South Africa vs France

[User1245]

That is a giant load of crap. Rugby is now a professional sport. You have to keep up with the times. The bottom line is, Springbok, New Zealand and Australian rugby have suffered because of this over-seas players policy. New Zealand have been without Hayman, Mauger, Kelleher etc. South Africa have lost countless players aswell. There is no way that none of the teams will suffer, it will have to be domestic or international. I would rather see the Springboks win the world cup then see an entertaining Super14, so that's why I feel that the over-seas policy needs to go. Our players should be allowed to play where ever they will earn more money for themselves and their families and not be punished. If you want to be incredibly naive and go with that wholee "representing your country should be enough" then I guess I don't even need to argue with you.

Please be mature and refrain from calling other posters opinions crap.

To add to the debate I agree with nickdnz. I personally think the Boks current overseas policy is spot on. Players can be selected but they are moved down the pecking order.

If you had to open up the selection restrictions domestic rugby would be suffer which would affect future talent coming through. Look at Argentina as an extreme example. Their golden era has come and gone. Where is all the up and coming talent? Because their domestic game is a mess, or rather non-existent, young talent is being stifled. There is just a leaching of player resources happening. Any country were the majority of the players are based overseas struggle to stay consistently competitive.

You also got to draw the line on how "professional" rugby should get. If we had to go all the way with it players should be allowed to play for more than one country, as they can obtain legal citizenship. If we had to really go all the way then franchises/unions should be broken up, and clubs should be formed with private owners and salary caps should be thrown out. National organisations like SARU will dance to the tune of privately owned and international rugby suffer. Look at the Butch James incident last week as a snippet of what would happen.

Sport needs restrictions and governing to keep it attractive and fair.

 

[Feicarsinn]

Huh? Dude he's like one of the best, what are you on about?

Reliability and talent are not the same thing. Any Toulouse supporter will testify to the fact that Poitrenaud can be a defensive liability. Where's the proof you say? Why, right here actually:

 

[nickdnz]

That is a giant load of crap. Rugby is now a professional sport. You have to keep up with the times. The bottom line is, Springbok, New Zealand and Australian rugby have suffered because of this over-seas players policy. New Zealand have been without Hayman, Mauger, Kelleher etc. South Africa have lost countless players aswell. There is no way that none of the teams will suffer, it will have to be domestic or international. I would rather see the Springboks win the world cup then see an entertaining Super14, so that's why I feel that the over-seas policy needs to go. Our players should be allowed to play where ever they will earn more money for themselves and their families and not be punished. If you want to be incredibly naive and go with that wholee "representing your country should be enough" then I guess I don't even need to argue with you.

Thanks for dismissing my point, which you have failed to answer the main point. It's not about entertainment, where do you want SA players to learn to play top class rugby? Lower domestic level teams, than you stop developing top class players. Do you want them to learn overseas to start off with? As for New Zealand, we don't have the player base for NZ to be able to select players from overseas. If you select over seas players, there will be NO domestic competition in NZ, and therefore the game suffers. Unfortunitly you are the type of short sighted person who can't work this out.

 

[Charles]

Reliability and talent are not the same thing. Any Toulouse supporter will testify to the fact that Poitrenaud can be a defensive liability. Where's the proof you say? Why, right here actually:

That was 6 years ago. He's matured immensely. So much that his selection is not even debated in France now, and that is saying something...


Edit: the new french scrum machine

http://www.lequipe.fr/Rugby/breves2010/20100604_193146_le-joug.html

 

[rugbywriter]

Please be mature and refrain from calling other posters opinions crap.

To add to the debate I agree with nickdnz. I personally think the Boks current overseas policy is spot on. Players can be selected but they are moved down the pecking order.

If you had to open up the selection restrictions domestic rugby would be suffer which would affect future talent coming through. Look at Argentina as an extreme example. Their golden era has come and gone. Where is all the up and coming talent? Because their domestic game is a mess, or rather non-existent, young talent is being stifled. There is just a leaching of player resources happening. Any country were the majority of the players are based overseas struggle to stay consistently competitive.

