Kings deserve Super Rugby
7 Mar 2012
MARK KEOHANE, writing in Business Day Sport Monthly, says the Eastern Cape franchise doesn’t need to justify its place in next year’s competition.
It never ceases to amaze me how often the South African Rugby Union gets it wrong. What should have been a monumental announcement – that the Kings would play in Super Rugby from 2013 – turned into a debate of uncertainty as to whether or not South Africa would lose a franchise or convince New Zealand and Australia to accommodate a sixth South African team.
The wizards at Saru once again want it both ways.
The Kings deserve to be in Super Rugby, purely by virtue of promises made to the South African government when bidding to host the 2011 and 2015 Rugby World Cups. This time there was no escape, but instead of fronting the situation and making a decision on who falls out, the clever guys went cap in hand to Australia and New Zealand pleading for the expansion of the tournament.
The layman argument that the Kings don’t deserve to be in the competition is flawed on so many levels, as well as being an incredibly ignorant view.
The Kings are as deserving as any team and the rugby public forgets that the Lions and Cheetahs hardly won for 10 years and when the two sides combined as the Cats the results were as diabolical. The Kings can’t be a greater embarrassment than the 17 successive Lions defeats, as just one statistic.
The rugby argument aside, the decision to accommodate the region is an ethical one because a promise was made.
To recap for those suffering amnesia, Saru only stood a chance of hosting the 2011 World Cup if the government gave a financial guarantee and an endorsement. It was at a time when the sports ministry was fed up with the lack of transformation and continued neglect of rugby in the Eastern Cape.
Saru’s representatives promised a new beginning for the region and invested nearly R12-million in forming the Southern Spears, arranging friendly matches and promoting the region’s entry into Super Rugby in 2011. Then South Africa botched the bid, New Zealand struck a deal with Ireland and the rugby authorities backtracked on their enthusiasm for the region.
There was apparently too much division between Border, Eastern Province and South Western Districts. There was misadministration, claims of corruption and the convenient decision was that there was no way Saru could invest further in an Eastern Cape Super Rugby region. Saru then paid nearly R10-million to close down the region.
Very little happened between World Cup bids and when word was that South Africa was a guarantee to host 2015, again the emotional carrot of the Eastern Cape was dangled. Again it fell flat when South Africa cocked up in Dublin.
Only this time things were changing in the Eastern Cape. Cheeky Watson had been elected president and he declared that they would get their house in order and would be competitive in 2013.
He signed former Stormers and Ulster coach Alan Solomons and EP went from being the bunny boys to Currie Cup First Division champions in 2010 and runners-up in 2011. Support for the promotion-relegation match exceeded 40 000 and there were very good crowds for pre-season friendlies against the existing Super Rugby franchises.
The Kings, playing without a team sponsor, hammered the Bulls in a 2011 warm-up but the win was dismissed as the Bulls fielded an inexperienced side. Either way the Kings would be damned.
But in Watson and Solomons they have two rugby men who won’t give up and are prepared to put in the hours. The Kings became competitive with a limited squad because without Saru confirming their entry into the competition in 2013 it was impossible to attract top players.
The aim, with moderate talent, was to get the interest and the public responded. When EP hosted a Springbok Test against the All Blacks in 2011 the match was a sellout.
The region is ready to play and those who use the team’s performances in the First Division as a yardstick miss the point that the bulk of the 2013 squad will be imported from other regions and overseas. Transformation will be a big part of the Kings, but what will make them a success story is if they win and not how many black players start each match.
Solomons initiated a campaign of keeping the players home and bringing them home, given there were more than 40 players born and schooled in the Eastern Cape playing elsewhere.
The argument that the Kings had to earn the right through the Currie Cup has no merit. The need to have the Eastern Cape as a stronghold and growth point in South African rugby takes priority.
It was a similar situation to when the Natal Rugby Union couldn’t win a place in the six-team Currie Cup A division in the amateur era. A compromise between Natal and the national governing body was to expand the Currie Cup to eight teams and accommodate the Banana Boys, as they were then called.
