Invest in players, not presidents
20 Feb 2006
Keo, in his Business Day column, writes insight and not hindsight should be the battle cry from within The South African Rugby Union.
Two rounds into the Vodacom Super 14, and no South African team is unbeaten. Equally distressing is that all five South African franchises have already dropped a home match. The play-offs in May seem far away, and so does any prospect of a local presence.
The first fortnight of the expanded Vodacom Super 12 has highlighted the mediocrity in player quality among some of the teams, and it has also stressed the value of the country’s top 25 players. In a week where South African rugby’s administration will look after itself for the next two years through the presidential election, our country’s top players don’t know whether they will ever have the same luxury of knowing they are being looked after.
The custodians of the game, in the guise of provincial and national presidents, are not the lifeblood of the game. The players are. The South African game is poorer when the likes of Victor Matfield and John Smit are absent. Both have missed the first two rounds of Vodacom Super 14 because of injury, but continued administrative apathy and a disregard for their qualities will see the two absent for more than two matches in 2008.
Matfield and Smit, two of the best in the country and two of the best in their respective positions in the world, are top of the French club buyers’ list. Both have been offered huge amounts to continue their careers in France at the end of next year.
Super-rich clubs Toulouse and Stade Francais have made Matfield offers that will be hard to reject. The club money men have written a blank cheque for Matfield. All that can keep the big Bulls lock in Pretoria is the comfort that he will be looked after in the next five years.
And being looked after has a broader context than just cash.
Smit’s attentions have been sought out by equally insistent agents who are talking astronomical fees relative to the South African market.
South African rugby cannot compete with the figures being bandied about. That’s the bad news. The good news is that if those who determine contracts are prepared to listen to these players they won’t have to. These players don’t just want to take the foreign cash and run. They actually want the familiarity of home and a blue, black, white and green jersey.
The players want the acknowledgement that they are viewed as being in the top 10, 15 or 25 in the country and they also want to be treated with the respect that comes with this status.
Currently, no player in this country gets that kind of respect. Every nationally contracted player, from the captain down to the lowest annual retainer, is unsure of life after the next World Cup. Bok coach Jake White conquered a beast to actually get certain guarantees for his players in the build-up to the 2007 World Cup, but doing this does not put SA ahead of the pack; it merely keeps it within touching distance.
To be ahead of the pack, the thinking has to be a bit more creative. Smit, Matfield and the other significant players who form the nucleus of the Springbok team have to be contracted until after the British and Irish Lions tour in 2009.
The Lions, following the debacle of New Zealand a year ago, is a concept that is under pressure. A series victory in SA will resurrect the roar of the Lions’ lobbyists.
It is going to be a demanding series. To beat the Lions in 2009 SA need their best players.
An action plan must be in place now to avoid the post 2007 World Cup pilgrimage to European clubs.
The 2007 World Cup should not be seen as an international end for our top players. There is much to do after the World Cup, and the games thinkers have to reflect that attitude in their decision making.
Insight and not hindsight should be the battle cry from within The South African Rugby Union. I’ve yet to hear it, and that is far more depressing and distressing than the fact that by week two of the Vodacom Super 14 every South African franchise has already lost at home.
48 Comments
20 Feb 2006, 12:11 pm
the players are seen as a replacable commodity in SA, and they should feel proud of the fact they are lucky enough to represent the boks.
this is the view of administrastors and fans alike. Hell, many fans are pissed off these guys actually get paid in the first place.
Go figure.
20 Feb 2006, 12:12 pm
So Keo, do you think the sponsors are going to step up to the plate and take control or are there going to be behind the scenes garauntees and/or *** licking by the wankers in rugby admin (read power) to keep the sponsors blind, their own pockets full, players guessing and backstabbing galore?
20 Feb 2006, 12:15 pm
Hell Keo
Good piece- insightful you are yourself -Sir!
Now what is the chance that our dearest administrators will read listen and implement a plan of action.
What is the chance that the Sharks will host a test of that 2009 tour ?
maybe we will know after 23/2
20 Feb 2006, 12:17 pm
I happen to hear Oregon Hoskins speaking on SAfm yesterday. He certainly does not sound like the man to lead us (administratively) from the bottom of the pile.
Like the DA, his entire campaign is based on critisising his opposition. When (finally) asked what he’d do differently, he almost choked and battled to answer. If it wasn’t so funny, I woud have cried.
