Springbok issues

[CleanCut]

On second thought ... having just visited your link ... consider the subject closed.

 

[mdaclarke]

That would be the best solution to our short term woes. We should use the Brazilian Football team as a model.
Their players play in leagues around the world but somehow they manage to be in the top two in the world of football a much more competitive sport than Rugby at the moment. If they can form cohesion with their foreign players and make sure they are conditioned to accepted levels then surely we can also do it in rugby. Bear in mind Football has become very competitive and lots of money has been pumped into the game in terms of high performance so their margins are definitely fine. In rugby only the top 8 nations are really close. Maybe even just the top 6. Lets embrace the fact that our players are going to move abroad. Soak up all their cumulative experience in the different leagues of the world with our young home based players supplementing them. The Brazilian league is a gold mine for young talent currently they are a fellow third world nation so economics can be compared as opposed to the german youth setup.

Just because many of the best Brazilians left their own shores did not automatically translate in the production of weaker Brazilian local players rather they keep on producing gems. I think we will keep on producing good players even without the influence of our experienced "hardebaarde" players. These young players can then gain some of that experience by sharing a national team dressing room with our foreign internationals. The argument that foreign based players won't want to play for the Springboks based on club commitments are moot as given the right environment ( a culture of embracing players based abroad) and good incentives to supplement their club contracts then they will always jump for the opportunity to play for a team such as the Springboks.

And that is how i feel we can reach the top 2 if not top 1 in world rugby within tow years.

Agree 100%, only wish I could like it twice

 

[TRF_heineken]

The thread is ***led "Springbok issues" is it not?

Quotas and racism is absolutely a Springbok issue.

It in no way over shadows any other discussion ... unless of course you feel a little uncomfortable facing the facts.

Feel free to hide your head in the sand. I for one much prefer to look at the issue squarely in the eye ... calling it what it is.

Yes, but unrated has a point. This thread is more about coaching, player management and on the game itself and less so about transformation/quotas and racism.

We have so many other threads about that, it would be better to talk about that, in those threads, just to keep the sanity on the forum.

 

[CleanCut]

Noted.

I'm not used to a forum that's so structured.

Chaos reigns where I come from.

 

[User1245]

To me it seems that the best way to be a competitive top intentional rugby side is to give your best players occasional sabbaticals and long term rest.

It's a competitive business decision that players like Ben Smith, Israel Falou, and David Pocock are currently taking breaks from rugby. If I am correct, Johnny Sexton only played in one Pro 14 game this season before the Springbok game. Sam Warburton doesn't play a whole lot of club games either. Dan Carter played in an average of 13 club games a season in New Zealand. All of this is because they cannot play rugby week-in and week-out and play at their best.

For the Boks we have Francois Louw who has played nonstop rugby for something like 6 years right? I feel like the European club rugby season and SH test rugby are basically incompatible.

I don't know how much short term stress the Boks are in financially. I guess that both the coaching decision and the 30 cap decision might hang on short term considerations. Which is too bad. I definitely see that some people say that they won't buy tickets to the England matches if Coatzee is the coach. If the presence of a coach is affecting the business then he needs to go. Maybe reducing the cap rule could help in the short run, I am not personally convinced, but I think that it would hurt in the long run.

Some people have said that there is actually more money in South African rugby than there is in New Zealand rugby. I am not sure if that is true, but if that's the case the problem is not financial, it is organizational. Super Rugby was created with the sole purpose of giving the SH a scale at which to compete with the revenue potential of England and France. It has pretty much worked. The TV deals have gotten bigger and are much bigger than the Pro 14's. It is just that SARU has not figured out how to best use the tools that the SH has. The SH is also getting most of what they want out of World Rugby with regards to the annual test calendar.

The big thing that the SH can't compete with is the losses that NH club owners have been able to absorb. Saracen's losses alone are greater then the Aus super rugby salary cap. It's crazy. But there are signs that the financial joke that is NH rugby is being reigned in. The light at the end of the tunnel is not there for rugby's investors. The value destroying subsidy will stop.

