Habana’s quality shines through
19 Mar 2012
MARK KEOHANE, in his weekly Business Day column, says Bryan Habana’s performance against the Blues proved that he still has what it takes to match the young brigade.
In a Super Rugby season that is already giving an indication of the next generation of southern hemisphere stars, there were a few veterans who reminded us this weekend their effect and enthusiasm remain as important to the fabric of the tournament.
Bryan Habana, irresistible at the 2007 World Cup and quite the opposite last year, finally got the kind bounce of the ball that seemed his birthright in 2007.
Habana again emphasised the argument that a kick for territory is only as good as the chase. Habana refused to give up on a kick that seemed innocuous and the sprint produced a try for the Stormers and Springbok winger, and one hopes also a reprieve from those who refuse to accept Habana can still make a contribution internationally. Few players can match Habana for dedication and desire, and the support he gets from current and past team-mates says everything about his qualities as a player.
He will never repeat the tournament form that helped the Springboks win the World Cup in 2007. The brilliance of those seven magnificent weeks blinded too many, myself included. When a player sets a standard as Habana did in France, he also sets an expectation that isn’t necessarily realistic.
His move from the Bulls to Western Province after the 2007 World Cup also came at a time when the Province and Stormers coaches invested in a defensive mindset that favoured structure and offered little to the individual attacking ambitions of the back three. Opportunities on attack were limited for Habana in a team with the best defensive record in Super Rugby in 2010 and last year. And when a winger is starved of the ball he is also starved of that swagger that turns a stumble into a sensational break.
I sat next to Percy Montgomery at Friday’s Stormers match against the Blues. Montgomery, in our company suite draw, had Habana to score the first try of the match and when his former team-mate did just that Montgomery pumped his fist in the air in a show of solidarity.
Montgomery, the first South African to play 100 Test matches for the Boks, spent four years playing Test rugby alongside Habana and the next four as part of the Springbok coaching staff. He has never doubted Habana, and is adamant there has been an evolution of his game that wasn’t recognised because of how tightly the wing was marked and how significantly different his role was at the Stormers compared to the Bulls.
Montgomery conceded that where Habana did struggle was in confidence and, as happens in sport, the harder an individual tries the worse it seems to get. The Habana that finished last year’s World Cup was not a spent force, but a tired one. The quality of depth among South African players allows the public, the media and even coaches to call time on a player prematurely. The belief is always that this country’s rugby production line will produce a younger and faster alternative.
Too often (and here I am in the dock as well) there is more comfort in a new face and a quick fix than the laboured recovery of the likes of Habana.
To see Habana flourish at Newlands was my highlight in a weekend where the Stormers, Sharks and Cheetahs were good enough to win and played well enough to deserve their respective victories. Stormers captain and inside centre Jean de Villiers was excellent in leading the victory against the Blues, and if Frans Steyn is the probable Bok option at No 12 for the 2015 World Cup, De Villiers played with enough authority and effect to make it hard to ignore his claims to a season or two more in national colours.
Bismarck du Plessis was the inspiration for the Sharks and Pat Lambie’s radar and all-round rhythm was of a standard that matches the belief in his potential to be consistently influential in determining results. Cheetahs captain Adriaan Strauss is another whose star shines bright in this year’s tournament, and rookie flyhalf Johan Goosen has a presence that screams permanence. Bok coach Heyneke Meyer is blessed with so many options in every position and there are South Africans dominating in every competition in the northern and southern hemisphere.
The attrition rate in Super Rugby will be a hurdle for Meyer, Robbie Deans and Steve Hansen, but the South African and New Zealand competition challenge is producing a number of selection alternatives to negate injuries. The tournament’s young brigade is thriving, but there are as many veterans matching the new kids, none more so this weekend than Habana and De Villiers.