Keo, any chance that you can get that man to answer some pointed questions?
20 Feb 2006, 12:22 pm
Seamus that is the most depressing thing I have heard today…maybe I should start supporting south africa in jukskei until this mess has been sorted out…oh, no that is not gonna happen so I might as well become a eunuch and move abroad…*sigh*
20 Feb 2006, 12:22 pm
The way things are going at the moment i think we going to loose alot of our top players after the next world cup. Relegation is going to make that our best players are going to go overseas and play club rugby. Another few years and we going to sit without our top players if SARFU is not going to look after it’s core players. Who know’s what’s going to happen after Friday.
20 Feb 2006, 12:34 pm
Seamus, you hit the nail on the head with the DA and their critisising campaign.
If that’s all we got in this Hoskins, well we’re in trouble, makes you wonder why Jake was supporting van Rooyen.
20 Feb 2006, 12:37 pm
There is no sense in the Lions touring SA. Since the game went professional SA rugby knows little other than abject failure. Its a pedigree that does not support a tour. How could you possibly market it? The 3rd/4th best team in the SH taking on the might of the North? Not going to wash.
Perhaps a scratch Scottish and Irish team (the Celtic Tigers) could tour instead? Or an English club side; like a Saracens?
Until SA rugby pulls out of the Sanzar agreement and aligns itself with the English game then the future for SA rugby is bleak. We are already close to the point where SA rugby exists only as a feeder to the European club teams with some of its very best players seeking international playing recognition with teams in the North.
The future for the boks I am afraid is as a curious relic by a bygone era.
20 Feb 2006, 12:46 pm
Keo,
Big mistake assuming that the provincial bods and the big cheeses in SARU actually care about the ‘lifeblood’ of the game. Not since Doc Craven have we had a rugby leader that was a true visionary and actually had a passion for the game.
Craven lived in the Cape but hardly ever did you feel that he cared more for Cape Rugby more than the rest. His priority was the Boks – look at what he did to keep Naas and Gerber in SA!
If Craven saw that state of SA Rugby now he would be absolutely devastated and grief stricken.
20 Feb 2006, 12:53 pm
Oh Grief!! Aligning with the poms, Urgh, the humiliation, the destruction of the last ounce of common deceny we have left. We’d start winging like the ossies, wearing spikey purple hair, Start bashing moslems. We’d degenerate into a mindless quagmire of Oy’s that would take centuries to correct. Please let it not be in my lifetime, anything but that.
This here thread has got too depressing, I’m off.
20 Feb 2006, 13:01 pm
I agree with StMichel that SA should align itself with Europe. Timelines run vertical – not horizontal.
20 Feb 2006, 13:11 pm
St Michael, hasve you been out at TRAFALGAR Sq again getting bombed by the pidgeons.
Where do you get 3/4 th side in theSouthern Hemisphere — did you forget we are actually NO 2 & a bleak 60 seconds cost us from being NO 1 – wakker skrik boet.
20 Feb 2006, 13:27 pm
ktb, those rankings mean nothing. You can’t really believe that we are #2. 3rd/4th is probably more accurate
1. NZ
2. France
3. Eng/SA
5. Aus
20 Feb 2006, 13:53 pm
Seamus,
Australia had a bad 2005. I believe 2006 will be a better year for them and that they will again slot in at 2. France and SA competes head-to-head for 3 and 4. Eng at 5. But we live dangerously close to 5.
20 Feb 2006, 14:06 pm
keo, what a load of bollocks. Now you want to contract players until 2009? Come on, dude. How do you know whether Matfield, Smit or anyone else will still be useful to the Bok cause in three years’ time? All you’re doing is tying up resources that might turn out to be better spent on keeping talented youngsters from deserting. No-one, not even our first-tier players, deserves to be paid beyond the point where they are contributing – excluding injuries, of course.
Katsesnor, England are, I’m sorry to say, way better than us at the moment. Their forwards against ours = men against boys all over again.
20 Feb 2006, 14:21 pm
I agree with StM
The sooner we dump these maori and convict tossers the better. I would much rather watch rugga late in the afternoon and in the evening than this early moring ****.
