White warns of Bok time bomb

[nickdnz]

Sorry for OT - but to demonstrate my point...

It quite clearly shows the relationship between success and relative popularity, whilst showing the effect total population and infrastructure has as being of secondary importance.

Green = more Rugby clubs than Football clubs
Orange = more Football clubs than rugby clubs

Figures according to FIFA/IRB respectively.

Interesting, but its also a tad misleading in the case of New Zealand. For example Wellington's 'North Wellington' club, has probably nearly as many senior grade footballers, as just about every rugby club within Wellington. Where rugby clubs within rugby union have around six divisions of senior rugby (including social divisions) - there are 15 within Wellington alone.

 

[Thingimubob]

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.

Rugby is our national sport yes, and when it comes to the International level, Rugby will always be King. Football team really struggles to get any crowds at all.

However, at the top level of club sport in Wales, football wins, especially with the recent success of Swansea City and Cardiff City. Between them, their average home attendance for last season smashes that of the 4 rugby regions:

Cardiff City - 22,041
Swansea City - 19,136
Combined: 41,177

Compared to the Regions:

Ospreys - 9,590
Blues - 8.108
Scarlets - 8,009
NG Dragons - 5,124
Combined: 30,831

Over 10,000 more, with half the number of clubs. Not even taking into account the other Welsh teams in the English football pyramid or the entire Welsh Premier League. So there's huge competition to rugby for such a small country too.
That said, between Cardiff and Swansea there were only 3 Welsh players in their usual starting 11s, which probably explains why our national side is terrible and has no strength in depth...

 

[TRF_stormer2010]

Sorry to bring it up again, but this is another big problem with this policy:
What's the use of having players in the squad when you have to release them to their Euro teams in between games (Habana) or only allowed to play the home games (du Preez)?

That is a problem, yes and I would cut Habana. Also I think the number of current players in our squad who have signed fr overseas-based clubs is a problem but I don't think you should totally write off the possibility of calling up players who have been overseas or are retired. We have had success with Os and Percy for example. The thing is to not overdo it and one player being brought in should be a rare exception. That is where HM and the selectors have crossed the line. Up till now I think it has been beneficial.

 

[TRF_heineken]

Here is a question then:

If SARU restructured their contracts and policies, with a salary to Bok-players, would they stay or would they still go abroad?

This whole debate, IMHO, either way we slice it, it's to the detriment of the players, and to the Springbok jersey. There isn't a winner in this debate.

If they stay, they are Springboks, who don't earn as much money as they could, and being a professional sports star, you always want a proper incentive for playing so well and putting your body on the line.

If they go, they get the incentive they want, but can't represent their country at the World Cup, which is the biggest showpiece for our Sport. This could bring in the situation that the players will go abroad for 3 years, make a ton of money, and then come back the year of the World Cup only to be eligible to play. Now this is all good and dandy, but then what about the guys that stayed and played the last 3 years, even though they are "Springboks", they aren't as good as the superstar that went abroad and is now back, and probably in better form than the local lad.

 

[ratsapprentice]

Interesting, but its also a tad misleading in the case of New Zealand. For example Wellington's 'North Wellington' club, has probably nearly as many senior grade footballers, as just about every rugby club within Wellington. Where rugby clubs within rugby union have around six divisions of senior rugby (including social divisions) - there are 15 within Wellington alone.

That's a good point, and worth considering.
I was using the number of clubs as a marker for permanent infrastructure, interest in the game and competitiveness.

As far as I am aware however, there is only one professional club in NZ.
England alone has 4 divisions of professional clubs and many, many more semi-professional ones.
South Africa has 16.
Australia has 9, and obviously has much sterner competition in the form of AFL and NRL.
France has at least 40.
Wales shares England's football structure to an extent.
I can't find any solid info on Samoa... I'm going to guess that it's completely amateur.
Ireland has 20 as far as I am aware, with more serious competition from Hurling and Gaelic football much like Australia.
In Scotland the SPFL in made up of 42 teams.
Argentina has 40 as far as I can tell.

 

[nickdnz]

Here is a question then:

If SARU restructured their contracts and policies, with a salary to Bok-players, would they stay or would they still go abroad?

This whole debate, IMHO, either way we slice it, it's to the detriment of the players, and to the Springbok jersey. There isn't a winner in this debate.