Critics of the Kings’ entry have short memories. Natal built and bought a potent team and within a decade became the leading province in South Africa. With the right people, finance and commitment anything is possible.
Saru should have announced officially two years ago that the Kings would play in 2013, but they held back in the hope of an expanded competition. In the end Sanzar forced a decision out of them.
The Kings are there and that should not be a debate. A promise has finally been honoured and the embarrassment is in how long it took Saru’s administration to confirm it all … not in what the Kings will produce in the competition.
– This article appears in the March issue of Business Day Sport Monthly, which is on sale now at selected outlets. The April issue will be distributed FREE with Business Day newspaper on Friday, 23 March.
225 Comments
Pages: « 1 2 [3] 4 5 » Show All
7 Mar 2012, 13:50 pm
@Tacitus(Deucalion)-98: It’s only silly because it contradicts your own defence.
How about this for honesty then:
The two games that the Cheetahs played this year averaged higher viewers than the 2 games that the Bulls played this year.
Fact or fiction?
7 Mar 2012, 13:51 pm
How much are you paid to write such trash Keo? You use your position to influence things, that much has been exposed even by your own big mouth. What of the best thing for South African rugby? Do you not realise that the Cheetahs are a very important part of South African rugby? If they disappear then this will affect our rugby significantly! The Kings will NEVER be successful at Super level. You say they deserve to be in the Super XV, yet they have lost EVERY game they’ve played! But hey, onwards we go with another media spin by Keo, and backing his chum Cheeky Kakson. You disgust me Keo. It’s filth like you that make South Africa what it is today. Always ready to brown-nose to suit yourself. You have no credibility, descency or character.
7 Mar 2012, 13:53 pm
What is going on with the site’s slowness? Is someone sitting on Vrede’s windpipe again?
7 Mar 2012, 13:54 pm
I’ll be reasonable though.
I will concede that the viewer stats support the notion that Saturday afternoon games are more popular than the Friday evening games.
So let’s see at the end of the season then who has the highest average over the season?
Deal?
7 Mar 2012, 13:54 pm
So, to summarize, maak die cheetahs almal kings and give cheeky the money.
7 Mar 2012, 13:55 pm
@Alucard(Alucard)-102:
“The Kings will NEVER be successful at Super level”
Funny, one could say the same about the Bulls a decade ago.
7 Mar 2012, 14:00 pm
@stormersboy(stormersboy)-104:
Hehe. “Reasonable?”
You mean, save yourself the embarressment of having that obvious fact pointed out to you, and thus destroying your ridiculous “Cheetahs have great support” argument.
And the Currie Cup article “proves your point”?
Julius Malema couldn’t make a better argument.
Best extract yourself from this one before you make a bigger fool of yourself.
7 Mar 2012, 14:04 pm
@Michael(mikeybrass)-106: The difference is that Bulls were not a political experiment. They were completely reconstructed by DEVELOPING structures. The Kings have NO emphasis on development. It’s just a typical handout. Remember seveal years ago the nonsense with funding from SARU disappearing? Keep dreaming buddy.
7 Mar 2012, 14:07 pm
@Tacitus(Deucalion)-107: You see, you are assuming that because I represent the facts, that this somehow makes me a fool in the debate.
Fact: The Stormers hold the top 2 slots for most viewers (so far)
There isn’t really an argument here.
You are coming up with all sorts of fanciful explanations for why this doesn’t mean that the Stormers are the most watched team thus far in the competition.
It’s like saying that Microsoft actually buys all of Apple’s products because they are afraid that the Microsoft customers may buy them.
Apple still sells the products.
And you are right, neither you nor Julius could make a better argument.
But my offer still stands.
I’ll even throw in a Steve Hoffmeyer CD on the bet.
Against a 20 song credit on itunes for me.
Think about it.