20 Feb 2006, 14:46 pm
Katesnor,
Aussie still don’t have a T5 or a set of locks and until they do, they will battle against the rest
20 Feb 2006, 14:51 pm
All this – align with europe thing is a load of bollocks. Our seasons are not compatible, and their heineken cup runs concurrently with the ZP – basically their entire season. Their conditions are completely different to ours and so is their style of rugby. unless we play the currie cup from October until April – it just would not work.
So really lets lose this silly idea. What we need is a S16 competition with 4 pools of 4 playing each other home and away resulting in fewer matches, and even travel schedules. The only problem in less matches, means less revenue, means SANZAR wont dream of it.
The rugby season should not kick off until mid-march April if it is only ending in December.
Thats my opinion.
20 Feb 2006, 14:54 pm
Seamus,
The Brumbies and Tah’s beat our best T5 and locks – at home nogal. Boks T5 and locks will most probably come from the Bulls and Stormers. Yes Big Vic didn’t play – but then Australia has a Big Vic of their own … Vickerman.
20 Feb 2006, 15:08 pm
Munkiboi
The idea is to align the north and south seasons first. Then it will make far more sense to play teams operating on the same time line (or near it). Crossing half the globe – and the clock – to play NZ teams is not working for our teams – and for me the fan and subscriber.
I’m anyway bored to death with the S12/S14. We play the same lot over and over year after year without winning a damn thing. At least in playing the NH teams we will have four teams in the semis
20 Feb 2006, 15:09 pm
one piece of the puzzle could be only springboks can fill SA admin positions which would not only guarantee them employment after their playing days but also as the caretakers of SA rugby they would have SA rugby at the top of their agendas. Unlike the current ********.
20 Feb 2006, 15:48 pm
Good rugby players don’t always make good administrators. Also just because someone is from SA doen’t mean that will be anymore self orientated than anybody else. The rule of rugby should be the same as the rules of good business: Best person for job – fullstop. That is whether it is playing or administrating.
I also happen to believe that SA rugby has no more or less problems than any other nation – just different ones. As an Englishman i think your “product” is absolutely first class; great entertainment and great rugby. You have produced a host of quality players and if some of them leave your shores for big money then you will find plenty who will fill their shoes. The moment you start breaking the bank for the “special ones”, then the conveyor belt of talent you have produced will grind to a halt.
Heading towards the world cup, England and South Africa are the ball producers; Aus and NZ are the ball users; and France will get it all wrong so forget about them. Whichever of Eng and SA begin to use well all the ball they produce, will be in the final with NZ! IMHO
20 Feb 2006, 16:36 pm
yeah right stucky;
CEO of NZRFU meets Mr Jacques Cronje, CEO of SARU:
NZ dude: “Good day Mr Cronje”
Cronje : “wie’sjoupoes…”
20 Feb 2006, 23:35 pm
seamus i’m hoping that the reason hoskins is only discrediting van rooyen is because he secretly has a plan to f*ck those parasite-like smaller unions over. he comes from a big union, and knows that the smaller unions must either be amalgamated or scrapped in order for SA rugby to prosper, but unfortunately needs the smaller union’s votes in order for him to do this.
thats what i’m hoping for anyway, havn’t heard much of him so he could be as useless as his predecessors
21 Feb 2006, 00:37 am
“the players are seen as a replacable commodity in SA, and they should feel proud of the fact they are lucky enough to represent the boks.”
And so they should. After all, they ARE replaceable commodities. And they SHOULD feel proud if they are lucky enough to be picked for the Boks.
That’s exactly how it works in New Zealand. No All Black is ever told that he OWNS the jersey. From the moment he pulls on that coveted black shirt, he knows that he is only renting it for a while until a better tenant comes along. If he wants a long-term lease, he has to up his game to the extent that any new prospective tenant doesn’t get a look in.
21 Feb 2006, 00:41 am
“Crossing half the globe – and the clock – to play NZ teams is not working for our teams – and for me the fan and subscriber.”
The New Zealand teams, of course, reciprocate that travel by going all the way to South Africa and then clobbering the Boks in their own back yard. Like the embarrassing 52-16 hiding they delivered to the Boks at Loftus Versfeld as recently as 2003.
21 Feb 2006, 04:20 am
For me the world rankings go more like this…
1. NZ
2. SA
3. Australia
4. France
5. England
If Australia can pick their best XV they may even have the best team. Their problems are (a)depth, (b)age, (c)injuries, and (d)the absence of a front row.