175 Comments
Pages: « 1 [2] 3 4 » Show All
19 Mar 2012, 14:41 pm
When I saw that Habana had got MOM on Friday I thought then that the Commentary Team may not have been watching the same game as me as there were at least 4 better candidates. Now we have supposedly one of the better scribes in SA supporting that blind school. No wonder we lost the RWC last year because all the Selectors got was support for their ridiculous choices from the supposedly better informed Press elite instead of giving the Bok management the bollocking they deserved and which might have penetrated a bit more than the many critical fans whose only way of voicing their misgivings was through various blogs.
19 Mar 2012, 14:44 pm
@wpstormerbok(wpstormerbok)-49:
Let him use that 10 minutes at a time to convince the coach that he belongs on the playing field for more than just the 10 minutes by delivering a great performance every time he goes onto the field.
Who knows, if he does that it may become 20 minutes, later 30 minutes and before you know it, he may actually start a match.
For now, Habana is in the driving seat and it is up to Shadow to unseat him.
19 Mar 2012, 14:49 pm
@wpstormerbok(wpstormerbok)-47:
Well there is generally two problems assessing players as you stated above. Firstly, while there is little doubt each player needs to do the basics well specific to his position, what you stated is how wings get picked in school because today’s rugby player (specifically backline players) needs to be able to do all which you stated. Secondly, the source of the data you use to formulate a scorecard for the player is largely subjective as it is done through viewing the game on a Saturday afternoon.
Coaches today and for some time are using far more in-depth analysis tools to measure the ‘worth’ of their players.
Wings are no longer judged on how many tries they score in a season – that is only important for the media writing stories on them. They, like all players are measured in their overall contribution to each game. As a player you have a positive contribution and a negative contribution leaving you at the end with a final scorecard figure.
Now although this figure give any coach a good indication of any player, further analysis is done in context of the game, game plan and player’s contribution to his role within the team.
But the simple explanation I want to offer here is that to measure a player’s worth cannot only be done from the tick boxes high-school coaches use to select players into positions.
Contributions (to name just a few) include; tackles made, tackles missed, tackle assists, ruck attendances and cleans, rucks lost, balls lost, line breaks, how many times they handle the ball and meters gained. effective passes, ineffective passes, meters covered in 80 minutes (running, walking, sprinting), defensive kicks, tactical kicks, players general proximity to the ball for 80minutes, turn overs won, penalties won, penalties conceded, etc etc etc.
It provides you with two very important results for each player – their work rate, and on-field contribution.
That is where you measure a player’s ‘worth’.
19 Mar 2012, 14:50 pm
I almost get the impression that the commentators, in this case Hugh Bladen and Joel Stransky, tend to forget about the MOM award.
I think it was actually Joel’s decision this time round so I dont think we should make too much of this as it is and will always be subjective (and sometimes rushed)
Something that I quite enjoy is Jean’s captaincy; he is one of the players that excel when trusted with more responsibility
19 Mar 2012, 14:50 pm
@nama1(nama1)-52:
When I said 10 minutes I was being generous, it was more like 4…
But even if you step onto the field with 10 minutes to go, how will you show what you can do?
The ball will probably only be in play for 6 minutes, of those 6 the other team will have it for 3.
For the record he did have 1 carry when he got on the field and bashed across the advantage line.
He already belongs in the starting line-up, Habana’s reputation is the only thing that’s keeping him in his spot and now this unjustified fanfair after scoring a try by doing what wings should be doing will only keep him around for longer than he deserves.
19 Mar 2012, 14:52 pm
@BreakdownBoy(goodstuff)-50: Hellsteeth… Brokeback Stormergasm alert!
19 Mar 2012, 15:01 pm
@PissAnt(PissAnt)-53:
Hold up a minute.
If you wanted me to give you a full-on thesis on ”a player’s worth” than you should’ve stated it.
I gave you a brief summary of basic expectations from a player in his position, not an in-depth analysis of each meter ran by each individual.
You sound cynical to a point (forgive me if I took it the wrong way) talking about tools coaches have and that I (or us fans) watch on a Saturday almost as if to belittle my input and somehow makes your opinion on what you saw superior?
