Plumtree shows Bekker respect
26 Feb 2013
John Plumtree singled out Andries Bekker’s lineout ability as just one of the Stormers strengths.
In a midweek press conference, Plumtree was in a good mood, joking with journalists ahead of a match that could be definitive to who wins the South African Conference.
Plumtree said there were few injury concerns after the win against the Cheetahs and added the match was a chance to redress the result of last year’s Currie Cup final when the Stormers (in the guise of Western Province) won in Durban. He said the Cup could only be won back in a different competition at a later stage of the year.
For now the emphasis was on Super Rugby and Plumtree said his team’s lineout would be under pressure against the likes of Andries Bekker. He was comfortable that Sharks hookers Craig Burden and Kyle Cooper performed well against the Cheetahs, but he felt the Stormers lineout would provide an even sterner examination.
Plumtree had everyone laughing when asked about the impact and importance of Pat Lambie, saying that the player is not that important and is just the posterboy of the Sharks. He did go on to say that an in-form Pat Lambie is the best thing the Sharks could ask for, and the fact that he has the experienced Frans Steyn outside him, reduces the pressure.
By Richard Ferguson
247 Comments
Pages: « 1 2 [3] 4 5 » Show All
26 Feb 2013, 21:34 pm
@nortierd-98: Actually i read neither of the two.
26 Feb 2013, 21:34 pm
I read the Mercury, atleast they have a few decent journalists.
26 Feb 2013, 21:36 pm
@Sharks_are_gonna_get_you-99 Skop is defintely not worth replying to! Skop’s views do not represent the views of the average Stormer supporter
26 Feb 2013, 21:36 pm
@Sharks_are_gonna_get_you-100:
Relax Sharkie
I was referring to Cheeky’s comment.
I don’t recall that I have ever attacked the other teams supporters personally.
26 Feb 2013, 21:38 pm
@nortierd-104: I am relaxed young man, and i also did not accuse you of it,
26 Feb 2013, 21:39 pm
@Sharks_are_gonna_get_you-100: Nortie was speaking about the comments of News 24!
26 Feb 2013, 21:40 pm
@nortierd-104:
The “swak stelling “was in answer to Charles’ post regarding the translation of the Burger.
I still maintain the comment Cheeky made is in poor taste and is unfair to the players in his squad who tried their guts out on Saturday
26 Feb 2013, 21:42 pm
@Sharks_are_gonna_get_you-105:
Just worth bearing in mind, we have all been on the wrong end of Skop at some stage.
If I had a Rand for every time I was called an idiot or flesh eating murder or Fckadilly I would be able to retire
26 Feb 2013, 21:44 pm
Ag, Skop is a legend. Leave him be.
26 Feb 2013, 21:46 pm
@CharlesM-106:
I will call Bun Booysens tomorrow and ask him to talk to his reporter as she has the esteemed bloggers on keo dot co dot za confused as they do not understand the meaning of the words “erg verlee”
26 Feb 2013, 21:47 pm
@CharlesM-77: Weekend Post
Saturday July 7 2012
Kings’ hopes dangling by a thread
By Ethienne Arends and Yolandé Stander
EP RUGBY president Cheeky Watson has
lashed out at the South African Rugby Union
for again delaying the decision on how the
Southern Kings will be accommodated in
Super Rugby next year, saying the move
could scupper the franchise before a ball
has even been kicked.
Saru undertook to make the announcement
on July 13, but this week reneged once
again by delaying the decision to an as yet
unspecified date.
Saru’s unexpected decision to postpone the
July 13 meeting was confirmed to Weekend
Post by media manager Rayaan Adriaanse,
who said Saru did not want to comment
“on the participation process of Super
Rugby 2013 at this stage”.
While Saru had assured the Kings they
would be in next year’s Super Rugby
competition, there was still uncertainty
because the organisation was refusing to
say how this would come about.
In addition, Saru was also refusing to
guarantee the Kings more than one season
in Super Rugby.
In an exclusive interview this week, an
incensed Watson said “this uncertainty and
the fact that we are guaranteed only one
season in Super Rugby is making it
impossible for us to sign up a major
sponsor”.
“We have just over six months to go before
Super Rugby kicks off and we do not have a
sponsor. It’s ridiculous and it’s all due to
Saru’s inability to reach a decision on how
to accommodate the Kings and which
franchise will fall by the wayside,” Watson
said.
He said the Kings were already targeting
eight current Super Rugby players to sign
up for the franchise, but this was proving
impossible without funding.
26 Feb 2013, 21:51 pm
@nortierd-86:
He was probably asked why there were so few black players in the squad. I think people are making too much of his response. Explaining why there are so few isn’t a matter of demeaning his existing players.
26 Feb 2013, 21:52 pm
@CharlesM-106: @nortierd-107: Appologies then , as i said though the trailer park think was not aimed at u2, and i did mention the 2 it was aimed at,
I am sure you both know who Skopsnot is and Poodle fekker is
26 Feb 2013, 21:52 pm
@Transformation-111:
Transie, fair enough, but what of the latest comments published today and the implications of what he meant.
I may be wrong in my interpretation, but the way I read it seems like if he had the players he wanted a guy like Seargal would not have been in the team.
Also I feel sorry for the players who did you proud on Saturday, if after 3 days he is quoted as saying he would have preferred the other players.