You also got to draw the line on how "professional" rugby should get. If we had to go all the way with it players should be allowed to play for more than one country, as they can obtain legal citizenship. If we had to really go all the way then franchises/unions should be broken up, and clubs should be formed with private owners and salary caps should be thrown out. National organisations like SARU will dance to the tune of privately owned and international rugby suffer. Look at the Butch James incident last week as a snippet of what would happen.

Sport needs restrictions and governing to keep it attractive and fair.

Has it perhaps not occured to you how much young players would want to play well so that they can get over-seas contracts? All the guys still playing rugby here would have a lot to prove and I don't see the problem with our best guys playing against the best of the northern hemisphere. More young talent will also be developed because the dinosaurs will probably get contracts over-seas. The guys above 30 who don't have alot of international rugby left in them would then look to earn a nice living over-seas. This would be a big opening for the young players here. And you honestly can not compare Argentina to SA, NZ or Aus. That is comparing apples and pears.

Who said anyhting about playing for more then 1 country? All I'm saying is that if the guys wanna make a better living for themselves they shouldn't be punished by not being able to represent their country. And the bottom line is, South African, Australian and New Zealand rugby HAS suffered because of the over-seas policy. You can't deny it. So how can you say the policy is spot on? We live in a capatilist society and people should be encouraged to make as much money as they can. Wouldn't New Zealand have loved to have had Carl Hayman, Aaron Mauger, Scott Hamilton, Byron Kelleher or Jerry Collins the past few years? I know us South Africans would love to have Schalk Brits, Joe van Niekerk, Niel de Kock, Butch James, Michael Claasens, Shaun Sowerby, Ross Skeate, Gerrie Britz etc. But we can't, and as a result our depth has suffered, exactly what you say would happen if we took the policy away, even though its already happening with the policy on. So instead of Schalk Brits we have to settle for Rallepelle, instead of de Kock or Claasens we have to settle for Januarie or Pienaar. Instead of Ross Skeate we have to settle for flipping Alistair Hargreaves!!!!

Really, I don't see a whole lot of positive about this over-seas policy

 

[Charles]

Rugbywriter

Fact is that alot of the guys you mention were never gonna be regular Boks. Hence tho going away to play in the NH. Hayman's case is different, as he would be an automatic starter...

 

[Jer1cho]

I don't see what the big fuss is about. We were fine in 2007 without them, and won a World Cup. We will be fine without them next year as well. Our best players are still here, and with our incredible talent coming through every year, we are spoilt for choice. Then, if we are desperate for overseas players, they are always still within reach for big games. None of those players you mentioned are good enough to play for us apart from Brits. Players like Januarie and Rallepele will always be in the side as a coach favorite. We, as South Africans are never satisfied with team selections, but i don't see this issue having any effect on our strength and depth.

 

[User1245]

Has it perhaps not occured to you how much young players would want to play well so that they can get over-seas contracts? All the guys still playing rugby here would have a lot to prove and I don't see the problem with our best guys playing against the best of the northern hemisphere. More young talent will also be developed because the dinosaurs will probably get contracts over-seas. The guys above 30 who don't have alot of international rugby left in them would then look to earn a nice living over-seas. This would be a big opening for the young players here. And you honestly can not compare Argentina to SA, NZ or Aus. That is comparing apples and pears.

Who said anyhting about playing for more then 1 country? All I'm saying is that if the guys wanna make a better living for themselves they shouldn't be punished by not being able to represent their country. And the bottom line is, South African, Australian and New Zealand rugby HAS suffered because of the over-seas policy. You can't deny it. So how can you say the policy is spot on? We live in a capatilist society and people should be encouraged to make as much money as they can. Wouldn't New Zealand have loved to have had Carl Hayman, Aaron Mauger, Scott Hamilton, Byron Kelleher or Jerry Collins the past few years? I know us South Africans would love to have Schalk Brits, Joe van Niekerk, Niel de Kock, Butch James, Michael Claasens, Shaun Sowerby, Ross Skeate, Gerrie Britz etc. But we can't, and as a result our depth has suffered, exactly what you say would happen if we took the policy away, even though its already happening with the policy on. So instead of Schalk Brits we have to settle for Rallepelle, instead of de Kock or Claasens we have to settle for Januarie or Pienaar. Instead of Ross Skeate we have to settle for flipping Alistair Hargreaves!!!!