7 Mar 2012, 14:09 pm
@Michael(mikeybrass)-106:
Shouldn’t you be off deciphering some hyrohlyphs or something?
Rugby is so post-fall-of-the-Roman-Empire, you know.
Maybe in 1000 years or so you could write a dissertation on the fall, rise and fall again of the Mighty Elephants/Southern Spears/EP Kings.
Until then, Emperor Cheeky’s Machiavellian rule is way too raw for you to trouble yourself over it. And the dynasty is only in it’s first generation. King Luke hasn’t even succeeded the throne yet.
7 Mar 2012, 14:14 pm
@stormersboy(stormersboy)-109:
Ok. Not wasting my time on trying to provide the context of the stats to you.
The Stormers have the highest viewership so far. Well done.
And the Lions-Cheetahs game got 100 000 more viewers than the Bulls-Sharks game.
No need to provide context. All perfectly self explanatory…
For those in Slaapstad, it seems.
7 Mar 2012, 14:20 pm
@Michael(mikeybrass)-106: The difference is that the Bulls were an historically strong franchise at a low ebb. The Kings, or their predecessors, never have been. A better comparison would be with the sharks who took a century to win the Currie Cup. Now in the professional age it is all about the quality of the organisation. I hate to agree with Alucard, because his position is usually the opposite of mine in every regard, but I think he is right on this one.
By the way listen to Tac. Anyone whose nic is 2000 years old knows all about dusty old fossils.
7 Mar 2012, 14:24 pm
@Tacitus(Deucalion)-110:
shouldnt it be prince luke then..?..
7 Mar 2012, 14:30 pm
@line break(line break)-39: “No real players came thru to the Springbok ranks….”
You dont follow a lot of rugby, do you? Here is a list of a few recent Springbok players from Bloem
Hendro Scholtz, Freidrich Lombard, CJ van der Linde, Juan Smith, Gerrie Britz, Hanyani Shimange, Michael Claassens, Gurthro Steenkamp, Meyer Bosman, Bevin Fortuin, Kabamba Floors, Jannie du Plessis, Biscmark du Plessis, Barend Pieterse, Adriaan Strauss, Jongi Nokwe, Heinrich Brussow, Wian du Preez, Coenie Oosthuizen, Ashley Johnson.
7 Mar 2012, 14:33 pm
Thank you. But I feel as if I owe you an apolgy. You see, you obviously thought that my posting of facts was subject to you agreeing with them.
I’m sorry if I gave you that idea.
My bad.
7 Mar 2012, 14:38 pm
@stormersboy(stormersboy)-115:
hehehe
very funny
7 Mar 2012, 14:40 pm
@Michael(mikeybrass)-106: Even when the Bulls were at their lowest they produced a few Springboks and were competetive in the Currie Cup. How do you want to compare that to a team that cant win the First Division?
7 Mar 2012, 14:52 pm
@stormersboy(stormersboy)-115:
That the best you can do?
There are of course many quotes relating to the use of statistics out of context. One that applies in this case particularly is:
“An unsophisticated forecaster uses statistics as a drunken man uses lamp-posts – for support rather than for illumination.”
Stormersboy FACT:
The Cheetahs vs Lions draw 100 000 more TV viewers than the Sharks vs Bulls.
7 Mar 2012, 14:56 pm
Bit of a d ick-swinging contest going on about who has the most viewers? You can tell it’s a Wednesday
7 Mar 2012, 14:57 pm
@Alucard(Alucard)-102: Disagree – they have been highly successful at cricket and so can they be in rugby. Rugby supporters in the Eastern Cape deserve some top rugby. Your prejudice seems to lie with Watson. So what if the OFS or any other province lose their S15 status based on performance. A promise has been made and if anything it is not Keo’s ethics that needs to be questioned but rather SARU. If you are really concerned about developing the game in this country then I suggest you get behind the Kings. I’m proud to say I grew up in the Eastern Cape & I know what their sport means to them. Since living in CT for many years I am a fanatical Stormers supporter but if we went out at the end of the season then so be it.
