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, 12:08 pm
48:TOWN
Soccer and rugby are totaly difrent … Like Golf and Boxing …
You can play many more tours than you can have top notch boxing fights if your a champion boxer
You dont get rammed up, shoved, tackle, ruck , maul, lift pass, run, scrum, kick as much in soccer … which is tough , but can you tell me Beckham is tougher than Frans Steyn ..?
15 Sep 2008, 12:11 pm
#49 Sheriff:
Sheriff, Boks are best based on what criteria?
The Boks were the best team at the world cup. Why? Because they won the trophy.
The ABs are the best team in this years 3N. Why? Because they won the trophy.
There’s not alot between the three teams, but the ABs have their noses in front once again. All teams lost at least once at home. The ABs had to win twice away from home to secure the trophy. That proved to be the difference in the end.
15 Sep 2008, 12:15 pm
#39 petoors: Because the Aussies were already on the plane. Thing is the schedule is always used as an excuse.If it was fair, then the SARU people and coaching staff would have nothing to hide behind. No “we were tired” and “unfair schedule” just “kak coaching and playing”
15 Sep 2008, 12:17 pm
#4 Big Hit:
Who cares about last week? It’s in the past. All that matters is the present. James was the match winner then, but he lost Bath the match this week. You could see the confidence of the forwards visibly ebbing away as he pushed yet another kick wide of the posts. Steve Meehan should have got Berne kicking after Butch missed his third penalty. You could see he wasn’t mentally able to kick for the posts after that.
Btw, I thought Wayen Barnes gave an “interesting” performance in the match. Both teams were mystified by his rulings at times during the game. I remember seeing James at one point just looking at him in absolute disbelief after he had called the ball out at a ruck and then penalising Bath instantaneously for something few, if anyone, could see.
Wilkinson looked good for Newcastle. Nice to see him back.
And the “best team in Europe” who you think would beat the Crusaders were sunk, at home, by Worcester. Tough times at Adams Park.
15 Sep 2008, 12:18 pm
#52 stodders:
Based on what I saw on Saturday, the Boks are still the best. They did not play to their full potential.
So at 15 Sep 2008 the Boks are the best in my view.
15 Sep 2008, 12:18 pm
#50 stodders:
Good day Stodders.
I agree that he is tactically naive still.
His downfall, ( if at all ) will be as a result of coaches not being able to mould his talent.
There is a certain something that you find in very special players that he posesses.
It is an X factor, that is hard to define.
He has been moved around a lot and has made a lot of mistakes, but he is only a kid still, and yet has had a lot of exposure at top level.
I have yet to meet an ex Bok or provincial player who does not recognize this special something about him.
As I say, he requires management and mentorship.
15 Sep 2008, 12:19 pm
#47 TOWNIAN: Because football players don’t suffer the effects of what amounts to two or three car crashes in their matches.
Although, if you watch them rolling around in agony as a gust of wind displaces their hair, you would think they have been felled by a sledgehammer. Pansies
15 Sep 2008, 12:36 pm
#55 Sheriff:
That’s a bit silly don’t you think? The Boks had 6 games against the best in the SH to show they could perform at a consistently high level. They managed it twice. That doesn’t suggest to me that the Boks are the best.
If you want to say they have the most talented group of underachieving players, I wouldn’t disagree with you
Do they have talent? Yes, to a degree. Are they currently overhyped and overrated. Yes.
Question is, why did the Boks not play to their potential? With so much talent in the squad, some on here said that all they needed to do was pitch up in this years 3N to claim the spoils.
Shall we blame the coach? Some of the Boks woes can be blamed on him, but not all. This whole argument about him sacrificing structure was b*llshit IMO. I believe he asked his players to respect the basics, but also to play outside their comfort zone in making decisions on the pitch as play unfolded in front of them. They tried, and they were found to be lacking in this aspect.
IMO, the Boks wilted a little under the pressure that the tag of being world cup holders brought with it. When things went right, they were nigh on unstoppable. When things went wrong, they looked like 15 strangers thrown together on match day.
The Boks have the best set of rugby robots in the world. Keo wrote a whole article about this, which I agree with. Few teams, if any, can stick to a set gameplan like your lads can.