Really, I don't see a whole lot of positive about this over-seas policy

You're failing to see the bigger picture that I'm trying to convey, calling Argentina a pear or whatever.

Rugby is a essentially a product, according to capitalism. It has to make a profit to be viable.
SARU makes it money mainly from TV rights and sponsors. The returns from directly winning World Cup just doesn't compare. TV rights from the Currie Cup, the Super 14 and the Tri Nations is where it's at. This is an attractive product to people around the world aka the rugby is of good quality. This money gets pumped back into SA rugby, from the top down. That means our domestic rugby is providing financial resources to the Springboks directly.
Playing for your country is great and all but their are cash contracts involved. Players don't just get a pat on the back and a jersey, they get paid!
Now if a player was getting so well paid by his club and he came from a country where the national rugby union can't provide that same kind of finances, why would he play for his country? Professionally it won't make sense to risk injury playing for this team as it could possibly endanger his income potential at his club.
Players don't just leave and then everything stays the same, sponsorship will dwindle as the stars leave, less money in the domestic scene, resources to academies will be decreased, etc. There is a huge knock on affect that you haven't considered.

You dismissed playing for more than one country as totally out of the question.
Why not? Why shouldn't a professional be able to ply his trade where ever he wants to, it his legal right to earn as much as he can, is it? If one country pays better than the other why not?...
It would make international rugby a bit of a farce wouldn't it? With that pride gone. Yeah i said it. PRIDE.

See where I am getting at when I say you gotta draw the line on how professional rugby should get?
Capitalism and professionalism doesn't care about pride. Pride is an inconvenient emotion in a system that's all about monetary gain.

That's where the character and integrity of a sport like rugby comes in.

We are lucky in SA that our team has such a proud history and players want to be part of it, no matter what. If it wasn't for that pride and distinction SA rugby would be in the exact same position as Argentina. Why would any player, young or old, would want to play for an undeveloped country with constant meddling politicians. Stop and really try wrap your head around that one, with that very professional and capitalistic mindset of yours.

Our players would leave before that even got into the domestic system and be lost to other countries. Again Argentina is a good example. Don't you think they would be better with Parisse and Castrogiovanni in their team? Professionally what the players did was spot on, but it didn't help their national rugby.
BTW I'm using Argentina as an example because they are the extreme of this case, so it is adequate to.


I got a question to you. How has the SANZAR nations suffered due to their selection policy?
It must so obvious because you said "I can't deny it".
We're ranked 1,2 & 3 in the world... The 2010 S14 final had the biggest TV viewership out of all the other previous finals... Many of our star players such as Matfield, Carter and Elsom have come back...

So tell me how.

 

[rugbywriter]

You're failing to see the bigger picture that I'm trying to convey, calling Argentina a pear or whatever.

Rugby is a essentially a product, according to capitalism. It has to make a profit to be viable.
SARU makes it money mainly from TV rights and sponsors. The returns from directly winning World Cup just doesn't compare. TV rights from the Currie Cup, the Super 14 and the Tri Nations is where it's at. This is an attractive product to people around the world aka the rugby is of good quality. This money gets pumped back into SA rugby, from the top down. That means our domestic rugby is providing financial resources to the Springboks directly.
Playing for your country is great and all but their are cash contracts involved. Players don't just get a pat on the back and a jersey, they get paid!
Now if a player was getting so well paid by his club and he came from a country where the national rugby union can't provide that same kind of finances, why would he play for his country? Professionally it won't make sense to risk injury playing for this team as it could possibly endanger his income potential at his club.
Players don't just leave and then everything stays the same, sponsorship will dwindle as the stars leave, less money in the domestic scene, resources to academies will be decreased, etc. There is a huge knock on affect that you haven't considered.

You dismissed playing for more than one country as totally out of the question.
Why not? Why shouldn't a professional be able to ply his trade where ever he wants to, it his legal right to earn as much as he can, is it? If one country pays better than the other why not?...
It would make international rugby a bit of a farce wouldn't it? With that pride gone. Yeah i said it. PRIDE.

See where I am getting at when I say you gotta draw the line on how professional rugby should get?
Capitalism and professionalism doesn't care about pride. Pride is an inconvenient emotion in a system that's all about monetary gain.