The Pro 14 needs top players in their league to increase their TV contracts. Super Rugby will be the same. If all of the Springboks are playing in Europe then the TV revenue for Super Rugby will fall. I think that gates will fall to. I personally can't see how selecting overseas players is good for SA Rugby. I am of the view that SARU needs to be definitive about this. The waffling back'n'forth just does not give the players the "policy certainty" that they need to make commitments to the Springboks and SA rugby teams. It doesn't give the Bok's sponsors certainty over the product and how it is managed either.

With regards to Brazil the last time that I watched a Brazilian football match it was full of journeyman players. The game was entertaining enough but it wasn't full of starlets. With regards to Argentina, Lionel Messi has never played club football in Argentina.

I think that it is also worth noting Argentina's hard rugby cap for the Pumas. Why do they have this cap? Because they don't want to be the rugby equivalent of a South American football league. They know what it's like and it's not great. Would much rather work toward being at the top of the world table of leagues than an underling.

SARU reminds me of wasteful big corporation. They don't focus resources on the right areas or people. I also think they take our talent for granted. Because the big rugby schools continue to produce adequate rugby players every year they don't seem to give a toss.

And this is where they can learn from our Australian and New Zealand partners. When have you ever seen SARU make an effort to keep players happy the same way Australia does to Pocock or New Zealand does to Ben Smith. In fact it is the opposite, you mostly hear about mistreatment for example Frans Steyn. I'm amazed how Australia is still competitive. I can assure you rugby is very much down the pecking order compared to the other football codes.

With the currency in the toilet, the government being run by a criminal president and that very government breathing down SARU's neck forcing player selections and striping it of hosting rights if it doesn't dance to the tune, SARU is just adding to the misery by not focusing its resources.

 

[AM_Bokke]

What affect, if any, will Cyril Ramaphosa being the new President of the ANC have on the Boks?

 

[User1245]

What affect, if any, will Cyril Ramaphosa being the new President of the ANC have on the Boks?

Nothing to be honest. Cyril has his hands full with correcting institutionalised corruption in the ANC government. The Sports Minister will have more influence and the current ones appears a bit like a limp "comrade" appointment. Unless there is a ministerial cabinet reshuffle the status quo will be maintained.

At least the little racist tyrant Fikile Mbalula is gone. Combine what he said about Indian South Africans in 2007 and his racially driven actions as Sports Minister, and you can see what character he has.

 

[JohnKA]

Nothing to be honest. Cyril has his hands full with correcting institutionalised corruption in the ANC government. The Sports Minister will have more influence and the current ones appears a bit like a limp "comrade" appointment. Unless there is a ministerial cabinet reshuffle the status quo will be maintained.

At least the little racist tyrant Fikile Mbalula is gone. Combine what he said about Indian South Africans in 2007 and his racially driven actions as Sports Minister, and you can see what character he has.

With Cyril the Rand is starting to get stronger again , so this can maybe later start to play a role in keeping some players in SA

 

[AM_Bokke]

I think that it is pretty clear that the Rand is undervalued based on purchasing price parity. I think that if SA has a government that at least understands what a good business environment looks like then the Rand should strengthen to about 10 to the dollar quite quickly.

But SA is in a tough spot with the budget. They are going to need to implement some austerity which will hurt growth AND introduce some tax incentives for investors which might hurt revenue. Tax incentives to help create (retain) manufacturing employment is part of Cyril's plan. It is my understanding that lessening tax revenue is the primary cause of SA's budget problem: commodity price slump and drought affecting the Ag sector. Government guarantees to crappy SOEs don't help but SA has always spent a lot to support the high number of people in poverty in the country.

Hopefully the 2019 election is faught over growth and investor friendly measures. If the election is Cyril vs DA/Inkatha/COPE about what it takes to create economic prosperity then whoever wins will then have a mandate to reform regulation of the economy.

 

[TRF_heineken]

What affect, if any, will Cyril Ramaphosa being the new President of the ANC have on the Boks?

It's too early to tell.

It depends on how quickly they can get rid of Zuma and his corrupt buddies. Although, the newly elected top 6 of the ANC is split 3/3 in 3 being part of Ramaphosa's camp and the other 3 in Zuma's camp. So the question is how will decisions be made. Add to that the 80 elected NEC members, were moslty re-elections, with a few new faces here and there. So I don't know how the ANC will work in future. I followed that conference on the radio while driving the 1800km's to get to my holiday destination, and what was interesting was that it shows that there is a clear division in the ANC, and that the people are fed up with JZ and his corrupt buddies. Some of the votes were closer than others, and there were even some irregularities with regards to votes, which could have made it a 4/2 split in favour of Ramaphosa.