None of the ABs, Boks or Wallabies are great teams currently. They are quite good, and I believe have done enough to show that the NH teams will find it hard to beat them in November once again. But the Boks are not THAT good, and the rest are not THAT average. The truth lies somewhere in the middle.
15 Sep 2008, 12:36 pm
#57 stodders: Man I had a good laugh at that one. Damn right those footballers just fall to the ground like some damn car ran into them. Nothing like the rugga guys take week in week out.
15 Sep 2008, 12:58 pm
#58 stodders:
With the RWC safe in our rugby admin offices, we can afford to take a year to redefine ourselves.
We earned that right for ourselves.
It’s a new era for the Boks, really.
15 Sep 2008, 13:01 pm
#60 Sheriff: era, or error
15 Sep 2008, 13:05 pm
#58 stodders:
Very good post.
15 Sep 2008, 13:06 pm
#60 Sheriff: Sheriff, It’s not as if this year was a big surprise or any different to the majority of the 3Ns played out over the years.
It was tight once again, with the ABs coming out on top in the end. I think that has happened 9 times out of 13 now, hasn’t it? I’d say this year was consistent with the 3N historical trend. Just like the ABs fluffing their lines in world cups is consistent with the World Cup historical trends.
The Boks are better at winning world cups than the ABs, but the ABs are quite clearly better than the Boks and Wallabies in winning the premier SH international series.
15 Sep 2008, 13:12 pm
as far as a replacement goes, if you look at giteau/carter those guys can break tackles and walk through opponents – isnt pienaar the only possible replacement to do that?
15 Sep 2008, 13:31 pm
#63 stodders:
They better buckle up for 2009.
The Boks have redefined themselves and the new philosophy is beginning to take shape. Forget the structure debate. Rubbish.
There will be new goals in 2009; in 2008 we could only go one way and that is down.
But we managed to impact the NZ economy with that win at the House of Pain.
We hurt them big time there.
15 Sep 2008, 13:35 pm
Ek nie meer honger nie!
15 Sep 2008, 13:37 pm
#32 sharks_lover:
I am not always the biggest believer in Steyn simply because he doesn’t play with the team for large patches, Saturday was an example where he did and came off brilliantly. If you look, 9 times out of 10 he would have tried to hold onto the ball rather than pass to Carstens but he did and we scored and that was that.
If I was the coach of the Sharks I’d have Steyn shadow Michalak at training so that he can learn from him. After all, Michalak and Steyn both started out very early for their province/club and internationally, so Steyn should use this opportunity to learn from someone who has been through it and use that to advance his cause to play flyhalf.
Then with Pienaar at 9 and Steyn at 10, we’ll have a combination that Aus used to have with Gregan and Larkham.
15 Sep 2008, 13:43 pm
Ryan, it has to be said though that we aren’t exactly the masters of player management either. Players going overseas to get more money is simply a fact of life, yet Saru have done very little in adapting to that. If we continue to have the attitude that you go overseas at your own peril, then talented players will simply be leaving at a tender age and turning their backs on a possible Springbok selection. They’ll be making themselves available for England or France or any other major European rugby nation should they qualify.
Playing overseas should be viewed as an added advantage to our players. Provided we make sure that our most likely future stars can only play international rugby for us, it should be encouraged to go and play overseas under different conditions. Sevens rugby can actually become worthwhile in this respect. Our most promising juniors and fringe players can be drafted in for a year or more in Sevens, thus ensuring representing the Springboks only as an international side.
Despite not having played under the ELV’s, I also don’t think it was necessary to play Butch against Wales or Argentina. We don’t have proper back-up at flyhalf, so this was the best opportunity to test a new player and give Butch a rest at the same time.
We need a qualified, experienced director of rugby to oversee all this and not a politically chosen one.
15 Sep 2008, 14:07 pm
#65 Sheriff: What about the rest of 2008? Methinks you are thinking too far ahead. There are tests to be won on the NH tour in November, and markers to be laid down there.
If the Boks are to lay down a clear marker that they can perform at a consistently high standard and show that they are on the right track, they must, I repeat must, win all of their test matches in November against Wales, Scotland and England. Anything less will result in a psychological wobble theat Bok teams in the past have struggled to contend with. and heading into Lions tour year, this could be costly.