Of course there’s much more to the make up of a player, did you want me to discuss their diets, gym routine etc?
At the end of the day we can only judge from what transpires between the four white lines, I never said don’t pick Habana because he doesn’t score in any case?
My argument is that there are younger players who’ll be able to improve if given the chance to get on the field.
Instead we have an aging player who gives his all (same as the young player would) depriving a younger player of game time to develop his skills and become a valuable asset when Habana finally realises that his time is up.
19 Mar 2012, 15:02 pm
@Heavens Game(Heavens Game)-56:
So, how did your team do this weekend?
19 Mar 2012, 15:05 pm
@wpstormerbok(wpstormerbok)-57:
Well your view is one of ‘Bryan is past it and are depriving young players’ yet you offer very little to support such a view other than a subjective opinion of what you see or perceive.
Now either we are not looking at the same thing or games or we ‘measure’ players quite differently.
19 Mar 2012, 15:06 pm
@nama1(nama1)-58: You farken know exactly how well… They fckswiped the current champs nicely…
19 Mar 2012, 15:07 pm
I’m no Hurdles fan in the way that Tac was when he was still up North.
My opinion is just that whichever talented youngsters there may be at WP Rugby Union who can play wing with huge potential are being held back unfairly by this persistance of playing a former great player simply because he was great 4 years ago.
I have all the respect for what Hab’s has done, he can still play a role in the squad and if the younger players stuff up then by all means he’s the best we have.
If Burger wasn’t injured a guy like Kolisi would be in the 4 minute boat along with Van Der Heever, but the difference is Schalk’s play justifies his inclusion and Kolisi will have to be patient whereas Hab’s isn’t showing me enough reason why the other guys shouldn’t get a shot at it.
19 Mar 2012, 15:11 pm
@PissAnt(PissAnt)-59:
There’s only one way to measure a player’s worth – performance.
I’m saying, clearly this time around :
Habana does what is expected of any wing playing Super Rugby.
My argument is we have a younger player who could be better if given a fair shot at it instead of 10 minute cameo’s.
Does that make sense to you now?
19 Mar 2012, 15:15 pm
@Heavens Game(Heavens Game)-60:
You Bananaboys don’t want to discuss that major achievement amongst yourselves?
Disect the performance a bit, look where your team’s strengths and weaknesses were and use this site to give Plumtree some pointers for the next game?
… or would you rather visit with the Stormer supporters?
Just asking.
19 Mar 2012, 15:20 pm
@Sheriff(Sheriff)-24: jake & alister cannot be credited with coming up with the “rush defence” that honour goes to one gary gold!
19 Mar 2012, 15:23 pm
@wpstormerbok(wpstormerbok)-62:
What makes perfect sense to me is that you and I judge players and their ‘worth’ quite differently.
Habana does far more than your run-of-the-mill Super Rugby wing. As I stated before, there are quite a number of ways to measure that (a lot of it freely available to the public too), you clearly choose not to.
So there is little point in discussing this any further.
19 Mar 2012, 15:24 pm
I’m clearly missing something here – past players, journalists and coaches have praised Habanas performance but arm chair critics claim there are better in his position. Who to believe…
19 Mar 2012, 15:32 pm
Cheers guys!
19 Mar 2012, 15:32 pm
@nama1(nama1)-52:
that’s the way it should be done…!!
19 Mar 2012, 15:33 pm
@PissAnt(PissAnt)-53: you reckon Keo used any of the so-called criteria you’ve highlighted to get to this virtual “hand job” to bryan?
um, all i see is a reference to a “suite draw” which percy participated in, nothing on effective tackles, kicks fielded in own 22, passes made in opposition’s 22 etc
19 Mar 2012, 15:34 pm
@PissAnt(PissAnt)-65:
No we watch the same game and the same stats are available to everybody.
Compared to wings such as Aplon, Ranger, Jane, Digby, Messam, Gear etc where does he fit in?
