White warns of Bok time bomb

[TRF_Ezequiel]

White warns of Bok time bomb
“Rugby is now a global game. If (players) are still allowed to play for South Africa while they are earning money overseas, they would be crazy to stay in South Africa and play domestic rugby,†White said.

http://www.sport24.co.za/Rugby/RugbyChampionship/Jake-White-warns-of-Bok-time-bomb-20130821


I said the exact same thing last Saturday while discussing this in the pub during the Bok game. What are your thoughts?

 

[TRF_heineken]

That you and Jake are secretely meeting in pubs...

 

[Bull]

This is the way rugby is going to change in the next couple of years and it needs to change. Gone with the old style of management and amateurism.

As for Jake, he is a sour puss

 

[snoopy snoopy dog dog]

I think it's inevitable that players will follow money in ever increasing numbers.

Could a solution for SA be that they abandon Sanzar and join the European leagues? That will increase their revenue streams and make it more likely that players stay at home. It's also in a more suitable time zone than games against NZ and Australian franchises. Leaves those two countries in the lurch though.

 

[SomeOke]

I think it's inevitable that players will follow money in ever increasing numbers.

Could a solution for SA be that they abandon Sanzar and join the European leagues? That will increase their revenue streams and make it more likely that players stay at home. It's also in a more suitable time zone than games against NZ and Australian franchises. Leaves those two countries in the lurch though.

I was under the impression that the NH wasn't interested in any kind of merger with SA?

 

[TRF_stormer2010]

I think it's inevitable that players will follow money in ever increasing numbers.

Could a solution for SA be that they abandon Sanzar and join the European leagues? That will increase their revenue streams and make it more likely that players stay at home. It's also in a more suitable time zone than games against NZ and Australian franchises. Leaves those two countries in the lurch though.

I was considering the same thing. In many ways it makes sense particularly time zone-wise. But would the Euro clubs accept the travel factor and adding a country outside the Euro-zone?

It would certainly be beneficial to SA to adapt ITO player availability and finances. Would be interesting to see our teams in a Heineken Cup. Currie Cup might get more importance again and then onto HEC or if we were to join the Magner.. wait Rabo12 to Rabo16 with top 4 SA CC teams?

 

[TRF_heineken]

The way I see it, is that these guys are professionals and will eventually go to other clubs for more money.

Why should we then devalue the Springbok jersey by not picking the best, and only select local players?

Let them go and play wherever they want, give them a springbok contract, but then structure it in a way that local players get a better incentive than overseas based players. In SA there is still such a thing as not disclosing your salary with other employees or other people. So SARU should use this to their advantage and pay the local players more than the overseas based players.

 

[nickdnz]

I agree with Jake White to be honest.

You can't have a strong domestic league when selecting overseas based players, especially if your domestic league doesn't have the money to be as competitive. Selecting overseas based players seems particularly beneficial as you get your Fourie du Preez and Guthro Steenkamps. But what is in it for Tendai Mtawarira in staying in South Africa? Why does he not go and play in Japan for more money and less work? And when he goes and Steenkamp and Mtawariria are the two starting LH props for South Africa, whats keeping Coenie Oosthuizen leaving? We are already seeing South African scrum halves having to get permission from their clubs to play half of a tournament.

Saying "Why should we then devalue the Springbok jersey by not picking the best, and only select local players?" is all well and good - but I think devaluing the jersey is exactly what you do by allowing clubs to dictate who is avalible to you and when. Picking overseas based players is only a short term solution to an inexistant problem - what will become more of an issue is when the Springboks domestic league and professional teams no longer have their best players because they are making more money in France - a move which is fully encouraged by the policy of selecting over seas players. And then when clubs deny access to players, or the team isn't given sufficient practice time prior to the Rugby Championship because it clashes with NH seasons, will you be feeling sufficiently proud of the jersey? Also - South Africa will never be able to pay local players more than foreign players - at the end of the day if I'm getting $1m a year in a French club and getting paid 100k by SA - then who gives a crap if a local player has a contract with SARU for 250k-300k?

