Counting the cost
15 Sep 2008
Springbok players who sign overseas contracts can’t complain about fatigue because in doing so, they are consciously agreeing to play more rugby.
Butch James’s concerns expressed in The Guardian this weekend around the number of games elite players are required to participate in is both understandable and valid. However, what he fails to note is that he was acutely aware he was sacrificing an off season, albeit a limited one, by signing with Bath.
James played a sum total of 16 matches for Bath in their 2007/08 campaign totaling 1 280 minutes, a further 650 minutes over nine Tests for the Springboks in 2008 and 160 minutes for Bath in their 2008/09 season. You don’t have to be a sports scientist to know that 2 090 minutes of game time over 27 matches is too much rugby (especially for a player with a history of injuries) and that the player will not function at an optimal level.
James’s form was consistently questioned during the Tri-Nations and many called for his omission. I wrote at the time that it was a personal belief that James’ slump in form was due to exhaustion and that it was having a significant impact on technical aspects of his game.
James responded to a text message I sent prior to the Test against Argentina saying that he believed he would improve for the remainder of the season. That improvement, if there was one, was minimal. He was clearly physically exhausted and as a result, was but a shadow of the player who excelled at the World Cup in 2007.
Herein lies the lesson for any Springbok looking to continue a career in Europe, while still harbouring ambitions to play Test rugby: count the cost while you count the pounds and euros.
There can be no complaints about fatigue because in signing a lucrative deal, you’re effectively signing away any opportunity for rest and recuperation.
Yes the schedule is ridiculous and the IRB need to be held accountable for exploiting their prime assets in an effort to swell their coffers.
But that situation is unlikely to change in the near future. In fact, there are moves afoot to expand the Super 14 and Tri-Nations in future, and the players are aware of this. They therefore have no right to recourse. Player agents also need to develop a greater appreciation for the sustainability of their clients’ careers. The fat commission earned from securing a deal with a European club should be a secondary consideration.
As James told The Guardian: “There are a lot of guys at home [in South Africa] who started their Test careers very young and you can see how sore their bodies are.
“I don’t think there’s any way they’ll still be going into their early thirties. Someone like Schalk Burger really throws his body around in every single game. I don’t think he’s going to be able to play much beyond 28 if he wants to play with his kids one day.”
James’s prediction is probably accurate but Burger (and other elite Springboks), in this instance, have a simple decision to make: see out their careers in South Africa and play until their early to mid-30s, or land a lucrative European deal but be forced to quit at 28. Most will never have to work another day in their lives but the cost will be huge.
That’s the reality and one they’ll have to face should they opt to venture abroad.
By Ryan Vrede
132 Comments
Pages: « 1 2 [3] Show All
15 Sep 2008, 16:39 pm
Good day everyone,
The AB`s won the trinations because they are a better team than the Boks and Oz. As simple as that.
Department for department they are better, frontrow, locks(i am not talking jumping in lineouts only), backrow, have backs, centre combinations and back three. Better in all departments thats what my eyes are telling me.
They have beaten their opponenst in all facets of play, running , kicking, breakdown battles, ability to adapt, goal kicking etc etc.
Simple really.
15 Sep 2008, 16:42 pm
Join us for Champions League Superbru:
Pool code: ploppalm
Pool name: Desert League
15 Sep 2008, 16:43 pm
#99 Big Hit:
It tells us that NZ are more consistent than SA and Oz, but that any of SA, Oz and NZ can beat each other on any given day if the other is not at 100%.
Have you ever thought of a career in spin? I know cab pulls my leg about it, but i’m nowhere near being in your league. You’d give Zimbabwe’s Minister of Information, Jonathan Moyo, a good run for his money
15 Sep 2008, 16:43 pm
Everything else are excuses.
15 Sep 2008, 16:44 pm
#101 Namblack: front row? didn’t you see Aus take a scrum off them?
15 Sep 2008, 16:48 pm
#103 stodders: ur much worse stodders, u write big long paragraphs and speeches about how NZ are much better (even tho its clearly untrue)
15 Sep 2008, 16:48 pm
#103 stodders: you’d give Alistair Campbell or the NZ media a run for their money
15 Sep 2008, 16:50 pm
Nz do not have specialised robots on the field:
Locks that can only jump in the lineout, Props that can only scrum, flyhavles that can only pass and kick, centres that can only defend.
No, they have playmakers in every department: Hore, Williams, McCaw, Carter, Smith, Mils….
15 Sep 2008, 16:52 pm
#108 Namblack: hore and Williams are playmakers?