That's where the character and integrity of a sport like rugby comes in.

We are lucky in SA that our team has such a proud history and players want to be part of it, no matter what. If it wasn't for that pride and distinction SA rugby would be in the exact same position as Argentina. Why would any player, young or old, would want to play for an undeveloped country with constant meddling politicians. Stop and really try wrap your head around that one, with that very professional and capitalistic mindset of yours.

Our players would leave before that even got into the domestic system and be lost to other countries. Again Argentina is a good example. Don't you think they would be better with Parisse and Castrogiovanni in their team? Professionally what the players did was spot on, but it didn't help their national rugby.
BTW I'm using Argentina as an example because they are the extreme of this case, so it is adequate to.


I got a question to you. How has the SANZAR nations suffered due to their selection policy?
It must so obvious because you said "I can't deny it".
We're ranked 1,2 & 3 in the world... The 2010 S14 final had the biggest TV viewership out of all the other previous finals... Many of our star players such as Matfield, Carter and Elsom have come back...

So tell me how.

Rightfully France should be ranked second and Ireland ranked 4th. Alot of those points in the ranking system come from when New Zealand and Australia had their BEST players! At the moment I'd bet on France to beat New Zealand or Australia.

Yes I understand the unions would lose money. I don't think you can count the Currie Cup because the Boks are only back for the semis anyway. Also you seem to think that anyone born in South Africa, New Zealand or Australia can just get a contract over-seas just like that. The guys would desperately want to play well here so that they can get noticed. Or let's say tons of our youth do get contracts up north, that means our youth will be getting game time and their youth won't be! So it still benefits us.

I do see though that they would lose alot of money from the Super14. SANZAR must then make a plan with the guys up north. Maybe SANZAR should get a certain percentage of the club's TV rights based on how many SANZAR players are in a team. I don't know, just something like that. But you have to admit, would New Zealand not want Hayman or Mauger? Look at the Bok team against France! Kirchner instead of Steyn! Are you kidding me? du Preez gets injured so who replaces him? Ricky Januarie! No de Kock or Claasens, Ricky "fat-ass" Januarie. Look whos on the bench, Chilliboy Rallepelle. Also, BJ Botha is constantly included in the team. This is because our scrum is a complete disaster without him. So if they were to completely not allow over-seas players into the team, the Bok scrum would deffinitely be rubbish.

 

[User1245]

Rightfully France should be ranked second and Ireland ranked 4th. Alot of those points in the ranking system come from when New Zealand and Australia had their BEST players! At the moment I'd bet on France to beat New Zealand or Australia.

That's all speculation. For a guy who likes to use stats I'd expect better from you.

Yes I understand the unions would lose money. I don't think you can count the Currie Cup because the Boks are only back for the semis anyway. Also you seem to think that anyone born in South Africa, New Zealand or Australia can just get a contract over-seas just like that. The guys would desperately want to play well here so that they can get noticed. Or let's say tons of our youth do get contracts up north, that means our youth will be getting game time and their youth won't be! So it still benefits us.

The Currie Cup has the 3rd highest viewership in the world for a domestic comp after the Guinness Premiership and the Top 14. That is big TV rights money.

Your assumption that players will play harder and better to be noticed by foreign teams has a flawed and weak thinking behind it. As the professionals that they are, they should be playing at 100% all of the time no matter where they were. I'd assume.
And how is stifling young talent overseas good for rugby as a whole? I'm sure most rugby fans will agree with me that we would rather want to increase competition rather than decrease it. It's not good for rugby that realistically only about 5 teams can win the WC and that anybody out of the top 10 is just making up the numbers. The quality gap between top and bottom teams must be decreased.

I do see though that they would lose alot of money from the Super14. SANZAR must then make a plan with the guys up north. Maybe SANZAR should get a certain percentage of the club's TV rights based on how many SANZAR players are in a team. I don't know, just something like that. But you have to admit, would New Zealand not want Hayman or Mauger? Look at the Bok team against France! Kirchner instead of Steyn! Are you kidding me? du Preez gets injured so who replaces him? Ricky Januarie! No de Kock or Claasens, Ricky "fat-ass" Januarie. Look whos on the bench, Chilliboy Rallepelle. Also, BJ Botha is constantly included in the team. This is because our scrum is a complete disaster without him. So if they were to completely not allow over-seas players into the team, the Bok scrum would deffinitely be rubbish.