New Zealand suffers as much if not more than anyone. Since 2007 we've lost to overseas based clubs (off the top of my head) -

John Afoa, Carl Hayman, Greg Summerville, Neemia Tialata, Anton Oliver, Ali Williams, Chris Jack, Jerry Collins, Sione Lauaki, Chris Masoe, Jerome Kaino, Adam Thomson, Rodney So'oialo, Byron Kelleher, Nick Evans, Luke McAlister, Aaron Mauger, Isaia Toeava, Joe Rokocoko, Doug Howlett, Sitiveni Sivivatu, Rudi Wulf, Tamati Ellison, Mike Delaney, Mils Muliaina, Daniel Braid, Hosea Gear, Rico Gear, Jimmy Cowan, Casey Laulaula, Richard Kahui, Rene Ranger, Stephen Donald, Alby Mathewson, Isaac Ross, Lelia Masaga, Aled de Malmanche, Anthony Tuitavake, Scott Hamilton, Benson Stanley, Sonny Bill Williams.

That's over 40 players, I'm sure there are more. What's more a number of them were some of the best if not the best in the world at their position. Would we have benefitted from being able to select Carl Hayman at prop? Sure, except we'd never have given Owen Franks a shot - and he wouldn't be in New Zealand anyway. Teams like NZ and South Africa are the best in the world because the domestic competitions and super rugby teams are full with first class players. They wouldn't be as strong if they all left and neither NZ nor South Africa will have the depth. Yes players play within professionalism, however selecting overseas based players is just bad buisness. Also, how do you compare the form of a player playing in Japan - to a player playing in SR? Do you just got with the guy in Japan because hes performed before?

 

[Jaguares]

SARU should do what makes NZRU, not allowed to play in the national team players who play abroad.

This will make the players have to decide whether to make more money in Europe (or Japan) but not selected to play in Springboks or play a high-level rugby as Super Rugby and can play in the national team.

What happens in NZ is next, with few exceptions, the best players play their best year career in NZ and therefore play for All Blacks. Then when they are older and nearing retirement, they go to Europe or Japan to make more money.

This means that the best players will provide their best years to the national team and in the over 30 years, they will earn more money abroad. South Africa's what to do, because if all your top talent playing abroad, the domestic league isn't competitive and if not competitive national team will suffer.

Cheers

 

[TRF_stormer2010]

I agree with Jake White to be honest.

You can't have a strong domestic league when selecting overseas based players, especially if your domestic league doesn't have the money to be as competitive. Selecting overseas based players seems particularly beneficial as you get your Fourie du Preez and Guthro Steenkamps. But what is in it for Tendai Mtawarira in staying in South Africa? Why does he not go and play in Japan for more money and less work? And when he goes and Steenkamp and Mtawariria are the two starting LH props for South Africa, whats keeping Coenie Oosthuizen leaving? We are already seeing South African scrum halves having to get permission from their clubs to play half of a tournament.

Saying "Why should we then devalue the Springbok jersey by not picking the best, and only select local players?" is all well and good - but I think devaluing the jersey is exactly what you do by allowing clubs to dictate who is avalible to you and when. Picking overseas based players is only a short term solution to an inexistant problem - what will become more of an issue is when the Springboks domestic league and professional teams no longer have their best players because they are making more money in France - a move which is fully encouraged by the policy of selecting over seas players. And then when clubs deny access to players, or the team isn't given sufficient practice time prior to the Rugby Championship because it clashes with NH seasons, will you be feeling sufficiently proud of the jersey? Also - South Africa will never be able to pay local players more than foreign players - at the end of the day if I'm getting $1m a year in a French club and getting paid 100k by SA - then who gives a crap if a local player has a contract with SARU for 250k-300k?