CR is the first president of the ANC that isn't a Zulu or a Xhosa since 1992. And more importantly, he was a businessman before he went into politics. He's one of the richest guys in SA, and I'm certain the price of Buffalo will soon rise again, as he has one of the biggest farms that breed's buffalo.

As for rugby. I don't think much will change with regard to policy, at least not until CR is the new President of the country and he appoints his own cabinet.

But as mentioned above, it appears that our currency is growing stronger, and that there are even talks of no more possible downgrades. Which would mean we could be looking at status upgrades in the near future. That would mean our rand becoming even stronger (which is not good news for my Bitcoins). If our currency becomes stronger, it would mean that our unions and by extension SARU, will be able to be more competitive in the market for players. Which could mean a higher retention rate of stars at local unions.

As for the quota issue. I doubt that Cyril would dismantle that plan. It's an ANC directive and he won't oppose those directives. I think we should rather look at the court cases now in pursuit of making the quota/transformation policies unlawful. I hear there is even an application at the Constitutional Court to make BEE unlawful. I'm also very interested to hear what will happen with the UN and the information that Solidarity provided to them.

It's going to be a very interesting year with regards to SA politics, and I for one am a lot more hopeful for the country, than what I was the last couple of years...

 

[George Ford]

"Another day, another dawn..." in the words of the famous P. Diddy.

With 2017 now in hindsight and after all and sundry has been concluded and written about the Springboks performance last year. To sum it up: 7 wins, 4 losses & 2 draws. Reading more into those results: all the wins were against lower ranked opposition & exactly the opposite for the losses. The 2 draws against the Wallabies and these games felt like losses as it was the Boks to lose in both those fixtures who were the better side on the day.

And therein lies the crux for the story of 2017. They did what was least expected of them and their relative competitiveness advanced them out of the atrocious, awful- category they placed themselves in 2016, yet couldn't pull of the win which would've really boosted their confidence. Not even referring much to the 2 draws, but the 2 losses against the ABs and Wales.

Interesting to mention, before the 1st draw to the Aussies in Perth, the Boks were on a 5-game winning streak, the only unbeaten team among the RC sides at that stage. Dare I mention it again, we should've beaten the Wallabies that day, and then it all went - south (literally) afterwards. Albany, Ireland, Wales, etc.

Of course, I didn't expect the Boks to win all the games of the year - but at least 1 of Aus, Wales or Ireland/ABs. At least one. It didn't happen. Why? Because the Springboks have now found their new base as a middle-tier ranked nation. Why again? Well I think we all know the real answer behind the 1st answer. The players just isn't good enough. WHAAAT? NO. A lot of them may have played like they're going through the motions a bit; some of them really disappointed. But I'd like to think that most of them showed great potential, which is unfortunate because rugby is a team sport and thus you get judged on the result, in spite of a man-of-the-match performance (Malcolm Marx against ABs).

I'm sure the year in review would've felt somewhat different, if not more optimistic, had we beaten Wales. OR how different would it have been if Jaco Kriel didn't get injured, or if we had the leadership of Whiteley to call on at crucial times of the year; If Serfontein stayed on with the Boks on EOYT or had the coaching staff been more bold in their selections and brought the fringe players through more earlier in the season (Venter, Gelant), not forgetting why it required an injury to JL Du Preez that warranted the inclusion of a DUANE back into the side.

In spite of merely achieving a 55% win-ratio, the real positive from the Boks and their performances last year was the forward pack. While I wouldn't go as far as saying they were a revelation, they showed there certainly is a base to start with. As I mentioned before, in spite of losing key players through stages of the season, whoever filled the position really brought their worth. Marx, Kolisi & JLdP perhaps worth mentioning being revelations for themselves, the depth at lock and in the front-row.

There certainly is potential up front. Of course under-shadowed by a backline unit which to be hair perhaps proved that raw talent & potential is nothing without experience. But in the absence of experience you should be able to call on your mentors to close the gap so that the transition can be quite smoother. The coaching staff did get the right shake-up, yet the main instructions came from a man who is just plain and simple out of his depth at this level, in my honest opinion really.