If they stay, they are Springboks, who don't earn as much money as they could, and being a professional sports star, you always want a proper incentive for playing so well and putting your body on the line.

If they go, they get the incentive they want, but can't represent their country at the World Cup, which is the biggest showpiece for our Sport. This could bring in the situation that the players will go abroad for 3 years, make a ton of money, and then come back the year of the World Cup only to be eligible to play. Now this is all good and dandy, but then what about the guys that stayed and played the last 3 years, even though they are "Springboks", they aren't as good as the superstar that went abroad and is now back, and probably in better form than the local lad.

Not an issue really. The All Blacks and Australia deal with it fine. You don't select overseas based players, and those who return from overseas have to re-earn their spots. You say it'd be tough for the local players who have been selected in those players absences to then lose out on a spot if they return - but your alternative is not select any of those players at all and instead select guys not contributing to South Africa's domestic rugby! Thats probably not much better for them...

That's a good point, and worth considering.
I was using the number of clubs as a marker for permanent infrastructure, interest in the game and competitiveness.

As far as I am aware however, there is only one professional club in NZ.
England alone has 4 divisions of professional clubs and many, many more semi-professional ones.
South Africa has 16.
Australia has 9, and obviously has much sterner competition in the form of AFL and NRL.
France has at least 40.
Wales shares England's football structure to an extent.
I can't find any solid info on Samoa... I'm going to guess that it's completely amateur.
Ireland has 20 as far as I am aware, with more serious competition from Hurling and Gaelic football much like Australia.
In Scotland the SPFL in made up of 42 teams.
Argentina has 40 as far as I can tell.

Yeah, I get your point - however purely at local club level there does not seem to be a big difference within Wellington (which is a very specific example and not particularly helpful to the general point) - it's that second tier where rugby excells and football doesn't - the representative squads, 1st XVs etc.

 

[Gena_ZA]

If 10 good players leave, 20 young ones comes to the fore, SA is a rugby factory and will always be very competitive imho

 

[Patchey]

That's a good point, and worth considering.
I was using the number of clubs as a marker for permanent infrastructure, interest in the game and competitiveness.

As far as I am aware however, there is only one professional club in NZ.
England alone has 4 divisions of professional clubs and many, many more semi-professional ones.
South Africa has 16.
Australia has 9, and obviously has much sterner competition in the form of AFL and NRL.
France has at least 40.
Wales shares England's football structure to an extent.
I can't find any solid info on Samoa... I'm going to guess that it's completely amateur.
Ireland has 20 as far as I am aware, with more serious competition from Hurling and Gaelic football much like Australia.
In Scotland the SPFL in made up of 42 teams.
Argentina has 40 as far as I can tell.

Eh?

 

[ratsapprentice]

Eh?

Foosball bro. Foosball.

 

[nickdnz]

The only fully professional club in New Zealand is the Wellington Phoenix which plays in the Hyundai A League.

There are one or two semi-professional teams though - but on the whole its still very amature.

 

[jonny24]

So, other than their clubs not releasing them to play... why WOULDN'T you want your country's players to play at the highest level they can? Would it not make them better players, and therefore able to do more for their country? I don't see an advantage to excluding someone just because they play club somewhere else.

 

[nickdnz]

So, other than their clubs not releasing them to play... why WOULDN'T you want your country's players to play at the highest level they can? Would it not make them better players, and therefore able to do more for their country? I don't see an advantage to excluding someone just because they play club somewhere else.

...but playing for Toulon is hardly playing at a higher level than Super Rugby. You clearly haven't read most of the posts as many people have outlined some very important reasons.

These reasons don't apply to Canada - as they have no professional league and therefore playing overseas can really only be beneficial, however in countries like New Zealand, Australia and South Africa the entire reason they excell is because of their high quality professional domestic leagues.

 

[ratsapprentice]

I think the main argument is that it weakens the competition within a domestic game.
Most people would agree that a higher level of competition leads to a higher overall quality of player/environment.

 

[jonny24]

...but playing for Toulon is hardly playing at a higher level than Super Rugby. You clearly haven't read most of the posts as many people have outlined some very important reasons.

These reasons don't apply to Canada - as they have no professional league and therefore playing overseas can really only be beneficial, however in countries like New Zealand, Australia and South Africa the entire reason they excell is because of their high quality professional domestic leagues.