New Zealand suffers as much if not more than anyone. Since 2007 we've lost to overseas based clubs (off the top of my head) -

John Afoa, Carl Hayman, Greg Summerville, Neemia Tialata, Anton Oliver, Ali Williams, Chris Jack, Jerry Collins, Sione Lauaki, Chris Masoe, Jerome Kaino, Adam Thomson, Rodney So'oialo, Byron Kelleher, Nick Evans, Luke McAlister, Aaron Mauger, Isaia Toeava, Joe Rokocoko, Doug Howlett, Sitiveni Sivivatu, Rudi Wulf, Tamati Ellison, Mike Delaney, Mils Muliaina, Daniel Braid, Hosea Gear, Rico Gear, Jimmy Cowan, Casey Laulaula, Richard Kahui, Rene Ranger, Stephen Donald, Alby Mathewson, Isaac Ross, Lelia Masaga, Aled de Malmanche, Anthony Tuitavake, Scott Hamilton, Benson Stanley, Sonny Bill Williams.

That's over 40 players, I'm sure there are more. What's more a number of them were some of the best if not the best in the world at their position. Would we have benefitted from being able to select Carl Hayman at prop? Sure, except we'd never have given Owen Franks a shot - and he wouldn't be in New Zealand anyway. Teams like NZ and South Africa are the best in the world because the domestic competitions and super rugby teams are full with first class players. They wouldn't be as strong if they all left and neither NZ nor South Africa will have the depth. Yes players play within professionalism, however selecting overseas based players is just bad buisness. Also, how do you compare the form of a player playing in Japan - to a player playing in SR? Do you just got with the guy in Japan because hes performed before?

That in essence is the major concern, yes. The thing for me is that line of thinking makes 1 big assumption; that these players or at least most of them wouldn't have gone in any case. The difference in payment is just that big that it is more than likely only a fraction of them would have stayed if SARU limited or ttally excluded overseas based players.

There is a big upside in having the players overseas as well; it allows fr younger guys to come through IE maybe if Spies and Andries Bekker had gone overseas earlier we would have seen CJ Stander and Quinn Roux for the Bulls and Stormers, if Bakkies Botha was still playing for the Bulls would Etzebeth have settled in yet? Same with Jaque Fourie, Olivier with Serfonteinn and Engelbrecht looking good for us at test level or at least looking promising. Then if there is need we have stars overseas to call on while we aren't paying their salaries at club level. In that case there is of course soome administrative and logistical hurdles to overcome. I would be quite happy with such an arangement BUT then we need to give local players a big priority IMO and that is where subjectivity comes in and where grey areas start to form.

I don't think SA will suffer in the sub-test level simply because we have lost so many quality players since 2007ish years in any case (so many of them before they even really started to shine) while some have come back to play crucial roles like John Smit and Montgomery.

 

[smartcooky]

Teams like NZ and South Africa are the best in the world because the domestic competitions and super rugby teams are full with first class players.

Nick...

EMPHATICALLY THIS!!!!

That is all!

 

[ratsapprentice]

NZ and SA are the best in the world because they are the only two countries where Rugby is the national sport. (At least among white people in SA)

Popularity relative to other sports is pretty much the single most important factor in a national team's success.
It's what drives everything, particularly how competitive their domestic competitions are.

 

[nickdnz]

NZ and SA are the best in the world because they are the only two countries where Rugby is the national sport. (At least among white people in SA)

Popularity relative to other sports is pretty much the single most important factor in a national team's success.
It's what drives everything, particularly how competitive their domestic competitions are.

Right...

What is this based off?

What is Wales national sport again? And there are more rugby players and supporters in England and France than there are in New Zealand...

In New Zealand I'm fairly certain there are more football players than rugby players by a fair bit.

 

[sifplay]

Rugby is not SA national sport. Most of the black players in SA are Xhosa and they are small numbers. The Zulu's and others which makes up for most plays mostly football which ias the majority. Just that our football team is crap and our rugby team is good.