Look, SA Rugby, despite all the kaak moves they have made (and keep on making), have now made a right call to have AC at least be answerable to a guy like Rassie. I would actually be fine if AC were to be "demoted" to just being the forwards coach, if firing him is too much of an ask. This might even already be on the cards afterall, since Johan Van Graan is gone. Jacques Nienaber installed as the new defense coach, since Venter is out. Franco Smith remains backline coach and Pieter De Villiers the new scrum coach.

The prowess displayed by our pack of forwards shows that we do have the potential to be able to "punch above our weight" and be a top tier nation again. We just need the right people to take charge and instill the right kind of attitude, create an environment which aims to bring the best our of the players. Over to you Naas.

P.S. - I am not referring to P. Divvy as the new scrum coach. (i.e. Peter De Villiers aka snorman).

 

[George Ford]

This seemed like the only appropriate thread to post Jake's weekly write-up. Perhaps the ***le could be changed to progress instead of issues?

As I said in the last match-thread: The flattery it reeks from this man, still makes a solitary point and I would like to hear the feelings of the guys on this.

"The Boks are on the up and it's fantastic to see! What has really been pleasing to me is that we're not being seduced into running from everywhere anymore. South Africa is again seeing that defence is the cornerstone of winning Test matches.

This has been coming for years. Like they say in France, "Voila!" I remember being in France and getting criticised for the Boks being too defensive, but we finished the 2007 Rugby World Cup with the leading try-scorer, the leading points-scorer and the trophy.

People say "that's not how you play the game," but the Boks are showing that's exactly how you win.

South Africa understood that reality in 2007 and it looks like we're starting to understand it again. Some of the other sides in the world don't grasp it; they've been seduced by the perception that passes and offloads and sidesteps win matches. They don't see the whole picture.

I'm watching the Pumas run from their in-goal while their scrum goes backwards. Argentina were renowned for the Bajada scrum, and their maul and pick-and-drive was historically among the best in the world. A few years ago, if you watched a club game between Hindu and San Isidro, generally every kid could pick and drive and every team could maul.

But on Saturday, the Pumas scrum and lineout against the All Blacks was almost the worst I've seen in Test level. It got to a point where they got a five-metre penalty and they didn't choose to scrum – a few years ago, that would have been unthinkable in Argentina.

Meanwhile, for the second week in a row, a Bok victory was notable for the defensive effort, and now I'm hearing the Aussies and Kiwis say they need to kick more.

In rugby, you can keep the ball and run from your own try-line, but if you knock on 95 metres upfield, you get no points for that. It looks amazing, but you get no points.

That's why we see a team with 14 men stop their opponents from scoring, and it's why it's possible to beat the Crusaders with 13 men in Christchurch.

There's no reward for keeping the ball for 15 phases. Turning defence into attack is the spectacle these days. That kind of rugby is in our DNA, defence is how we've always played.

Tackling and defence are two different things. Some countries produce great one-on-one tacklers, but they're poor in terms of defensive organisation. Other countries have the opposite problem.

South Africa produces great tacklers and great defenders and the Boks are hitting the nail on the head because not only are we gaining psychological victories by beating New Zealand and Australia, but the way we're doing it is ringing alarm bells for the rest of the world.

We scored 36 points against the All Blacks without the ball, and we mustn't allow ourselves to be hoodwinked again into thinking that we have to run it from everywhere because that's not how you score 36 points against New Zealand.

This shouldn't come as a surprise to any of these readers because Zelím Nel has been talking about the trends of the game for a long time. He came over to Toyota Verblitz and did some analysis that highlighted what is happening in world rugby – whether you look at Super Rugby, Test rugby or Japanese rugby, the key indicators are exactly the same.

The reason is because the laws of the game are loaded in the defence's favour. That is why you can have 60% possession and territory and still lose a match.

For example, if your opponents kick the ball out and you have the ball at the back of a maul from the ensuing lineout, the ref tells you to use the ball. This cues the defensive side. Then you get a scrum after the other team knocks on, you get the ball to the back of the scrum and the ref tells you to use it. Again, this helps the defence to get ready for when you play. And later you make a run, the ball becomes available at the ruck, and the ref tells the halfback to use it.