NZ and France have the greatest depth. But – barring an anomoly in the draw – I can’t see France EVER winning a World Cup. They can beat anyone on their day (easily even), but winning the World Cup requires consistency, and means producing two or three top shelf performances in a row. I don’t think they could beat two good SANZAR teams in a row, even in France.
I realisticly rate SA as currently Number 2 in the world. (But be thankful you didn’t play England on your last end-of-year tour!) And Australia could be back in that spot by the end of this season.
Also (and you’re going to hate this – but look at it objectively) if you put white jerseys and red roses on the Springboks, how could you tell them apart from England right now? ie.- Monster front eight, kicking first-five, tackling centres with no creativity/penetration, wingers that finish well but never get the ball, and a fullback that lives a mile behind the backline?!?
I don’t believe SA can go higher (consistently)until they realise that the current smash, bash, and crash approach has huge limitations.
Having said that, I believe – in most positions – you’ve certainly got the players. Get it right and you’ll snot most teams 9 out of 10 times.
PS.- Jacarandauk. Re: your ball producers versus ball users argument… There should be another category there – ball stealers!!! N.Z. and Australia lead there, and it’s a facet that I think should be factored.
PPS.- Thanks Keo and co for a great site.
21 Feb 2006, 04:32 am
Wil iemand nie asseblief vir Tackler ‘n skop gee nie, ek dink hy het vasgehaak… of miskien het die tor uit die roeibootjie gemoer!
21 Feb 2006, 05:50 am
The truth just won’t run away, Koos.
21 Feb 2006, 06:39 am
And I don’t see anyone arguing that it is not true but repeating it a thousand times does not make it more true, just farking boring!!!
21 Feb 2006, 07:21 am
Yeah, but it clearly NEEDS repeating over and over again because of all those outrageously optimistic Bulls fans who stubbornly refuse to get the message that their team is really and truly just mediocre rubbish.
21 Feb 2006, 07:25 am
Still boring Tackles and I know you can, and have on the VERY odd occassion, actually contributed something worthwhile. It would be nice if you change the tune and contribute rather than rehashing the same old boring **** of a couple of years ago…
21 Feb 2006, 07:33 am
Kiwi how can you rate England 5th and SA 2nd?
In the last few years England have
REGULARLY MURDERED the Boks by between 20 and 50 points.
Or did you just choose to ignore those games? Ask any SA fan and he will tell you how embarrassing it was for the Boks to be so badly outclassed by England. Until the Boks pull a few games back against England they cannot be rated above England.
21 Feb 2006, 09:33 am
The world rankings go more like this:
1. England
2. New Zealand
3. SA
4. France
5. Australia
Let’s not forget that England recently overpowered the All Blacks at Twickenham, but for a blatant forward pass that led to an Umaga “try”. (The manner in which Test referees continue to exempt the ABs from certain key rules of the game continues to fascinate me).
21 Feb 2006, 09:37 am
Pierre,
maybe if Eng played all their games at Twicks your ranking would stand, but that not being the case I doubt they will break the top three soon.
Are you and StM close in any way?
21 Feb 2006, 09:39 am
1. NZ
2. England (they have that mighty presence again)
3. France
4. Australia (with injured players returning)
5. SA
The foreign world has caught onto our rush defence, forwards are a shadow of what they could be with Gert Smal at their helm, we have no flyhalf and Monty – our only kicker – is past his international use-by-expiry date.
21 Feb 2006, 09:40 am
Katsesnor, the Boer War ended a long time ago. Let’s give credit where it’s due. England would **** as up at any venue on earth at the moment. Their forwards against ours = men against boys.
21 Feb 2006, 09:42 am
Oh, it would be a shamful beating Pierre. A mockery is what England would make of SA at the moment.
21 Feb 2006, 09:47 am
3rd: unfortunately it is, in fact, going to happen when we play England twice at Twickers at the end of this year. We’ll get pomped twice and go into World Cup year with our team, morale and strategy in disarray.
21 Feb 2006, 09:51 am
Absolutely, without a shadow of a doubt. Plus, England and France will compete in the WC final; NZ will choke and Aus will knock SA shamefully out in the quarters.
21 Feb 2006, 10:01 am
I tend to agree, except that I suspect the Froggies might choke as well, thus setting up a repeat of the 2003 final between Eng and Aus.
21 Feb 2006, 10:34 am
Kiwi, good post. Crash, bash and smash about sums up the level of play we produce too often. Not always, but too often.