^But our top level players ain't that much more than NZ like the Kiwi's make it out to be.

 

[ratsapprentice]

It's not about how many players you have, it's about how your elite athletes are channeled.

Why does Jamaica dominate sprinting... because sprinting is a national sport.
Why do eastern European and Asian countries dominate olympic lifting/strongman... because they are relatively popular there compared to the rest of the world.
Why do east Africans dominate long distance running... because it's relatively popular there.

Using sprinting as an example, one of GB's most promising sprinters, Adam Gemili, was nearly lost to football.
Even though he was just a decent footballer, and a phenomenal sprinter he has only recently decided to focus solely on athletics.
Athletes generally gravitate to the most prestigious sport in their country.
In SA and NZ rugby is pretty much top sport that athletes can play so it will therefore harvest the top athletes in that country.

I didn't say Rugby was the national sport in SA as a whole, but that it is for white people.

This is the primary determining factor in a country's success in any given sport, until other countries have the same or similar levels of professional participation at all age levels of said sport.
At that point other factors come into play (GDP, Population etc...)

 

[nickdnz]

It's not about how many players you have, it's about how your elite athletes are channeled.

Why does Jamaica dominate sprinting... because sprinting is a national sport.
Why do eastern European and Asian countries dominate olympic lifting/strongman... because they are relatively popular there compared to the rest of the world.
Why do east Africans dominate long distance running... because it's relatively popular there.

Using sprinting as an example, one of GB's most promising sprinters, Adam Gemili, was nearly lost to football.
Even though he was just a decent footballer, and a phenomenal sprinter he has only recently decided to focus solely on athletics.
Athletes generally gravitate to the most prestigious sport in their country.
In SA and NZ rugby is pretty much top sport that athletes can play so it will therefore harvest the top athletes in that country.

I didn't say Rugby was the national sport in SA as a whole, but that it is for white people.

This is the primary determining factor in a country's success in any given sport, until other countries have the same or similar levels of professional participation at all age levels of said sport.
At that point other factors come into play (GDP, Population etc...)

I'd attribute Jamaica's success to the infastructure they have in place to develop sprinters...

You're entire argument seems based upon the assumption that players are born and not developed. Also - I'd wager football was comparitevly a bigger sport in Eastern Europe and Asia over weight lifting, why are all their weightlifters not footballers? If your argument is that the reason that England's top athletes go to football as it is the most popular sport, it may not suprise you that is the case for pretty much every country including South Africa..

And even if we accepted that rugby loses many great athletes - England still has a population over 13x larger than New Zealand, and considerably more players. To assume that the reason that the reason England does poorly is due to not having as many natural athletes as New Zealand would be absurd. It comes down to player development.

 

[TRF_heineken]

What about cricket??

Rugby, Cricket and Soccer are all IMO national sports for SA. With Soccer maybe being a bit in front purely because of the population and the financial backing they get.

Rugby and Cricket play second fiddle, yet we strive for perfection. Our Cricket team has been the best test playing team for a number of years now, after the dominant Australia went into an identity crisis.

I think a team like England and to a lesser extent Wales, are not trying as hard as they should to be the best they can be. With SA and NZ, it's about winning every single match. Getting the players committed and the passion of the players themselves gives our guys perhaps the edge above the NH rivals. I'm not saying this to be just another dick-swinging bragger, but the NH clubs don't have the star quality they want from their own nation, so they are willing to pay a lot for our guys. And our guys will take their offers with a smile on their face.

But the difference with the SA guys are, because of our crappy currency and the exchange rate, they only have to play a few (2-4) years abroad to come back to SA to live a very happy rich life. So with this exodus and fears, there will always be some guys coming back, just like Frans Steyn did.

 

[sifplay]

I'd attribute Jamaica's success to the infastructure they have in place to develop sprinters...