These are three instances where the lawmakers rush the attack so that the defence can have a crack at winning possession.

Defensively, South Africa have never been matched. Generally, people would say the Boks are known for aggressive and organised defence. Across all eras and all the way down to most schoolboy sides, we field teams with really good tacklers and defenders.

We've beaten the All Blacks, Wallabies, and England this year, all on the back of defence. The Boks were 24-0 against England, and 12-0 down against New Zealand and we tackled our way to victory. This doesn't mean we haven't played rugby.

The perception is that the Kiwis are all about attack, but the reality is that they are experts at turning defence and into tries. The Boks are starting to get good at doing the same thing, and that's very encouraging.

Winger Aphiwe Dyantyi has scored six tries in eight Tests, and it's not because we're running from everywhere. "

 

[TRF_heineken]

Can't see much fault with what Jake is saying, but then again, it's not rocket science what he's saying either. I think Rassie is getting the balance right, which was the issue with AC. I think AC forgot a bit of the defensive structures and tried too hard to focus on attacking play, but we can only attack if our defence is sorted out.

But I think Jake is not mentioning another aspect, and that is fitness. I think our guys are now much fitter than they were under AC. You can clearly see that the guys are hungry to play and doesn't want to go off the field, while under AC, we saw guys puffing and heaving, which also lead to defensive lapses.

 

[die_mole]

Can't see much fault with what Jake is saying, but then again, it's not rocket science what he's saying either. I think Rassie is getting the balance right, which was the issue with AC. I think AC forgot a bit of the defensive structures and tried too hard to focus on attacking play, but we can only attack if our defence is sorted out.

But I think Jake is not mentioning another aspect, and that is fitness. I think our guys are now much fitter than they were under AC. You can clearly see that the guys are hungry to play and doesn't want to go off the field, while under AC, we saw guys puffing and heaving, which also lead to defensive lapses.

I know that Rassie brought in an Irish S&C coach from his time at Munster (who is a bit crazy, they do some interesting things)

seems to have made a huge difference in their ability to play the entire 80

 

[TRF_heineken]

I know that Rassie brought in an Irish S&C coach from his time at Munster (who is a bit crazy, they do some interesting things)

seems to have made a huge difference in their ability to play the entire 80

Are you talking about Jacques Nienaber? he's as South African as I am...

 

[unrated]

Are you talking about Jacques Nienaber? he's as South African as I am...

Hes talking about Aled Walters, who came with Rassie from Munster. He is the fitness coach as far as i understand. Could also be termed strengh and conditioning if you want to give it a fancy name.

Nienaber is just in charge of defence.
Although i feel that our recent upswing in form is largely due to the guru that is Nienaber.

 

[TRF_heineken]

Hes talking about Aled Walters, who came with Rassie from Munster. He is the fitness coach as far as i understand. Could also be termed strengh and conditioning if you want to give it a fancy name.

Nienaber is just in charge of defence.
Although i feel that our recent upswing in form is largely due to the guru that is Nienaber.

Ah. Thanx, now I know that too, didn't see it on SARU's list of Rassie's team, but it seems like Walters was appointed a bit later, maybe SARU just didn't update the info yet.

 

[George Ford]

Can't see much fault with what Jake is saying, but then again, it's not rocket science what he's saying either. I think Rassie is getting the balance right, which was the issue with AC. I think AC forgot a bit of the defensive structures and tried too hard to focus on attacking play, but we can only attack if our defense is sorted out.

True, because almost all of the players played under AC and even then they always showed they could match any opposition physically in 1-on-1 situations, but there were always holes in the defensive line.

But I think Jake is not mentioning another aspect, and that is fitness. I think our guys are now much fitter than they were under AC. You can clearly see that the guys are hungry to play and doesn't want to go off the field, while under AC, we saw guys puffing and heaving, which also lead to defensive lapses.

That and also Rassie just has that ability to get more out of the players it seems. As Jake mentioned, this year alone this team has already beat England, All Blacks and now Aussies - all teams that were ranked above the Boks under AC. So some mental barriers have been broken already.