Slightly above run-of-the-mill yes, but it’s obvious you don’t want to answer my question about whether the player next in line could be a better player than Habana.
Yes or No, and why. That’s it.
To further analyse your rules of a player’s worth using stats, does it come down to quantity or quality?
Assuming each player gets the full 80 minutes, in the same position:
Player A has 100 running meters yet he only crossed the gainline 30% of the time.
Player B has 60 running meters but crossed the gain line 70% of the time.
Which one is more valuable?
But shouldn’t we consider the quality of opposition as well, what about weather conditions etc etc.
Rugby’s a simple yet complex game that I know but if we’re gonna base our argument on each little detail we’re never going to come to a conclusion.
Whether you want to discuss it further or not is all on you, I’m always up for a healthy debate.
19 Mar 2012, 15:37 pm
@Transformation(Transformation)-69:
Exactly.
Never expected PA to take this stand as a ”Rugby Intellectual” of some sort.
19 Mar 2012, 15:39 pm
@PissAnt(PissAnt)-59:
i agree with your posts 53 and 59 pretty much entirely but will say that in wpstormersboks case a partial defense would be that for the most part the modern testing and analysis methodologies used by coaches in order to measure a players worth simply excludes younger players from achieving a relative worth value when measured against a player like habana to the point of precluding them it would seem in some cases.
the reason of course being because they do not have a number of games behind them on which to build a comparitive historical assessment of the value of their contributions and its worth to, in this case, say habana’s.
how are they judged? on their performances in training only i suppose and even though this could also give a positive or negative value its still leaves them short with regard to on field assesment values. is habana then in turn measured against some/any other wingers who do get comparable game time? of course, no.
so he’s only measured against his own abilities and as long as he shows a ‘positive value in worth and contributions’ both individually and in the team context he’s ok? maybe there’s a flaw there which could be remedied by rotating players and then comparing their worth relatively?
who knows, this may in fact show up a whole hornets nest of analysis misgivings on/with regard to so many players who though they may tick the positive ‘value, worth’ boxes in regards all the criteria going into their assesments will/could still be found to come short when measured against competing players.
there are too many players in certain positions in teams who go for periods far too long for them to be in any way measured other than on their own.
schalk burger to my mind is a player who has coasted on this possible likelyhood for a very, very long time…in his case however the chickems may have come home to roost…expect omelettes…
19 Mar 2012, 15:43 pm
@welcome to my life, hugh…(i_love_u_bakkiesbotha)-72:
”so he’s only measured against his own abilities and as long as he shows a ‘positive value in worth and contributions’ both individually and in the team context he’s ok? ”
That’s what I’ve been asking the whole time.
In my opinion the next player could also show a positive value in worth and contributions, even more so than Habana’s currently doing.
19 Mar 2012, 15:46 pm
@UKSaffa(catchlightuk.com)-66:
Some past players and journalists also have us believed last year that it was a good thing that our bench was full of super subs and that the inferior players were starting the game.
We all know how that turned out.
19 Mar 2012, 15:50 pm
It’s no use making even 1 metre over the gain line if something constructive is not done with the ball at the end of each run/tackle and it’s lost to the opposition – which is where a lot of these stats fail. I did a “Boxing Round” type of analysis on both Habana and Spies last year and it was in that area that the “counter-punch” ended up with significant advantage to the opponents in the majority of cases. This is just to point out that the reliance on stats can lead to many false initial impressions since (thank heavens) both Spies and Habana are both showing at least some glimpses of form this year.
19 Mar 2012, 15:51 pm
@Transformation(Transformation)-69:
I cannot speak for Keo, I wasnt in the same suite. But if history is anything to go by then no.
@wpstormerbok(wpstormerbok)-70:
The answer to your question is quite simple – no.
Reason; I tend not to debate players or base opinions on could’ve and would’ve. For any potentially great young player that makes it, 10 fail.
