Boks ‘on a knife edge’
26 Oct 2009
Tim Noakes believes the Boks will have a nightmare 2010 if leading players aren’t rested for the upcoming end-of-year tour.
The likes of John Smit, Bakkies Botha, Victor Matfield and Fourie du Preez are all expected to play against France and Ireland – the two biggest games of the tour – but Noakes says they are in desperate need of a break and should be left at home to recuperate.
‘It was clear in the Currie Cup semi-finals that the Springboks are tired and they are pacing themselves,’ Noakes told Business Day. ‘Either they should be left at home to rest or a deal has to be made with the Super 14 coaches that these guys only participate in the series after the third or fourth round.’
Noakes said the top Boks needed an eight-week break or else the side would suffer in 2010.
‘The team is on a knife edge. Next year will be one of the worst seasons in Springbok rugby unless something is done about the year-end tour. We will get smacked in the Tri-Nations and the domestic tour. The same can be said for the Super 14. The Bulls will not win the competition next year if their Boks go on tour and the Sharks will have a poor season.’
Noakes recommended taking the top Currie Cup players on the end-of-year tour as they are ‘hungry to play’.
119 Comments
Pages: « 1 2 [3] Show All
27 Oct 2009, 10:10 am
#97 GrantsBatty: Bryan Habana, Wynand Olivier, Morne Stey, Fourie Du Preez, Pierre Spies, Bakkies Botha, Victor Matfield.
These guys went straight from winning the S14 to winning the TriNations to wrapping up the Currie Cup, including semis and finals. That’s half the Bok starting line-up (not two-minute bench players).
Add to this Smith and Brussouw from the Cheetahs – also starting 15.
Cab asked you how many Chiefs players feature in the AB starting 15 and who contested the NPC finals – which is, of course, the most relevant information if we are to compare workload – and you conveniently skirted the issue.
Seems to me you just like being argumentative, whether you have a point or not.
27 Oct 2009, 10:25 am
#100 sglazer:
No, but you brought up lots of things we werent discussing. It was primarily about no’s of games they were playing, yet you bring up travel ?!
Fact remains is that you cant put down the record betw NZ – SA on the ‘travel disadvantage’ because the distance between those countries is the SAME, and each have had the SAME no of home/away matches. So thats no excuse, never has been.
What we were discussing was this article inferring that the Boks will be at a disadvantage next season because theyre playing more games than their rivals on this NH tour. Well, theyre not. Theyre playing less matches.
It seems SA is always desperate, whether its travel or refs or citings, to suggest theyve got it harder than any other team, achieving against all other factors that other teams dont. Well, thats wrong isnt it. In fact there are strong suggestions to say the opposite. For eg this citing problem. A Leinster player was banned for 12 weeks this month for eye-gouging (and it didnt look bad to be honest). He got 12 weeks. The Munster player, Quinlan, was found guilty last season for the same offence and missed the Lions tour. He got 12 weeks too. What did Schalk Burger get ? 8 weeks….
27 Oct 2009, 10:45 am
#101 katman:
the ‘point’ is this article suggests SA players are playing MORE games than the other TriN teams. Theyre not. The Springboks play 3 matches on their NH tour. The Wallabies play 4. The All Blacks play 6 ! The Boks will be on holiday for 2-3 weeks before the ABs have even finished.
So whatever argument you throw out there, whether it is 1 more TriN match or 1 more Currie Cup match – involving SOME players – by comparison the ABs play 3 more Tests, involving ALL their players. So maybe, if we can be generous, we can say they play the same.
But SA players playing more ???? NO.
27 Oct 2009, 11:02 am
#103 GrantsBatty: No, the article suggests that “leading players” should be rested for the upcoming end-of-year tour.
See the list in my post above? Those guys plus the likes of John Smit are the players in question.
And this is the opinion of Professor Noakes. Do you guys have professors?
27 Oct 2009, 12:29 pm
#104 katman:
All International players are ‘leading players’.
Besides, Smit – listed here – didnt play a S14 Semi or Final whereas 3 Kiwi teams were involved. McCaw did, however. Smit will not be invovled in the CC Final either.
We call our Professors ‘Professor’, not a ‘Tim’. Maybe that is simpler to say when they hand out qualifications like milk tokens.
No wonder when articles like this are based on such a false and misleading premise.
27 Oct 2009, 12:47 pm
#105 GrantsBatty: No, by “leading players” I think our esteemed professor refers to the stalwarts who really put their bodies on the line, week in and week out, to ensure that trophies such as the World Cup, Tri-Nations and Super14 go home with them.