15 Sep 2008, 16:54 pm
#105 Big Hit:
Read post 108
15 Sep 2008, 16:54 pm
#106 Big Hit: I guess it depends who is reading the post at the time.
As for big, long paragraphs, haven’t you noticed how i’ve cut them down?
I save the big ones for reminding you that England are Scotland’s bunnies until the next 6N 
15 Sep 2008, 16:54 pm
Stodders
I agree with Steyn not being a 10. It just seems so silly to try at all costs to be something you can’t.
I can stand on my head and **** Walzing Mathilda through my nose and I could never be a 10, so what’s the use of trying.
Better to accept it and adapt to the idea of playing 15 and become a legend in his time, even with Percy having gone before him, and no one will complain if he kicks a drop goal like that every game. Hell, he can kick ten if he wants to.
15 Sep 2008, 16:55 pm
#108 Namblack: I have to say Namblack, classifying Hore and Williams as play makers is pushing it!
15 Sep 2008, 16:55 pm
Steyn should play 12, he was very good there at the weekend and in the world cup
15 Sep 2008, 17:05 pm
#113 stodders:
Ok maybe but you have to agree they usually contribute more than other teams would expect from their players.
For example i only see Victor Matfield lineout time.
15 Sep 2008, 17:06 pm
#17 grant10: Steyn at #10 is not the answer. He is too slow off the mark & indecisive. With his kicking abilities adding another dimension to the team then he needs to play but at #15 IMO.
15 Sep 2008, 17:10 pm
#114 Big Hit:
Steyn would not make an AB team. He is too individual and does not have the required speed to operate in a AB backline.
15 Sep 2008, 17:12 pm
#115 Namblack:
…and when shouting in the refs ear.
15 Sep 2008, 17:13 pm
#58 stodders: Good post Stodders, thoughtful as always.
15 Sep 2008, 17:19 pm
#71 Richie_7: I read frequently comments to the effect that the NZ squad is young/new. But when you actually look at their squad they had 12-13 well established test players playing.
15 Sep 2008, 17:52 pm
#117 Namblack: I think they would use him better
15 Sep 2008, 18:23 pm
pay them more money!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
15 Sep 2008, 18:36 pm
#76 grant10: So, when this “director of rugby” comes into his office every morning for 48 weeks a year, what — exactly — does he DO to earn his wage?
I put it to you that it’s a cosy sinecure. A well-paid job for a well-connected pal but one with no actual duty or responsibility.
A fat waste of money.
15 Sep 2008, 20:01 pm
#123 TheTackler: maybe you could take the job tackler
15 Sep 2008, 23:49 pm
#14 Disa:
Luck?
So does luck apply to RWCs as well?
16 Sep 2008, 00:03 am
#35 Puma:
Agree
we would have him in around the centres in no time and play him.He needs to be played with full games.Given the chance he will be an awesome player with games and experience under the belt.BUt of course i would prefer SA use him as they have been,every position and limted game time.
16 Sep 2008, 00:12 am
#65 Sheriff:
Sheriff.
A loss anywhere has an impact on us,but seriously i would rather lose one in NZ and win the tri nations.
But congratulatins with your last minute win in Dunedin.
16 Sep 2008, 00:22 am
#77 Big Hit:
What would you know about winning the tri nations and what it means to OZ, NZ and SA.
What does the 6 nations mean to England?
16 Sep 2008, 00:27 am
#111 stodders:
lol
Yep sure are,Scotland owns England.
16 Sep 2008, 00:30 am
#121 Big Hit:
Correct Big Hit.
I see the potential in Steyn.He is a good player and as i said in another thread,if he had game time at international lvl not come of the bench and one position he could work at(#12),just to get accustomed to it he will be awesome.
16 Sep 2008, 11:49 am
#79 Big Hit:
gee, some crystal ball youve got going there. The standard of rugby in the TriN is infinitely superior to anything the north has to offer. Every match can go either way in the TriN. Compare any match in the TriN to matches involving Ireland, Scotland, Italy and even the Grand Slam Wales, and the quality on show is chalk and cheese. Periodically England and France show quality but they are never truly tested under the ‘Autumn Internationals’ invloving the touring Sthern Hemisphere teams. The 6N is magnificent only for the history, the travel and the tribal rivalries. If its quality youre after then youre best to divert your eyes SOUTH.
21 Sep 2008, 01:01 am
Herein lies the lesson for any Springbok looking to continue a career in Europe, while still harbouring ambitions to play Test rugby: count the cost while you count the pounds and euros.
=======
Indeed. That applies to every SH player going north and being selected by his home country.
Pages: « 1 2 [3] Show All
Have your say
You must be logged in to post a comment.