...Make a "plan" with the guys up north? You kidding right.

I'm sure SA, NZ and AUS want alot of things and lots players but nobody is bigger than the game. I've underlined that in many ways already.

 

[MunsterMan]

Yeah, not much chance of me reading the thread. Despite SA having home advantage I reckon France by about 6. Going to be great to see the SA scrum get dominated after the Lions tour haha

 

[nickdnz]

Rightfully France should be ranked second and Ireland ranked 4th. Alot of those points in the ranking system come from when New Zealand and Australia had their BEST players! At the moment I'd bet on France to beat New Zealand or Australia.

Yes I understand the unions would lose money. I don't think you can count the Currie Cup because the Boks are only back for the semis anyway. Also you seem to think that anyone born in South Africa, New Zealand or Australia can just get a contract over-seas just like that. The guys would desperately want to play well here so that they can get noticed. Or let's say tons of our youth do get contracts up north, that means our youth will be getting game time and their youth won't be! So it still benefits us.

I do see though that they would lose alot of money from the Super14. SANZAR must then make a plan with the guys up north. Maybe SANZAR should get a certain percentage of the club's TV rights based on how many SANZAR players are in a team. I don't know, just something like that. But you have to admit, would New Zealand not want Hayman or Mauger? Look at the Bok team against France! Kirchner instead of Steyn! Are you kidding me? du Preez gets injured so who replaces him? Ricky Januarie! No de Kock or Claasens, Ricky "fat-ass" Januarie. Look whos on the bench, Chilliboy Rallepelle. Also, BJ Botha is constantly included in the team. This is because our scrum is a complete disaster without him. So if they were to completely not allow over-seas players into the team, the Bok scrum would deffinitely be rubbish.

While I know you are against everything Kiwi, that is a bit of a stretch. Last match played between NZ and Fra, NZ destroyed. In fact we lost last year against France, with what is very much a second string squad, with no McCaw or Carter etc. However if that is the way you want to play it, should Leicester be rated higher than the Boks?

What Steve-o has pointed out better than myself, as while yes, we'd like to have Hayman, he isn't worth the compromise of the domestic game in NZ. You seem to think that SANZRU can just make "deals" which will benefit both games. For a start, there would be no legal obligation for clubs to release players from their clubs during the Tri Nations. So that's out of the picture. Some players may not be released for their countries at all during tests. That means NZ/SA/Aus will be in a situation like Fiji, in which we will never be able to field a full strength team at any time other than the RWC. As Steve-o mentioned, which is a point which is looked at cynically, but no doubt I agree with, it comes down to pride. You throw words around like capitalism etc, however it seems more like greed. If your country isn't able to pay your wages as high as the next bidder, you should be able go overseas, but still earn the benefit of playing for the national team? In NZ, you play for thje AB's for no other reason than pride, I'm sure it's no different than South Africa. Richie McCaw and Dan Carter earn nothing in comparison to what SBW would have been earning if he played in Toloun. The pay cut in many ways is the sacrifice you make to play for your country, if you don't want the sacrifice, go over seas.

Another thing you also seem to think is that NZ and Aus have dwindled into mediocrity. NZ is still the #1 ranked team in the world ffs. Yes South Africa is performing very well, and come this Tri Nations, it'll be interesting to see who will hold that place. However the suggestion that NZ has dropped lower than France etc, I think is total rubbish. The only player who has gone overseas that I think will truly be missed is Carl Hayman and Nick Evans. NZ rugby hasn't diminished because those two names aren't there. If you want to keep criticising the state of NZ or Aus rugby(Aus rugby is looking stronger now than it has in the last 4-5 years in my opinion), I suggest you back it up a little more.