It is up to the Boks to show that they have learned the lessons of this years 3N and start showing they are a team capable of consistently good performances rather thana maverick capable only of blowing hot one day and cold the next.
15 Sep 2008, 14:31 pm
#47 TOWNIAN: WHAT!!!!???? Comparing soccer to rugby??? OMG…soccer bunch of poofs that collapse when touched by a mosquito…
15 Sep 2008, 14:33 pm
#65 Sheriff:
LOL
SA ended off a lousy season by klapping Aus. In the process the coach managed to keep his job and thus you can expect more of the same with regards to gameplan. 2009 is still a long way ahead; there’s still a NH tour with some must-wins.
And just as the Boks got to settle, so did Aus under a new coach and NZ with a new squad having lost many players to the NH. So tight season in 2009, but defnitely not a walk in the park for anyone
15 Sep 2008, 14:46 pm
#29 TheTackler: Congrats on you team’s win!
The dices are loaded against us, the AB’s & Wallabies just travel across the Tasmin sea to play each other, about a 3 hour flight! then they have a max of 3 away games, not 5 like in some instances with the saffa franchises
Still no excuse, but the boks and SA s14 teans always suck the hind ***!
15 Sep 2008, 14:50 pm
#72 Tisme: meant 3 away games on a trot vs 5 (sa teams)
15 Sep 2008, 14:54 pm
Some of these posts are way too confident about 2009 and specifically the Lions tour. MaGeechan is no fool and his management team are streaks ahead of ours. The Lions are determined to win this series having lost the previous two quite badly.
15 Sep 2008, 14:59 pm
#31 tight head: He knows how to buy players…
15 Sep 2008, 14:59 pm
#74 superbok: 2009 may be a disaster if we dont get our internal act together. No clarity of purpose,gameplan or discipline. No, i believe lots of tears to flow next year. Get a powerful Director Of Rugby or face the consequences SA .
15 Sep 2008, 15:02 pm
#16 THE MAULER: I agree, winning the 3N is like winning the Copa America, winning the World Cup is winning the World Cup, you’re world champion.
15 Sep 2008, 15:04 pm
#58 stodders: sorry stodders, SA were compromised in this 3N by a change of coach and gameplan, this wasn’t the World Cup team at their best. Indeed, for most of the tournament it was a confused looking bunch. Henry got out of jail.
15 Sep 2008, 15:06 pm
#69 stodders: So must the ABs and I have to say I don’t see them doing it. They looked poor at times in this 3N and were lucky to get past Aus. Had Berrick Barnes been playing and Elsom not had the illness it would’ve been a different story.
15 Sep 2008, 15:06 pm
#70 MightyQuin: If you look at the English Premier League those guys take a battering at times ,and looking at stats during the Champions League the average footballer cover about 13km per game playing two games per week mostly thats a half marathon per week and getting your shins bashed in at the same time
15 Sep 2008, 15:09 pm
#80 TOWNIAN: they wouldn’t last 5 minutes in a rugby match. true story
15 Sep 2008, 15:13 pm
#81 Big Hit: but some of those fat mamparas (Dunning and co comes to mind) wont last five minutes in football
15 Sep 2008, 15:13 pm
#82 TOWNIAN: Dunning could play in goals
15 Sep 2008, 15:18 pm
#81 Big Hit:
A few rugby players wouldn’t last an entire football mach either. What’s your point?
15 Sep 2008, 15:18 pm
#84 Richie_7:
match*
15 Sep 2008, 15:22 pm
#82 TOWNIAN: Who cares. Some play football, some play rugby and some play for WP. Life is full of choices..
15 Sep 2008, 15:24 pm
#84 Richie_7: thats already been said, why are you repeating other people’s posts?
15 Sep 2008, 15:25 pm
#87 Big Hit:
I asked you a question. What’s your point?
15 Sep 2008, 15:34 pm
#88 Richie_7: point is the burnout factor is much bigger in rugby union than it is in football, for as well as being athletically challenging players also endure massive collisons in every game. moreover rugby union has the highest injury turnover rate of any sport.
thats my point.