You're entire argument seems based upon the assumption that players are born and not developed. Also - I'd wager football was comparitevly a bigger sport in Eastern Europe and Asia over weight lifting, why are all their weightlifters not footballers? If your argument is that the reason that England's top athletes go to football as it is the most popular sport, it may not suprise you that is the case for pretty much every country including South Africa..

And even if we accepted that rugby loses many great athletes - England still has a population over 13x larger than New Zealand, and considerably more players. To assume that the reason that the reason England does poorly is due to not having as many natural athletes as New Zealand would be absurd. It comes down to player development.

Genes. Athletes of African ancestry hold every major male running record, from the 100 meters to the marathon.

New Zealand has undoubtedly benefited from the athletic prowess of Samoans, Fijians, Tongans and Maoris that have played for the All Blacks and added alot of firepower to their traditional white rugby players that they started out with.

This is not a whinge: just an observation that many ethnic islanders are born or move to New Zealand.

Their athletic prowess is undeniable...on average they are more athletic than whites. In a speed and collision sport like rugby that is obviously a major asset. How else could a tuny island like Samoa be such a power that they can mix it with the big boys? (also see how many Samoans play college and NFL football in the US)

Lomu, Bryan Williams, Michael Jones, Shelford, Bunce, Olo Brown, Rockocko, Siviavatu, Jerry Collins, Jamie Joseph, John Timu, Walter Little, Inga Tuigamala

 

[TRF_heineken]

Genes. Athletes of African ancestry hold every major male running record, from the 100 meters to the marathon.

New Zealand has undoubtedly benefited from the athletic prowess of Samoans, Fijians, Tongans and Maoris that have played for the All Blacks and added alot of firepower to their traditional white rugby players that they started out with.

This is not a whinge: just an observation that many ethnic islanders are born or move to New Zealand.

Their athletic prowess is undeniable...on average they are more athletic than whites. In a speed and collision sport like rugby that is obviously a major asset. How else could a tuny island like Samoa be such a power that they can mix it with the big boys? (also see how many Samoans play college and NFL football in the US)

Lomu, Bryan Williams, Michael Jones, Shelford, Bunce, Olo Brown, Rockocko, Siviavatu, Jerry Collins, Jamie Joseph, John Timu, Walter Little, Inga Tuigamala

Ah yes, because you can just see the Pacific Islander blood pumping through Dan Carter, Richie Mccaw, Kieran Read, The Whitelocks, Cory Jane, Israel Dagg, Conrad Smith, The Franks Brothers-'s veins...

 

[sifplay]

Ah yes, because you can just see the Pacific Islander blood pumping through Dan Carter, Richie Mccaw, Kieran Read, The Whitelocks, Cory Jane, Israel Dagg, Conrad Smith, The Franks Brothers-'s veins...

Dunno what you are trying to say but Dagg is a Moari. And other countries who got a guy like North with speed and size have only such player once in a full moon. NZ have the luxury of replacing one with another. You mentioned not even half the Kiwi squad. What about Messam, Latua, Nonu , Savea. Afeaki, Rettalick, A. Smith, Cruden etc etc? Guys are just build for rugby and are machines. Pacific Islanders like taking risks compared to where Europeans will play routine. Islanders have more flairs.

Not saying NZ did anything wrong just that they are lucky to have natives that is just perfect for rugby size wise compared to SA where it have a avg height of 1,66m. It would have been smaller if it wasn't for the Afrikaners who is descendants of the dutch who of course are the tallest people inn the world.

Height= Genes + Nutrition. And in rugby size matters. Say what you want. Just check how Australia get smashed at the breakdown where it takes 3 of them to get the bigger Kiwi players off. They are reduced to clearing rucks with their locks and go forward ball with their locks as well as Hooper and others just get smashed of by the Kiwi's at ruck time.

Rugby is about size mismatches and if you have big guys running at a 10 you will get over the advantage line. If you look on average around the World when it comes to sizes NZ have the biggest guys out of any team on the wings and inside center where size mismatches counts.