 

[Jer1cho]

Another thing you also seem to think is that NZ and Aus have dwindled into mediocrity. NZ is still the #1 ranked team in the world ffs. Yes South Africa is performing very well, and come this Tri Nations, it'll be interesting to see who will hold that place. However the suggestion that NZ has dropped lower than France etc, I think is total rubbish. The only player who has gone overseas that I think will truly be missed is Carl Hayman and Nick Evans. NZ rugby hasn't diminished because those two names aren't there. If you want to keep criticising the state of NZ or Aus rugby(Aus rugby is looking stronger now than it has in the last 4-5 years in my opinion), I suggest you back it up a little more.

Totally agree. Nobody can beat New Zealand on their day. They are still #1, and are still the best rugby team in the world. We are the only team that can consistently beat/challenge them. While i do believe we will win the Tri Nations this year, thanks to the form of our Super 14 teams, i still rate NZ as the favorites for next years tournament. Heck, New Zealand's international season has not even started yet and rugbywriter has written them off. If that's not short-sighted, then i don't know what is. I'm expecting them to thrash Ireland.

 

[rugbywriter]

Another thing you also seem to think is that NZ and Aus have dwindled into mediocrity. NZ is still the #1 ranked team in the world ffs. Yes South Africa is performing very well, and come this Tri Nations, it'll be interesting to see who will hold that place. However the suggestion that NZ has dropped lower than France etc, I think is total rubbish. The only player who has gone overseas that I think will truly be missed is Carl Hayman and Nick Evans. NZ rugby hasn't diminished because those two names aren't there. If you want to keep criticising the state of NZ or Aus rugby(Aus rugby is looking stronger now than it has in the last 4-5 years in my opinion), I suggest you back it up a little more.

I wouldn't say mediocrity, but certainly not as powerful as they used to be. If you think Australia is stronger now then you obviously don't watch rugby. Australia got absolutely raped in last year's tri-nations and lost to Scotland. South Africa also beat New Zealand 3 out of 3. And your Leicester comment is really a bit stupid. That wasn't even near a B team. That was more like our C and D team. Earl Rose who can't even make the Lions 22 was in that team.

I don't hate everything Kiwi. I just feel that the ABs are nowhere near as strong as they used to be. And it isn't just Carl Hayman, what about Jerry Collins? Or would you rather have Kieran Reid? Or would you rather have Cowan then Kelleher? Last season you also had no Carter because he was over-seas. That didn't work out too well either.

 

[TRF C A Iversen]

I wouldn't say mediocrity, but certainly not as powerful as they used to be. If you think Australia is stronger now then you obviously don't watch rugby. Australia got absolutely raped in last year's tri-nations and lost to Scotland. South Africa also beat New Zealand 3 out of 3. And your Leicester comment is really a bit stupid. That wasn't even near a B team. That was more like our C and D team. Earl Rose who can't even make the Lions 22 was in that team.

I don't hate everything Kiwi. I just feel that the ABs are nowhere near as strong as they used to be. And it isn't just Carl Hayman, what about Jerry Collins? Or would you rather have Kieran Reid? Or would you rather have Cowan then Kelleher? Last season you also had no Carter because he was over-seas. That didn't work out too well either.

Every nation has cycles where new talent comes along and others retire. Sometimes people retire before new talent has come through. At the moment there has been a small lull in results for NZ rugby. The same could be said in 1998 when we lost all of our Tri-Nations matches. We bounced back from that and will do so again.

South Africa are going through a resurgence, which is great for world rugby. That does not mean it will stay that way forever.

Would we rather have Kieran Read or Jerry Collins? Jerry Collins is retired, so I'd rather have Zinzan Brooke. Kieran Read and New Zealands other number 8's will come through in time, results will flow once again. Would I rather have Cowan or Kelleher? Probably Cowan, or Weepu marginally. Kelleher has no future, he could offer a season, maybe two. We can't live in the past.

Sure New Zealand may have had a bad year last year. Other than last year South Africa hadn't won the Tri-Nations since 2004. Which was very sad for them.

New Zealand has won 9 Tri-Nations tourneys, South Africa......3. Which is also very, very sad. Australia have won 2, which prior to last year was equal to South Africa. So they will still be a threat from time to time.

Anyhow, chin up, I know sometimes it sucks that a much smaller nation has a much better record, but keep trying, you'll catch up one day.

South Africa are doing very well lately, which is really good for such a big nation. You deserve a little pat on the head.