I think that rules most of your lot out.
27 Oct 2009, 12:52 pm
#106 katman:
I’ll take the immature & embarrassing response as a clear indication that you know youre wrong. Thanks.
27 Oct 2009, 13:05 pm
#107 GrantsBatty: Oops, was that a little nerve I hit? Or are you just naturally catty?
27 Oct 2009, 21:34 pm
#102 GrantsBatty:
No disrespect or argument intended on my end.
I was clarifying the disadvantage SA have in the Tri-Nations and Super 14, a disadvantage that NZ’s own captain raised earlier this year.
The article is about the need for SA’s leading players to be rested. The extra travel they do, which is factual, not debatable, is part of the reason why they need to be rested.
28 Oct 2009, 05:25 am
#102 GrantsBatty:
One more thing: it’s inaccurate to think that, in a three-way competition that favors two of the competitors who are close to each other geographically, travel is not a factor between the third competitor and one of the other two, its arch-rival.
28 Oct 2009, 13:16 pm
#110 sglazer:
The travel factor is relevant in the S14 only, I agree that in the past the SA teams did more travel. I dont think its an excuse tho in itself because NZ teams have had some success in SA and less so vice versa. The new Conference system will eliminate much of that disadvantage tho.
I dont think the TriN is as relevant. I didnt hear too many Safas note the fact the ABs had to travel to Bloem, at altitude, – incl 4 different flights – within 6 days of a Test in Auckland. The fact that SA has struggled for wins in NZ over the history of the competition, whereas NZ has posted many wins in SA, has absolutely no bearing on travel as the distances/travel are exactly the same.
Instead of always pointing to travel or citings or refs or…it would be nice for Safas to acknowledge the opposition was simply better at the time, as NZ did this year. The Springboks had a tailor-made itinerary this year but, strangely, made no mention of that. The ABs had a tough itinerary but made no mention of it let alone some outrageous ref decisions.
Anyway, that is off topic. The premise of this article seems to be all about getting the excuses in early for the 2010 season. And yet its based on Springboks playing more games on the NH tour than Aus and NZ. Whereas, in fact, they play less than both.
Same old same old.
28 Oct 2009, 15:55 pm
#111 GrantsBatty:
Travel has not been exactly the same. It’s been very different. Even Mils said as much earlier this year. Are you saying he’s wrong?
SA is playing against NZ and Australia, who are neighbors. Again, imagine if NZ was competing against SA and Madagascar. Clearly, NZ would be at a disadvantage.
Competitions are meant to have level playing fields so the relevant strengths of the teams can be compared. These competitions do not. NZ and Australia just fly across the Tasman Sea when they play each other.
It’s obvious. Everyone knows it.
29 Oct 2009, 01:09 am
#112 sglazer:
No matter how you dress it up, it does not account for the records between 2 nations. The distances are exactly the same. That is ‘not debateable’. Travel can not and never can be used as an excuse between NZ and SA. Altho, it wont stop you.
29 Oct 2009, 04:14 am
#113 GrantsBatty:
All I can say at this stage is that you have it wrong. The factual position is there for you to discover whenever you’re willing. I wish you well.
29 Oct 2009, 10:48 am
#114 sglazer:
It seems that as long as you have a readymade excuse to apply in the future when your teams lose, and disapply when they win, then you’ll be a happy man. It has always been thus.
30 Oct 2009, 20:42 pm
#115 GrantsBatty:
With respect, I don’t know you. So I don’t understand how you have the audacity and arrogance to say “it has always been thus”. That you would say this, lowers my perception of you, and I imagine others reading along as well.
On the excuse point that you keep making, this means that Mils Muliana also has it wrong. This doesn’t make sense.
31 Oct 2009, 02:09 am
#116 sglazer:
No more or less arrogant than repeating things here that are ‘not debatable’ or that NZs record against SA was solely down to these ‘not debatable’ points that ‘everyone knows’. Funnily, I thought blogs were exactly for that, debating.
Damn arrogant talk that. That you would say that, lowered my perception of you.
2 Nov 2009, 08:06 am
which is why sa doesn’t have depth because we aren’t resting our players
3 Nov 2009, 16:48 pm
#116 sglazer:
#118 Dunx:
Im not sure the lineup for this weeks match vs Leicester fully supports that; I cant see 1 Test Bok in the match 22. Gee, ‘Prof’ Noakes, looks like your boys are getting that rest after all….
Pages: « 1 2 [3] Show All
Have your say
You must be logged in to post a comment.