On the analysis the crux remains a player’s ‘positive contribution’ to the game. Making 20 tackles but being driven back 5 meters in 19 hardly counts towards a positive contribution.
There are plenty out there to use as a base, SportCode, Fairplay, etc.
There has only been 4 rounds so far, but you can easily check out the stats in 2011 where Habana was heavily criticised, just his work rate and involvement around the park far exceeded any other SA wing in 2011 in Super Rugby.
I don’t know if they are still around but Ruggastats did quite a number of these in 2011. Fun to read if nothing else.
I must be off though, have to run.
19 Mar 2012, 15:54 pm
@UKSaffa(catchlightuk.com)-66:
Did you watch Rugby World Cup 2011, New Zealand?
I was one of PdV’s most vocal supporters on here believing the plan of starting Habana & J.Smit ahead of Hougie & Bismarck would work.
Can’t fool me twice.
19 Mar 2012, 15:54 pm
@welcome to my life, hugh…(i_love_u_bakkiesbotha)-72:
Generally players are measured against their peers (other Super Rugby wings) and in context of their role/job in the team (game plan, strategies etc.) Coaches will always pick players that best fits in with what they hope to achieve in a team context.
But I must run now.
19 Mar 2012, 15:56 pm
@wpstormerbok(wpstormerbok)-70:
i would assume there is a list of ‘yardstick’ criteria which is used and would perhpas include the above example question posed in a number of different categories, this isn’t unreasonable.
running meters in various parts of the field..? rate and score in some way..?
gainline crossed in various parts of the field and as a %..? rate and score in some way..?
line breaks in various parts of the field..?.. rate and score in some way..?..
ans so, and so on…
whatever the suppposed intrinsic value of the results its still a value which could be used when measuring between players a and b, all thing being equal (they both played the same opposition under similar weather conditions).
you just say to player a that his score is 20 compared to player b’s 37 and that he must get his kak bymekaar..finish en klaar… this is perhpas one way in which they do this (all imagined by me of course)…
19 Mar 2012, 15:58 pm
To think this could be a Bok 22 this year…
15. Patrick Lambie.
14. J.P. Pieterson.
13. Jacque Fourie.
12. Francois Steyn.
11. Bryan Habana.
10. Johan Goosen.
9. Francois Hougaard.
8. Pierre Spies.
7. Schalk Burger (c).
6. Heinrich Brussow.
5. Andries Bekker.
4. Juandre Kruger.
3. C.J. Van Der Linde.
2. Bismark Du Plessis.
1. Coenie Oosthuizen.
16. Dean Greyling.
17. Adriaan Strauss.
18. Eben Estebeth.
19. Willem Alberts.
20. Sarel Pretorious.
21. Riaan Viljoen.
22. Jean De Villiers.
19 Mar 2012, 15:59 pm
@PissAnt(PissAnt)-76:
I get what you’re saying regarding his stats etc.
My pain is that we have a younger player with big potential and youth on his side to greatly improve waiting in the, uhm, wings while Habana’s been dishing up the same sort of solid hard working performance for two years now.
For every one new player that makes it, 10 fail, 1 in 10 SA’s have Aids. So if we’re in a group of 10 1 of us will be HIV+?
Hoe pluk ons dan nou sommer so stats uit die lug uit.
19 Mar 2012, 16:02 pm
@welcome to my life, hugh…(i_love_u_bakkiesbotha)-79:
I’m not saying it’s unreasonable to measure a player by stats, not at all stats are a valuable tool.
I’m saying or asking how will we measure players fairly if one gets 10 chances, 70 minutes per game where the other gets 10 chances – 10 minutes per game.
19 Mar 2012, 16:03 pm
@wpstormerbok(wpstormerbok)-73:
so you’re making an argument for rotation of players in order to test them against each other?
i suppose it could be done on a positional basis…say keep the the pack and shuffle the backs or vice versa. i can assume that to a large extent this was certainly done wrt the stormers #10.
anyway, if this is the case then there’s a lost of coasters in the stormers team yet they seem to be doing well regardless..?.. (well, i need not point out that one very, very big coaster aka ‘the telling tackle king’ is not in the equation).
