• Help Support The Rugby Forum :

White warns of Bok time bomb

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.

Athletes are both born and developed. I am not suggesting this is all down to genetics.

Jamaica has the infrastructure in place to develop sprinters because it has a great public interest in developing sprinters, that's precisely my point.

I'm not saying weightlifting is bigger than football anywhere, it isn't.
Weightlifting is held in much higher regard in eastern European and south east Asian countries than it is anywhere else.
Therefore they will be able to attract and hold on to more elite athletes than, for the sake of argument, GB can.
Because a weightlifter in GB will probably not receive much, if any in the way of sponsorship/fame or general recognition, whereas a top weightlifter from Kazakhstan will be a national poster-boy.

England may have many times the population of NZ, but most people will not know who Chris Robshaw (insert any current England player) is.
The sport simply doesn't figure in the majority of our population's minds.
How many people in NZ don't know who Rutchie is?

I know I didn't know what Rugby was until I was about 9 or 10 years old and that was only because I started going to school in the country at that age.

As I have already done, I am making a distinction between white/middle-class SA and the majority poor black SA population.
 
Last edited:
Athletes are both born and developed. I am not suggesting this is all down to genetics.

Jamaica has the infrastructure in place to develop sprinters because it has a great public interest in developing sprinters, that's precisely my point.

I'm not saying weightlifting is bigger than football anywhere, it isn't.
Weightlifting is held in much higher regard in eastern European and south east Asian countries than it is anywhere else.
Therefore they will be able to attract and hold on to more elite athletes than, for the sake of argument, GB can.
Because a weightlifter in GB will probably not receive much, if any in the way of sponsorship/fame or general recognition, whereas a top weightlifter from Kazakhstan will be a national poster-boy.

England may have many times the population of NZ, but most people will not know who Chris Robshaw (insert any current England player) is.
The sport simply doesn't figure in the majority of our population's minds.
How many people in NZ don't know who Rutchie is?

I know I didn't know what Rugby was until I was about 9 or 10 years old and that was only because I started going to school in the country at that age.

As I have already done, I am making a distinction between white/middle-class SA and the majority poor black SA population.

Fine, I can accept that the reason Jamaica has good infastructure is because there is interest there. Some with weightlifting in those countries you mention. My original point was that the reason New Zealand and South Africa do well is because the infastructure is in place for these players to develop - by pitting the best players avalible to the country within our professional and domestic leagues, in which selecting outside that harms it. Irrespective of whether or not it is popular - we wouldn't be any good without our system producing the top players. There is huge interest in rugby in Madagascar, what prevents them from becoming a powerhouse is infrastructure.is because there is interest there. Some with weightlifting in those countries you mention. My original point was that the reason New Zealand and South Africa do well is because the infastructure is in place for these players to develop - by pitting the best players avalible to the country within our professional and domestic leagues, in which selecting outside that harms it. Irrespective of whether or not it is popular - we wouldn't be any good without our system producing the top players. There is huge interest in rugby in Madagascar, what prevents them from becoming a powerhouse is infrastructure.
 
I don't think we are disagreeing at all.

Madagascar is a good example of how other issues take control once you match levels of interest.
As are all the PI nations.
They may hold rugby in a similar regard to NZ, but they do not have the GDP to put in place an equally effective infrastructure.
Even if they could, they would be majorly handicapped by their overall population.

But the population only becomes the bottleneck after the population's interest in the sport has become saturated and an infrastructure has been put in place.
 
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.

What I'm trying to get at is that the guys I mentioned, aren't of Pacific Islander descent. Most of them have NH ancestory. The likes of Mccaw, Carter and Reid who are world class, are the rugby icons they are not by the size of the player, but of the rugby brain they have. We all call Richie a cheat, but that's because he's a clever sneaky son-of-a-*****. Their genes have nothing to do with their rugby playing ability. they are the stars because of the education, passion, and tradition they were brought up with in NZ.
 