15 Sep 2008, 15:38 pm
#75 Ed_the_Lion:
That is part of being a great coach in the era of professionalism.
Professional rugby means just that.
Buying the best coaches, administrators, players, medical people and so on and so on.
The Sharks franchise is a well run business where only the best will do.
When will SA rugby grow up and realize this.
15 Sep 2008, 15:53 pm
LOL
finally an article by Ryan I agree with.
Butch James..cry me a river bru..********
15 Sep 2008, 15:59 pm
#89 Big Hit:
Actually amongst kids the sport with the highest injury rate happened to be cross country running. No contact/collisions involved. Once again it was down to fitness; which then is safe to assume that the fitter you are the least likely you are to get injured – even in rugby. When players get tired they start dragging arse around the field, and their clumsiness leads to further injuries.
But I get your point
15 Sep 2008, 16:01 pm
#90 tight head: You are so right, especially your last comment/question.
IMO things will get uglier unless we sort out the cr* p at management and coaching levels. In 2009 AB’s & Aus will relatively to us, have settled squads, respected coaching continuity in respect of balanced game plans with full buy-in from all links in the chain. They will also be in the enviable position of being able to focus solely on winning rugby games (a professional approach) without all the negative distractions that our game has to endure.
They will have certainty about who their key players (eg 10’s) are, what game plan suits their strengths and that the new nuances required by the rules do NOT mean committing only one or two players at the breakdown, and playing without the ball as a consequence, etc.
The big question is whether our last game reflected acceptance of the fact that “flair, play what’s in front of you, stay on your feet and offload in the tackle, etc” needs to be built on the solid foundations of acquiring and retaining possession, and playing for position before pulling the trigger. That is one of the big questions. The question about being able to focus solely on winning rugby games, will hang in the air as no immediate solution is in sight.
15 Sep 2008, 16:04 pm
Pool code: ploppalm
Pool name: Desert League
15 Sep 2008, 16:05 pm
Anyone want to play Champions League Superbru:
Pool code: ploppalm
Pool name: Desert League
15 Sep 2008, 16:09 pm
#78 Big Hit:
#79 Big Hit:
Lot’s of excuses in there Big Hit as to why SA were poor this year. Maybe, just maybe, they aren’t as good as some would believe? It wouldn’t be the first time.
As to your individual arguments:
1. SA had a new coach. So did Oz.
2. SA had a new gameplan. So did Oz.
SA still had the nucleus of the side that won the world cup at their disposal and their old experienced heads by and large (Os Du Randt and John Smit the notable exceptions). Oz had lost a huge amount of experience with Larkham, Latham and Gregan retiring.
Tell me again, who won the head to head between these two teams over the 3N? Who performed more consistently?
As for the litany of excuses in your posts as to why NZ wouldn’t have won if things had been different (if, if , if…), they could only beat what was in front of them. They did it with a weakened squad (due to their own policy on not selecting overseas players it has to be noted) and a country divided by the re-selection of the coach that saw them exit the last world cup at the QF stages. They had their own issues to deal with, as did SA and as did Oz. They won, the others fell short. That’s sport.
15 Sep 2008, 16:17 pm
#90 tight head: It is so good that some people will try and justify this.
15 Sep 2008, 16:22 pm
#93 SA Barbarians:
Yes.
One thing I know from experience is that success starts and ends at the top of the organization.
Whether it is a big S14 franchise or just the local club, it is all about the strength of the administration, and as a result of that, the coaching as well.
If you have sub standard, or incompetent management, then your chances of progress are slim.
At the top of the professional game, you cannot survive without the best management.
It is as simple as that.
On field problems very often reflect the administration weaknesses.
15 Sep 2008, 16:30 pm
#96 stodders: stodders you know in your heart of hearts that SA had to embrace a totally different mindset this year, it wasn’t White’s world cup team, it was SA trying to play Aussie rugby. Maybe it’ll come good. Congratulations to NZ, they won the 3N but I don’t think this tells us much at all really.
15 Sep 2008, 16:31 pm
#99 Big Hit: oh and the ELVs (many of which will be dropped) complicate the position still further
Pages: « 1 [2] 3 » Show All
Have your say
You must be logged in to post a comment.