7 Mar 2012, 14:59 pm
@Atreides(Atreides)-119:
I’m out of time, so can’t swing along any further, for the time being.
Just helping some of the less fortunate to broaden their understanding. But those who don’t want to understand, well,
“Jy kan n perd water toe lei, maar jy kan hom nie maak drink nie.”
7 Mar 2012, 15:00 pm
@Atreides(Atreides)-119: Apparently it si not just about numbers. They want the waistlines of their supporters to be taken into consideration as well.
7 Mar 2012, 15:04 pm
@Alucard(Alucard)-108: Right, I guess the structures being set up by Cheeky and Solomon independently are figments of their imagination.
7 Mar 2012, 15:04 pm
Bulls viewership numbers are only so high because the Pater Familias forces the whole family, including infants and in-laws, to watch from start to finish, including build-up and interview.
7 Mar 2012, 15:06 pm
@Tacitus(Deucalion)-118: No actually it’s not the best I can do.
You see, when I feel that someone isn’t convinced my may arguments, there is a point where i can just say “Tacitus won’t see it my way, in spite of my best efforts”.
I can live with that.
What I haven’t done is resort to cheap ad hominum attacks like you have:
“Slaapstad”
“a bigger fool out of (my)self”
“Julius Malema”
“What a silly statement….”
“Try to be honest in your debating style…”
If anything about this debate has been disappointing, it just that you “went” there.
The facts are not in dispute. Get over it. I put forward facts, you counter with conjecture.
Found those 2011 Super Rugby viewer stats yet?
Still waiting to eat my words.
7 Mar 2012, 15:06 pm
@Tacitus(Deucalion)-110: That’s hyroglyphics to you buddy
Funny, guess you don’t like being reminded of the days your lot were the whipping boys of the Super.
7 Mar 2012, 15:06 pm
*sigh*
if only the lions could do half as much with their prides…
7 Mar 2012, 15:06 pm
@>^..^< katman(katman)-124:
Indeed.
Quite right.
In the immortal words of king luke.
I PAY I ORDER.
7 Mar 2012, 15:08 pm
@the artist formerly known as gunther(gunther)-128:
7 Mar 2012, 15:08 pm
@Horing(Horing)-117: don’t be disingenous, if the Bulls were excluded from Super rugby for 6 years how do you think they’d be able to even attract the talent they do now?
7 Mar 2012, 15:08 pm
@stormer in a teacup(stormer in a teacup)-112: The bottom line is the Bulls were getting their arses whipped consistently. One cannot use the argument of no results as a consequence when it happens to suit their supporters.
7 Mar 2012, 15:10 pm
@Transformation(Transformation)-130:
I thought you were taking light industrial action?
7 Mar 2012, 15:10 pm
@Transformation(Transformation)-130: Exactly.
Anyways, it wasn’t exactly hard to be a Bok in Viljoen’s days.
How soon people forget that the Eastern Cape made the Super competition one year.
Context is king.
Kings for Super
7 Mar 2012, 15:10 pm
@the artist formerly known as gunther(gunther)-132: The Bulls know all about light in their away jersey *giggles*
7 Mar 2012, 15:13 pm
@Michael(mikeybrass)-131: True, the Bulls did set new records for Super Kakness, but they pulled themselves around. Nobody else did it for them. If the Kings can even surpass Griquas there may be something to work with. Until then….
7 Mar 2012, 15:14 pm
@Transformation(Transformation)-130: Done marching? Did you impress Tony E with your bin tipping skills? I’m ambivalent on the labour brokering business, but I’ve got your back on the e-tolling. Amandla.
7 Mar 2012, 15:15 pm
@Michael(mikeybrass)-133: Wow, I have forgotten. What year was that?
7 Mar 2012, 15:16 pm
@Michael(mikeybrass)-123: don’t waste your breath mikey, nothing you say will change the minds of some of the okes here. if it involves cheeky watson the reactionaries dig their heels in.