19 Mar 2012, 16:06 pm
i would wink but that would be conspiratorial….
19 Mar 2012, 16:07 pm
@welcome to my life, hugh…(i_love_u_bakkiesbotha)-83:
Not rotation just for the sake of it though, the incumbent has to be a player who’s not setting the world alight in his position and the player challenging must be worthy of a crack at his spot.
19 Mar 2012, 16:07 pm
i can confidentally say there is not a single coaster in the bulls team.
well, there were people saying things about pierre..but look at him now…
19 Mar 2012, 16:09 pm
@PissAnt(PissAnt)-78:
cheers.
19 Mar 2012, 16:14 pm
@PissAnt
When you do get the chance please post the links to those stat websites, I’ve tried to google it but they don’t seem to exist.
19 Mar 2012, 16:15 pm
@ShaunSwindon(Karma-zaf)-80: Not a bad side still not convinced about Spies would rahter play Alberts
19 Mar 2012, 16:27 pm
@PissAnt(PissAnt)-76: the following is an excerpt from an article written by Tony Johnson, the presenter of the kiwi rugby show ReUnion. he is talking about jock hobbs and how he “saved” all black rugby from the clutches of something referred to as World Rugby Corporation and he alludes that Francois Pienaar was in cahoots with whoever this WRC was, do you know who was backing this initiative?
“Undeterred he returned to the fray as chairman to sift through the rubble of the bungled RWC sub hosting saga in 2002, and within 3 years had spearheaded a brilliant campaign to win New Zealand the right to be sole host of the 2011 tournament.
As in the rugby wars campaign, that bid was meticulous in it’s detail, far more so than the rival ones, and that was the key to winning, although as one of his colleagues said at the time you could never underestimate the importance of having a respected former All Black captain at the forefront.
It was an interesting comment given that the South African campaign was also headed by a captain, and a more celebrated one at that in Francois Pienaar, the poster boy of the 1995 World Cup triumph.
Who knows how their standing 10 years later might have been affected by their opposing roles during the WRC crisis, when a duplicitous side to Pienaar’s character had emerged. Notably, on both occasions Jock Hobbs won the day.
19 Mar 2012, 16:32 pm
@Transformation(Transformation)-90:
you mean other than kerry packer?
19 Mar 2012, 16:34 pm
@welcome to my life, hugh…(i_love_u_bakkiesbotha)-91: who?
19 Mar 2012, 16:36 pm
@Transformation(Transformation)-90:
i remember reading a few articles on the whole thing as well a book which covered but may not have been the entire subject matter, if i recall, about the whole affair. cant remember the name or title though.
19 Mar 2012, 16:39 pm
@welcome to my life, hugh…(i_love_u_bakkiesbotha)-91: this is another excerpt where it is said that Hobbs “crisscrossed” their country convincing new zealnd players not to join this WRC…can you elaborate on it?
“It was in 1995 after the creation of the Tri Nations, Sanzar and the Super 12, as it was then, during the Rugby World Cup in South Africa, that Hobbs and Sir Brian Lochore were at the forefront of the bid to stave off the advances of the World Rugby Corporation that threatened to emasculate the traditional game and the international structure of rugby.
Hobbs and Lochore trooped up and down the country talking to All Blacks and convincing them, finally, to sign with the NZRU, thus saving the All Blacks as an institution.
His reward was an unceremonious dumping by the affiliated unions that was all too typical of the sometimes Kremlin-like NZRU of the amateur era.
So close did rugby come to losing its players, that in his book The Rugby War, Australian writer Peter FitzSimons recounted an instance where the magnitude of the crisis facing the game was hit home to Hobbs when he was told the situation was so bad that “if you previously had one finger on the window ledge, you’re now hanging by half a finger-nail.”