(This post has been the result of temporary feelings about South Africa caused by reading rugbywriter's wonderful posts only).

 

[nickdnz]

I wouldn't say mediocrity, but certainly not as powerful as they used to be. If you think Australia is stronger now then you obviously don't watch rugby. Australia got absolutely raped in last year's tri-nations and lost to Scotland. South Africa also beat New Zealand 3 out of 3. And your Leicester comment is really a bit stupid. That wasn't even near a B team. That was more like our C and D team. Earl Rose who can't even make the Lions 22 was in that team.

I don't hate everything Kiwi. I just feel that the ABs are nowhere near as strong as they used to be. And it isn't just Carl Hayman, what about Jerry Collins? Or would you rather have Kieran Reid? Or would you rather have Cowan then Kelleher? Last season you also had no Carter because he was over-seas. That didn't work out too well either.

Australia had a bad year last year, they now seem to have a bit more depth and have a lot of more promising players. No, New Zealand isn't in the state they were in 2008, in which they won the Tri Nations and Grand Slam, which just shows you what a years difference can make. Who knows, maybe South Africa won't dominate like they are expected to this year (although they've had one hell of a S14). Kelleher, while I do like him very much, I'll still take one of our current halfbacks who are in their prime, over him right now. Jerry Collins is a good call, I'd have liked to keep him longer, that being, we have plenty of good replacements for #6 which include the young and talented Victor Vito (who may not have been starting at blindeside for the Hurricanes if Collins was still there), so we can look to grow our future players rather than only focus on our old players.

Also, the thing is, no one is arguing that the players who have gone overseas, we'd rather see play for the AB's. It's just I believe the cost of keeping them in the ABs/Springboks/Wallabies, when it comes at the cost of our domestic game in New Zealand, is a price too high.
I also don't understand how you are so willing to throw away the dominance of a competition such as the Super 14, C Cup or Air New Zealand Cup, for what many believe to be an inferior brand of rugby. If you want South Africa to be playing their best rugby in France, I don't quite understand that.

Finally calling my comment stupid only become valid if you have some reason for why it is stupid. Other wise it's just name calling, something which is probably happening too much lately (I don't exempt myself from this). When NZ lost to France, we were hardly stocked with our best players, it was a miserable situation, so to get it thrown in our faces seems a little unfair. My point was, if we are to judge a countries talent, based on their weakest squad's results, it will not give an accurate account of how good a team is. During the Tri Nations, we only had Carter and McCaw for less than half, as well as a few other big name players. Since this isn't going to be the case for this years Tri Nations, I wouldn't rule us out quite yet.

Through out my time on this forum as both a member and a guest, when NZ was on top, there wasn't the same level of gloating and ill respect towards SA members, which a few SA posters seem to show. Yes NZ isn't at their top yet, we are now looking up again and by the time the RWC comes around, we may be on top of our game. However, I'd hope for your sake that SA remains on top of the Tri Nations for a very long time, because if they don't remain the most dominant team for at least a decade, all your gloating and talking SA up, will make you seem rather foollish.

I'd like to note this doesn't apply for all SA posters, there are plenty of SA posters who I hold with very high regard such as Jer1cho and Steve-O.

 

[Jer1cho]

Anyhow, chin up, I know sometimes it sucks that a much smaller nation has a much better record, but keep trying, you'll catch up one day.

Rugby is considered a 'white' sport in this country. Out of 49 000 000 people, there are only about 5 000 000 of us that are white. Black kids concentrate on soccer, whilst the black players we have are usually the ones that are highly educated, and are with us in the more 'upper class' schools such as Pretoria Boys High School, and KES, St. Johns etc etc. The only reason our rugby is so good, is because rugby is taken VERY seriously at schoolboy level. Obviously there are far more rugby players here than in New Zealand, but the numbers are not as massive as most people think they are. The club rugby stats are something i don't even consider, because every friggin town has some sort of club, but they all act as pass time activities, and to take those stats into consideration is unfair in my opinion.

We were by far the best rugby nation on the planet up to the professional era. I have no doubt that we would have been very strong contenders in both the 1987 and 1991 tournaments had we participated. The **** hit the fan once Rudolf Streulli became coach. It was such a crap time, and lasted for 3 years. In those three years we lost everything, all the time, and had almost every player in every team become a Springbok. Man I'm glad that that's over!