I guess I shouldn't assume the highest paid would be the highest level of the sport. You'd figure that the talent would go where the money is, and it would bcome the highest level. That is, of course, without being discouraged to do so by their national union. But, if a player is still good enough to be selected even though he isn't playing Super Rugby, is it such a big deal that he isn't?

I still think it is a bit odd to select teams based on where they play club. It seems to be a rugby thing? (Soccer) football players play anywhere and everywhere. And it's hard to imagine Russia and Sweden not selecting hockey players because they play in the NHL. I read the thread and the reasons, but it still seems to me that the best players should play for the national team, period.

 

[nickdnz]

I guess I shouldn't assume the highest paid would be the highest level of the sport. You'd figure that the talent would go where the money is, and it would bcome the highest level. That is, of course, without being discouraged to do so by their national union. But, if a player is still good enough to be selected even though he isn't playing Super Rugby, is it such a big deal that he isn't?

I still think it is a bit odd to select teams based on where they play club. It seems to be a rugby thing? (Soccer) football players play anywhere and everywhere. And it's hard to imagine Russia and Sweden not selecting hockey players because they play in the NHL. I read the thread and the reasons, but it still seems to me that the best players should play for the national team, period.

Well, the Top 14 is certainly the higher paid of the competitions. However its also the longest competition, nearly twice as long as Super Rugby. Players get spent in the top 14, particularly if they're playing for clubs that don't have benches like Toulon's. The very reason the players don't all go where the money is, is that the national game is still seen as the epitome of rugby - and every player in New Zealand, from being a 5 year old kid onwards - wants to play for the All Blacks. Money is more something that comes into it when you're nearing the end and want to cash out. Now we're seeing more and more guys just wanting to cash out.

It is a big deal, yes. Like I've mentioned - if the best players are playing overseas, then we've spent money on developing players for someone else to get the benefit - while our competition is no longer as strong because they are gone. It works okay in football, because it is such a global game that teams which can't afford the greatest leagues just get left behind. There are so many professional rugby leagues, offering so much money, for a game which is designed to be so professional that club soccer is so much more important than national soccer - that no one cares.

And how are the best players selected? In New Zealand the selection of these players is to see how they perform at Super Rugby comparred to other players also in Super Rugby. How do you compare players playing in different leagues where there is no cross over matches? How is for example, Ma'a Nonu who has played 16 games for the Highlanders, going to compare to Luke McAlister who has played 30 odd games for Toulouse within one season? Does McAlister look good because the competition is worse? Or is that Nonu's problem? Impossible to compare. Regardless, what benefits the national team is a strong domestic league, and picking players outside it only harms rugby within New Zealand.

 

[Icemn]

well whatever SARU decides, I'm sure it wont **** up SA rugby anymore then what it is already... Heineken Meyer is doing a superb job already. SA biggest problem for me is deciding to play expansive more running rugby (they have the players believe me) vs sticking to what they know in safe rugby/kicking for territory NAAS Botha 1970 crap. With a guy like Heineken Meyer there u can see its the later especially when picking a predictable flyhalf like morne steyn each time. so before you guys say i'm off topic what am I trying to say??? The point i'm trying to make is what is the point of going the NZ route of axing players who go overseas, when the left over talented players GETS TOLD to play the same predictable safe rugby giving the same end result as the current players are producing. I'm sorry, but if I was a SA rugby fan I would hate the type of rugby they are playing, screw the results. I'd rather take a proud loss then a crappy win like the boks pulled off against ARG over the weekend. I always say identify the problem first before looking for solutions or people to blame.

so that is why i'm asking, what is the problem here? the fear of losing all your good players who go overseas to play for money? telling everyone in SA hey, if you still gonna be selected for the boks, go play for money?

will super rugby teams struggle??? so I ask, will they struggle more then what they do now?? even with the unfair s15 structure against the Nz conference a NZ teams still wins for the 2nd time running.... so???

there is so many politics and crap in Sa they are missing the bigger picture... so even if players gets to go overseas and get selected, those same players are still going to play the crap rugby and gameplan under the current coach... super rugby teams may suffer, depending on their gameplan. The stormers who adapt the same gamplean as the boks will stay where they are where other teams may struggle as they need to build momentum with new players. Currie Cup will actually improve local talent because a youngster will actually get gametime now as where he had to sit on the bench for a guy like morne steyn.

So I think there are different outcomes at different levels depending on what you are measuring and looking at