It was Hobbs who, at a vital stage in negotiations with the All Blacks, corralled Sir Brian Lochore to appear at the training run before a Bledisloe Cup Test against Australia so, if they wanted, the players could talk to him.
The then chairman of the NZRU Rob Fisher was quoted by FitzSimons as saying: “BJ [Lochore] could look players in the eye and make them feel embarrassed because they knew what he did not know.”
The effort Hobbs put in may never be fully appreciated by the rugby public at large. But one who worked alongside him during the time, Brendon O’Connor of the NZRU told FitzSimons: “The experience of working with Jock in those extraordinary circumstances illustrated to me what it truly meant to be an All Black.
“The fact that a handful of players might have been tampering with a history, a part of New Zealand society and culture, seemed to hurt him personally…it took an experience like that to make me understand the passion and the courage that it takes to be one [All Black].”
Hobbs, who had had to stress to the full board of the NZRU the level of action that needed to be taken, telling the board at one stage that their meeting could be the last ever held of any significance by the Union, was then defeated for a place on the NZRU board when it was reconfigured from 19 members to nine.
However, when New Zealand lost its co-sharing of the 2003 Rugby World Cup with Australia, the board of the NZRU was rearranged in 2002 and Hobbs was ushered back into the corridors of power and elected chairman of the organisation that had earlier shunned him.
That he was prepared to do that spoke volumes for his passion for rugby in New Zealand.”
19 Mar 2012, 16:40 pm
15. Patrick Lambie
14. Gio Aplon.
13. JP Pieterson.
12. Francois Steyn.
11. Lwazi Mvovo
10. Elton Jantjes
9. Francois Hougaard.
8. Willem Alberts
7. Schalk Burger (c).
6. Heinrich Brussow.
5. Andries Bekker.
4. Juandre Kruger.
3. Jannie Du Plessis
2. Bismark Du Plessis.
1. Beast Mtawarira
16. Coenie Oosthuizen
17. Chilliboy Rallapelle
18. Eben Etsebeth.
19. Pierre Spies
20. Sarel Pretorius.
21. Johan Goosen
22. Juan de Jongh
19 Mar 2012, 16:45 pm
@ShaunSwindon(Karma-zaf)-80:
I hope not.
Still only the obligatory two Colured wings?
Lambie at 15? Isn’t he playing at 10 for the Sharks?? When will we learn?
Spies at 8
@Transformation(Transformation)-90:
Kerry Packer. An Australian media mogul.
He was also responsible for dragging cricket into the pro era with his Kerry Packer Series in the mid 70′s.
19 Mar 2012, 16:45 pm
@Transformation(Transformation)-92:
a biggish media tycoon who competed against murdoch for control of rugby as well against cricket interests for control of a world series cricket league of some sort.
i think he lost in both attempts.
19 Mar 2012, 16:50 pm
@nama1(nama1)-96: @welcome to my life, hugh…(i_love_u_bakkiesbotha)-97: thanks fellas, i will read up on this “carry pack(er)” fella and what his deal meant for rugby in ’95…i wonder how francois pienaar was involved in “duplicitous” behaviour according to TJ?
19 Mar 2012, 16:54 pm
@nama1(nama1)-96:
oh, i stand corrected on cricket then but i wouldnt say he won outright, no?
@Transformation(Transformation)-94:
it was around the time after the 1995 rwc, there was all the pressure to go pro but with a lot of pressure resiting drastic change equally as much. packer tried to set up a world rugby league or series of sorts through the world rugby corporation which would rival the irb i suppose and which would take the game pro
he at one stage had the support and backing of a number of boks, ab’s and wallabies but was fierciely resisted by the the rugby unions of sa, nz and aus mostly.
of the course the nutshell result is that rugby ended up going pro under the irb and its member unions anyway in order to stave off packers attempts at takeover.
19 Mar 2012, 16:56 pm
@Transformation(Transformation)-98:
cheers,
have to go.
Pages: « 1 [2] 3 4 » Show All
Have your say
You must be logged in to post a comment.