7 Mar 2012, 15:19 pm
@Michael(mikeybrass)-134:
if you are going to giggle.
then make sure you have something to giggle about.
*mikey*
7 Mar 2012, 15:20 pm
@the artist formerly known as gunther(gunther)-132: me?
i allowed my sub-ordinates to go, that’s my contribution to the struggle of the working class.
7 Mar 2012, 15:20 pm
@the artist formerly known as gunther(gunther)-139: Unless you’ve just hit the bong. Then the odd unprovoked giggle is 100% acceptable.
7 Mar 2012, 15:23 pm
When Nelie Smith coached EP a few seasons ago, EP regularly beat teams like the cheetahs, Bulls, Province and the Sharks …. then A Coetzee took over and EP fell to 14th in the Currie Cup …. so actually A Coetzee f*cked up EP Rugby and therefor the Stormers should drop out of Super Rugby! farking quota coaches!
7 Mar 2012, 15:24 pm
@Michael(mikeybrass)-131:
sometimes you talk kak micheal and sometimes you don’t. i would like to determine whether tihis is one or the other of such times. so then, please qualify your statement when you say the bulls were ‘getting their arses whipped cconsistently’.
please give a more specific definition to the term ‘getting one’s arse whipped consistently’..?
is it by number of losses?
or number of log placings over time?
does it derive its value by a relative comparison to other teams and their historical experience of whipping or non-whipping?
because i think this might be one time where you are talking more kaka than less….
7 Mar 2012, 15:27 pm
@stormer in a teacup(stormer in a teacup)-135: Griquas who make up half of the Cheetahs Super Rugby squad? do you think the likes of Riaan Viljoen, Sarel Pretorius, Raubenheimer, Barry Geel, Naas Olivier etc if there was no promise of Super rugby game time or salaries?
7 Mar 2012, 15:27 pm
@stormer in a teacup(stormer in a teacup)-137:
super 10 in 1994
7 Mar 2012, 15:28 pm
Besides hot air and preconceived prejudice, none of you sods have said anything worthwhile to counter Keo’s argument.
7 Mar 2012, 15:29 pm
@stormer in a teacup(stormer in a teacup)-137:
played 4, lost 4, zero bonus points, zero log points….
7 Mar 2012, 15:31 pm
@welcome to my life, hugh…(i_love_u_bakkiesbotha)-147: Cheers.
7 Mar 2012, 15:39 pm
@stormersboy(stormersboy)-125:
See, your holier-than-thou attitude would come across a bit more believably if you hadn’t started it all off with this little gem:
Start Quote:
“Guess which 2 games had the highest viewership??
You guessed it. Both Stormers games.
So I don’t want to hear another word about Sharks this and Bulls that as far as “brand” and most supporters” go. As usual, talking out of your arse.”
End Quote
So far from just presenting the facts, and letting people draw their own conclusions from it, as you are trying to portray your efforts now, you in truth went and interpreted the “facts” in your own special way, using them:
” as a drunken man uses lamp-posts – for support rather than for illumination”
To draw conclusions from stats, context and interpretation is required. Sadly, you chose to look at the figures in isolation, because it supported your the argument you wanted to make. And as soon as you did that so eloquently in your original post, you went beyond just posting the facts, thus opening yourself up to correction.
So can the feigned outrage and take it like a man.
7 Mar 2012, 15:39 pm
@welcome to my life, hugh…(i_love_u_bakkiesbotha)-143:
Pos Name Pld W D L F A +/- BP Pts
12 Bulls 11 0 0 11 232 500 -268 1 1
The Bulls were considered one of the worst teams in the Super 14 competition, finishing last or second to last for five consecutive seasons from 1998-2003. In 2002, they became the first team ever to go through an entire Super Rugby season without winning a single game.
Pages: « 1 2 [3] 4 5 » Show All
Have your say
You must be logged in to post a comment.