I love how people use the "no. 1 sport" excuse for South Africa and New Zealand but seem to forget Australia, where Rugby Union is 3rd in popularity, at best. Some even argue it's the 5th popular sport after AFL, Cricket, Rugby League and Football.

The one and only reason Australia is still in the top5 countries, is because they apply a similar rule to the Kiwi's. Check the Rugby Championship squad and notice no overseas players are in the team. SA rugby is just so messed up, that people will not understand the reasoning behind leaving out guys like Fourie du Preez, Ruan Pienaar, Gurthro Steenkamp, Bryan Habana and Morne Steyn because they will never understand the sacrifice it takes to rebuild with local players.

Professionalism is used as an excuse to call up these players anyway, but NZ and OZ are coping with it. Why not South Africa? Would it really be that bad if we would have startedthe 2013 season with this line-up?


1. Mtawarira
2. B. du Plessis
3. J. du Plessis
4. Etzebeth
5. Franco van der Merwe
6. Brussow
7. Alberts
8. Vermeulen
9. Vermaak
10.Lambie/Goosen/Jantjies
11.Mvovo/Aplon
12.Jean de Villiers
13.Engelbrecht
14.SP Marais/Basson
15.Le Roux


Leave out Steenkamp, Kruger, Louw, Pienaar, du Preez, Steyn, Habana.

People always ***** and moan that our guys do not have enough test match experience but how are guys like Mvovo (who is a solid Super Rugby player) ever going to get the experience needed if we keep on relying on Habana in the future? What happens when these guys are in their 30's and retire? We have nobody with experience to cover for them.
 
I love how people use the "no. 1 sport" excuse for South Africa and New Zealand but seem to forget Australia, where Rugby Union is 3rd in popularity, at best. Some even argue it's the 5th popular sport after AFL, Cricket, Rugby League and Football.

The one and only reason Australia is still in the top5 countries, is because they apply a similar rule to the Kiwi's. Check the Rugby Championship squad and notice no overseas players are in the team. SA rugby is just so messed up, that people will not understand the reasoning behind leaving out guys like Fourie du Preez, Ruan Pienaar, Gurthro Steenkamp, Bryan Habana and Morne Steyn because they will never understand the sacrifice it takes to rebuild with local players.

Professionalism is used as an excuse to call up these players anyway, but NZ and OZ are coping with it. Why not South Africa? Would it really be that bad if we would have startedthe 2013 season with this line-up?


1. Mtawarira
2. B. du Plessis
3. J. du Plessis
4. Etzebeth
5. Franco van der Merwe
6. Brussow
7. Alberts
8. Vermeulen
9. Vermaak
10.Lambie/Goosen/Jantjies
11.Mvovo/Aplon
12.Jean de Villiers
13.Engelbrecht
14.SP Marais/Basson
15.Le Roux


Leave out Steenkamp, Kruger, Louw, Pienaar, du Preez, Steyn, Habana.

People always ***** and moan that our guys do not have enough test match experience but how are guys like Mvovo (who is a solid Super Rugby player) ever going to get the experience needed if we keep on relying on Habana in the future? What happens when these guys are in their 30's and retire? We have nobody with experience to cover for them.

In all honesty Zeke, yes, it would be a problem.

How long has it been since we won a trophy of value? 2009 with the B&I Lions. HM was under a lot of pressure last year, and now his team is shaping up. His building towards the grand prize of the World Cup. He has to pick the guys he did, one being, that we are marred by injuries, 2 being that to get any trophies, you need continuity.

I won't have any problem, if he does this, after winning the Rugby Championship this year.
 
People complain that they don't want to make the Springbok jersey "cheap" by selecting local players. I, however, feel that selecting overseas players is making it cheap because there's nothing that keeps players in SA. There's nothing holding them back.

