=list+of+senior+representative+teams
England change their team, but South Africa didn't. Which means that England seems to have changed their team for no reason.

You seem unable to understand what I am saying as I have already stated SA have nominated "Junior Springboks" as their next senior side baseline for 2016 as per both your pdf link and my quote.

 

[saulan]

Where is your source on that? Where did South Africa announce that SA A would be our second side? Please provide a link.

 

[saulan]

World Rugby says,

"Next Senior Representative Team
In accordance with World Rugby Regulation 8, the current listing of Member Unions' Men's and Women's Next Senior National Representative Teams is available here (link to Pdf) as provided by the respective Unions to the World Rugby.

A Union is entitled to notify the World Rugby no more than once per calendar year of a change to its next senior National Representative Team provided that in doing so it shall take account of any Matches such team may be scheduled to play and shall advise the Union of any senior or next senior National Representative Team it is scheduled to play reasonably in advance of such Match. The identity of a Union's next senior National Representative Team can be verified with the Union concerned and/or World Rugby."

So this year, for the tour of the England Saxons, South Africa have nominated the South Africa 'A' team as its next senior National Representative Team, as opposed to its baseline Junior Springboks (U20).

I was in a meeting earlier so couldn't fully respond to your message, so I will now. The way I read the above says that the Union can change it once per year only. South Africa prefers having the U20 team as our designated team. But you are saying that we have assigned it to our South Africa A team. But according to the rules we can't just say for this period of time we want our representative team to be South Africa A and once they have finished playing their 2 or three matches we want it to be the U20 team. We have to commit it to being the South Africa A team for the whole year. But that is not desirable for South Africa and I don't understand why South Africa would do that, especially when this whole thread was started by an article reaffirming that the U20s were our second team and that there was a set reason to keep our youngsters pinned to South Africa.
(For your reference, here is the link: http://www.sport24.co.za/Rugby/saru-attempts-to-keep-junior-stars-in-sa-20160411 )

Specifically, in that article, it says this:
"Players representing the SA 'A' team will, however, be allowed to play for another nation if they did not represent the Baby Boks."
So in essence, I think that you think we assigned the SA A side as our second team for this period, but that is not allowed for a specific time period and is also not the case. Moreover I have seen no mention anywhere of South Africa announcing that we have made our A team representative for this tour. If you have some source on that, I will gladly change my view, but all you have presented is your words here without any evidence, which is why I have a serious level of scepticism as all other evidence I can find points to the contrary of your opinion.

 

[johnmac99]

I was in a meeting earlier so couldn't fully respond to your message, so I will now. The way I read the above says that the Union can change it once per year only. South Africa prefers having the U20 team as our designated team. But you are saying that we have assigned it to our South Africa A team. But according to the rules we can't just say for this period of time we want our representative team to be South Africa A and once they have finished playing their 2 or three matches we want it to be the U20 team. We have to commit it to being the South Africa A team for the whole year. But that is not desirable for South Africa and I don't understand why South Africa would do that, especially when this whole thread was started by an article reaffirming that the U20s were our second team and that there was a set reason to keep our youngsters pinned to South Africa.
(For your reference, here is the link: http://www.sport24.co.za/Rugby/saru-attempts-to-keep-junior-stars-in-sa-20160411 )

Specifically, in that article, it says this:
"Players representing the SA 'A' team will, however, be allowed to play for another nation if they did not represent the Baby Boks."
So in essence, I think that you think we assigned the SA A side as our second team for this period, but that is not allowed for a specific time period and is also not the case. Moreover I have seen no mention anywhere of South Africa announcing that we have made our A team representative for this tour. If you have some source on that, I will gladly change my view, but all you have presented is your words here without any evidence, which is why I have a serious level of scepticism as all other evidence I can find points to the contrary of your opinion.

After reading everything at length and ending up more confused than ever I have to hold my hands up and apologise for misleading people with inaccurate information.

I think I've made an assumption from what Jurie Roux said in articles on 5th April (linked here) coupled with articles about Sam Underhill being tied to England by touring to Australia with the senior side or to SA with the Saxons and come to the wrong conclusion.

http://www.englandrugby.com/news/england-saxons-tour-south-africa-june/

The Junior Springboks are officially the next senior representative side for South Africa and in June they will be playing in the JRWC in Manchester, so the status of the 'A' side playing the Saxons remains a mystery to me.

Sorry. I will edit my previous posts.

 

[saulan]

After reading everything at length and ending up more confused than ever I have to hold my hands up and apologise for misleading people with inaccurate information.

I think I've made an assumption from what Jurie Roux said in articles on 5th April (linked here) coupled with articles about Sam Underhill being tied to England by touring to Australia with the senior side or to SA with the Saxons and come to the wrong conclusion.

http://www.englandrugby.com/news/england-saxons-tour-south-africa-june/

The Junior Springboks are officially the next senior representative side for South Africa and in June they will be playing in the JRWC in Manchester, so the status of the 'A' side playing the Saxons remains a mystery to me.

Sorry. I will edit my previous posts.

No worries mate, to be fair its a fairly confusing topic and something that we don't often deal with so the confusion is fairly warranted. But the thing is, that's why I like the Rugby Forum over other online rugby forums. It's a safe environment where you can have constructive debate and discussion to try and get a better understanding of things (without hostilities and people attacking which can be seen on other forums).

As to why the English haven't switched over to their second team being their U20s, I really don't know why it hasn't been done. Maybe you have a better idea on this one, how often do the Saxons play?

For anyone wondering, these are the tier 1 and 2 second teams.

@smartcooky, it seems that the All Blacks have assigned their junior team as their second team, and according to the list on the World Rugby site it has been that way since at least 2013.