How can anyone rate France in the top 3 at the moment? They lost quite convincingly here in SA last year (I was at the PE game and they were well beaten), we handed them the game on a plate in France at the end of the year by not pitching up with a plan (i.e. we lost as opposed to them winning), they were thumped at Murrayfield, had a good 1st half against Ireland recently and that’s about it.
21 Feb 2006, 10:50 am
Delek
With the northern/southern summer/winter clash we’re never going to be able to play your top team – at their best – versus our top team. End of season tours are then notoriously disastrous. Then coaches taking away “development squads” muddy the water even further.
I admit that the England we played would have probably dealt to the Springboks that toured.
I still believe that given neutral conditions and neutral timing the top available Springbok side would defeat their English equivalent. I believe their front eight are as strong, if not stronger.
I can’t think of one Englishman that would make the current All Blacks side. I’d try and find a place for Lawrence Dallaglio – I really rate him – but I don’t know where I’d put him. Forget O’Driscoll and Wilkinson – Dallaglio was the greatest loss to the Lions.
I am rating on how I see currently – hence the Aussies so high.
Look forward to the Six Nations match – England versus France. That should tell a lot. Mind you it still depends which French side turns up. You already know which English side is going to turn up (not necessarily a good thing!)
21 Feb 2006, 11:07 am
pierre
Ditto a lot of my remarks to Delek.
I didn’t see the game you’re talking about. I only saw the game we won.
I also seem to remember winning at scrumtime, lineout time, ruck and maul time (after the first two minutes), at tackle time, and – most importantly – at full time.
I’d agree there are a number of flat and forward passes that are seemingly missed these days, however the neutral ref had two neutral linesmen to help him with those kinds of decisions.
His eyes certainly appeared to be sharp enough when he was yellow carding us for any number of other infringements.
I think any impartial observer would agree that we played well below our potential that day, whereas you played well above yours.
21 Feb 2006, 12:32 pm
kiwi, first of all, I’m a South African. I am therefore neutral, and have no personal stake in a clash between England and NZ. I’m merely stating the facts as I see them – namely that NZ players get away with a hell of a lot more than anyone else in terms, primarily, of forward passing and running obstruction lines, simply because they have the All Black aura. I notice that you didn’t comment on my allegation that the pass leading to Umaga’s try was blatantly, obviously forward – do you deny it?
This institutionalised foul play spills over into Super 14 contests as well. To name just one example that springs to mind, Ma’a Nonu spends half of every game charging out in front of the ball-carrier and straight into the nearest defender. And then he waits for the ruck to form, and swan-dives right into it. This guy should carded up and down, but the referees do nothing because, thanks to the New Zealanders, this **** has become part and parcel of modern rugby.
22 Feb 2006, 02:13 am
pierre
Fair comment. I probably reacted to your use of the word “overpowered”. I never saw it that way at all.
All teams are playing to the whistle at the moment. What’s legal seems to be coming down more to what the referee does or doesn’t allow on the day than what the rule book says.
By that criteria the English played the ref much better than we did.
With one eye Carter’s pass to Umanga was good. With the other eye it was probably marginal. All I’m saying is that on the day there were six neutral eyes that said it was okay.
I strongly beieve that the match referee should be able to consult the video ref on forward passes – the same as on knock-ons and groundings. It’s all part of the same deal.
And as far as obstruction, ball slowing, hands in the ruck, maul collapsing, front row penalties, etc.. – across both sides – I don’t think we got a lot of breaks from the ref. I feel he was looking harder at us than at the English, which sort of goes against your theory.
Nonu’s got a lot to work to do. I like him, but he’s got a lot to work on.
Obstruction’s usually easy enough to pick, and ping. A guy leaving his feet is just as basic. I can’t see why a ref from Australia, South Africa, England, France – or anywhere – would give us any special breaks.
22 Feb 2006, 12:16 pm
Well, I can agree with you on the introduction of the video-ref for all aspects of play. Whatever would be lost in terms of game flow would be more than compensated for in terms of consistency, certainty and and integrity that comes with knowing that the result was correct.
As for Nonu, I’m not saying he isn’t an awesome centre, just that he constantly gets away with fould play and I can’t understand why.
22 Feb 2006, 15:09 pm
If you’re right perhaps the refs are into mascara?
Have your say
You must be logged in to post a comment.