If SARU keeps continuing like this, the Currie Cup, and soon Super Rugby, won't be of the same level it is now, and that prevents other players to develop. What's more important? Winning 1 trophy now or work on the future and win more in a couple of years?
 
The problem is Jantjies has the weak points of a Quade Cooper or Carlos Spencer while being nowhere near them when it comes to the positives, Lambie is off form and has no distance on his kicks and Goosen is permanently crocked.

Jano Vermaak is part of the exodus while Hougaard hasn't been setting the world alight to say the least.

Mvovo, Basson or Aplon? Jeesh our wing stocks are low!!

Fair point on Brussow but F vd Merwe is nothing more than average (when we're speaking about test level) IMO.
 
Well, it was just an example. Long-term, this will hurt us.
 
Well, it was just an example. Long-term, this will hurt us.

Yep - spot on. And people complain about depth now, wait until those guys aren't even playing in South Africa!

I know where people are coming from - for as long as I've watched rugby I'd have loved to have seen my old heroes play for the All Blacks, but the reality is selecting them just does more harm than good - and if they wanted it enough they would be there instead of overseas. It's only the guys making the sacrifices which this policy punishes.
 
Sorry for OT - but to demonstrate my point...

Screen%20shot%202013-08-22%20at%2016.13.11.png


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.
 
Last edited:
Sorry to bring it up again, but this is another big problem with this policy:

Toulon want Habana released
According to the supersport.com website, Habana became the highest paid South African player in France when he recently signed with the glamour club, but in what may become a regular occurrence, the club has asked for him to be released from the squad as it is between games for the Springboks.
http://www.sport24.co.za/Rugby/RugbyChampionship/Toulon-want-Habana-released-20130822

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

Screen%20shot%202013-08-22%20at%2016.13.11.png


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.

I love it! Australia and England are countries where rugby is not the most popular, but they have 3 World Cup wins combined and England is the top team in the 4/5/6 Nations ever. Higher results than France, despite having a lower amount of rugby clubs compared to football clubs than France, or Wales.
 
And the only two countries who have more rugby clubs than football clubs* are also the only countries to have won two world cups and to have been ranked 1st in the last ten years.
I've clearly stated that I don't think it is the sole factor in determining success, but in my mind it is irrefutably the primary one.

*Aside from Samoa who suffer from their miniscule population.
 
Last edited:
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)?
Du Preez can only play home games? That's a weird restriction for his club to put on him :huh:

Would having Habana really be that useful? He'd spend a day or so travelling, be jet lagged, and only have a couple of sessions with the squad pre-game - and then have to the do the same going back to SA.
I understand they paid a lot for him, but surely they expected this...
 
I would have thought they'd have pretty strict rules written into his contract regarding such situations.
 
Regardless of what is in the contract, this is what happens when a Union doesn't contract players or doesn't renew contracts. The only reason we can use Louw and Pienaar so regularly is because Ulster and Bath are so lenient. Now, you have Toulon, reaching deep into their pockets for Habana, and they want to use him from start to finish of the new season. I don't blame them.

@Olyy: It is a weird construction with du Preez, but hey, [sarcasm]no harm in selecting overseas players right?[/sarcasm]
 
I do agree with the article. When you look at the overseas players that are selected for the national side I hardly see any added value. SA has so much talent and off course not everybody can make it to the national side but with the talent that's available you can build a very strong team.
 
Exactly. Is Taylor ready for the All Blacks? Nobody knows. Most people don't think so. They could have called up Stephen Donald to be sure, but no. NZ is in a situation where they want to take risks and look where it gets them? Maybe they will lose this Saturday, but for the future, it's better to give a youngster a chance rather than falling back on golden oldies who will have to be replaced sooner or later anyway.
 
Just in case there was some confusion, I'm not using that table to say that picking foreign based players isn't detrimental.

As I agree that for the most part you should not allow players that don't play in the domestic competition to play for your national team.
 

Latest posts

Top