Another thing anyone fails to realise is that our history is one of absolute turbulence. For us to go through so much ****, bans, hated across every continent, and still come out of it as one of the best, if not THE BEST sporting nation of any developing country, is one hell of a feat. We will be the second country in history to have hosted the Rugby, Cricket and Soccer World Cups. We have achieved a lot more than any 'big' country ever has. Also, never forget that we are in Africa, the undisputed armpit of the world. Having a lot of rugby players is an advantage, yes, but numbers only count for one thing. We have faced thousands more issues than New Zealand has, but still remain a sporting power, and a respected one at that.

 

[nickdnz]

Rugby is considered a 'white' sport in this country. Out of 49 000 000 people, there are only about 5 000 000 of us that are white. Black kids concentrate on soccer, whilst the black players we have are usually the ones that are highly educated, and are with us in the more 'upper class' schools such as Pretoria Boys High School, and KES, St. Johns etc etc. The only reason our rugby is so good, is because rugby is taken VERY seriously at schoolboy level. Obviously there are far more rugby players here than in New Zealand, but the numbers are not as massive as most people think they are. The club rugby stats are something i don't even consider, because every friggin town has some sort of club, but they all act as pass time activities, and to take those stats into consideration is unfair in my opinion.

We were by far the best rugby nation on the planet up to the professional era. I have no doubt that we would have been very strong contenders in both the 1987 and 1991 tournaments had we participated. The **** hit the fan once Rudolf Streulli became coach. It was such a crap time, and lasted for 3 years. In those three years we lost everything, all the time, and had almost every player in every team become a Springbok. Man I'm glad that that's over!

Another thing anyone fails to realise is that our history is one of absolute turbulence. For us to go through so much ****, bans, hated across every continent, and still come out of it as one of the best, if not THE BEST sporting nation of any developing country, is one hell of a feat. We will be the second country in history to have hosted the Rugby, Cricket and Soccer World Cups. We have achieved a lot more than any 'big' country ever has. Also, never forget that we are in Africa, the undisputed armpit of the world. Having a lot of rugby players is an advantage, yes, but numbers only count for one thing. We have faced thousands more issues than New Zealand has, but still remain a sporting power, and a respected one at that.

I'd say NZ was perhaps a stronger side, pre professionalism, but that is a different argument. I think CA Iverson's comments were more or less to get a reaction from rugbywriter, due to his constant talking up of SA and down trialing of NZ. I don't think he meant for it to be taken too seriously by SA members.

The problem seems to be, when one person constantly insults another persons country, it seems to come down to a slag fest between countries. It should be kept to a personal argument, so it only offends the person it is meant for, as apposed to an entire nation.

 

[Jer1cho]

He is heavily biased, which is sad. Not all of us are like that.

 

[TRF C A Iversen]

I'd say NZ was perhaps a stronger side, pre professionalism, but that is a different argument. I think CA Iverson's comments were more or less to get a reaction from rugbywriter, due to his constant talking up of SA and down trialing of NZ. I don't think he meant for it to be taken too seriously by SA members.

The problem seems to be, when one person constantly insults another persons country, it seems to come down to a slag fest between countries. It should be kept to a personal argument, so it only offends the person it is meant for, as apposed to an entire nation.

What needs to happen is when someone comes onto the forum insulting other nations that people of the same nation pull them back into line. It doesn't happen and then you get the reaction I gave.

In short, if a New Zealand fan was on here starting a non-stop ridiculing of South Africa, I'd be one of the first to tell him to lay off South Africa and start listing South Africa's strengths. Putting up with someone down-grading another nation and promoting your own, is tantamount to supporting their views.



As for South Africa pre-professionalism? It was pretty even. When South Africa constantly resisted New Zealands insistence that neutral refs would be the way to go (in amateur days), it told a very clear message about those times. A South African ref being asked by a journalist to explain two calls in the final test match of 1976 said "What call would you have expected me to make, I wouldn't have gotten out of there alive" and "the NZ refs are probably just as crooked"!

The second comment is gold.