26 Feb 2013, 21:53 pm
@Robzim-110: hehe Rob – do you have a direct line? I have once written a letter for publication, which was published, but he wasn’t too pleased I guess, because I criticised a report by him for not being objective enough.
In this instance the report was however in “better taste” than the one on News 24 !
26 Feb 2013, 21:54 pm
You know what you BullShitters and SharkShitters don’t deserve the magnanimous forgiveness and bridge building that Nelson Mandela offered you when he let you keep your Springbok emblem and your heilige godsdiens you hang onto for dear life. He should have taken it away because if it were left to you there would be no multi racial sport in your abysmal decrepit last bastion of whiter shade of ‘non racist’ models of pure perfection.
26 Feb 2013, 21:54 pm
@David-112:
Yes, probably.
There is always drama when his name is mentioned, but too be fair, much of the drama is self inflicted
.@Sharks_are_gonna_get_you-113:
All good
26 Feb 2013, 21:58 pm
@Sharks_are_gonna_get_you-113: apologies accepted!@David-112: I agree David
26 Feb 2013, 21:58 pm
@CharlesM-87: ” the report in Die Burger stated
that Cheeky was embarrassed about the
lack of more Black players in the squad.”
it’s a pity my Afrikaans is nowhere so i can’t even go read the paper or article online for myself.
was Cheeky himself expressing that he was embarrassed or was it an embarrasment to stand in front of that portfolio committee having not delivered what Hoskins & Jurie Roux promised the committee the Kings will be about?
26 Feb 2013, 21:59 pm
Well, as “honorary blacks” Cheeky and Pukey should be ashamed!
26 Feb 2013, 22:01 pm
RT @keocoza: Plumtree positive about good start: Sharks coach John Plumtree seems happy with his team after their victory … http://t.c …
26 Feb 2013, 22:03 pm
@nortierd-117: I’m not defending Cheeky but can’t help feeling sorry for the Kings in general. You can’t budget properly and get investors if you are only allowed to play Super rugby for one season.
I don’t think he is demeaning the current players but many of the current players would have been 2nd choice and once injuries start playing a major role, they’ll need the second stringers as well.
26 Feb 2013, 22:07 pm
@Transformation-119: He was embarrassed about the few black players in the squad and won’t rest until the matter has been rectified.
26 Feb 2013, 22:10 pm
Perhaps, in the interests of national harmony, the parliamentary committee on sport should summons Oregan Hoskins & SARU’s General Committee of 24 (that made the Lions/Kings decisions) to appear before them & to explain:
1. Why THEY elevated the Kings to S15 status & what their PURPOSE was in doing so;
2. Why THEY voted for the franchise that ended last in the SA Conference in 2012 to be demoted from the S15;
3. Why THEY voted for promo/relegation matches between the franchise that ends last in the SA Conference in 2013 & the Lions franchise;
4. Why THEY believe that, if it turns out that, say, the Kings be demoted in favour of the Lions in those 2013 promo/relegation playoffs, it would contribute to the purpose referred to in 1 above, & if that purpose is not transformation, also how it would contribute to transformation;
5. Why THEY granted the Kings’ only 6 months’ prior firm notice of their participation in the S15;
6. Why THEY reneged on earlier promises to the Kings of minimum 3 years’ S15 participation in favour of a single season S15 guarantee (basically 6 months’ guaranteed participation);
7. Why 5 & 6 above taken in conjunction should not be construed as a mala fide “set up to fail”-strategy? Etc.
Such a hearing, comprehensively & widely reported upon by the Press would lead to transparency, let us hear “from the horses’ mouths” re the facts, their modus operandi & reasons/justification therefor, & should quell this unhealthy, never-ending uncertainty, intrigue, gossiping, allegations & counter allegations regarding the Kings, the Watsons, the Sports Ministry, & SARU, & enable all rugby lovers to form an informed opinion based on elicited facts.
We cannot carry on like this. When will it end? As a rugby nation we are going into self-destruct mode, & this should be arrested. Tis time for the parliamentary committee on sport to take off the kids’ gloves & conduct a pertinent hearing.
At least then we’ll know what really went down, WHO exactly made those reneged upon promises & much hated (by some) decisions, & the reasons WHY they did so. At least then one will obtain clarity on the identity of those that really control rugby, & who to hate … IF one really has to hate.
Some haters might be surprised at whom they should direct their displeasure.
{IMO, it was all a set up – a reactionary strategy to maintain the status quo – but only a parliamentary enquiry, or even better still, a judicial commission of enquiry, will disclose the truth}
**
haha, & here I was thinking this thread was about Plum paying Bekker some RESPECT – silly me!
But not to be, all it took was for one blogger to post one media report about Cheeky & PREDICTABLY the sharp knives are out again … {shakes head}
26 Feb 2013, 22:10 pm
@CharlesM-115:
Unfortunately not, or I would have asked him to do get Stephen Nel to do an in depth investigative article on Deon Fourie’s contribution (or lack of) to the first phases
26 Feb 2013, 22:13 pm
@CharlesM-121:
I agree with you there and share the same sentiments.
26 Feb 2013, 22:16 pm
Then we could assume that the Lions could possibly be in the same situation next year should they win the relegation matches?
One would think that they will also struggle to get big money sponsors and better players to sign for them in what might also be an one year gig only.
26 Feb 2013, 22:22 pm
@Robzim-124: Fourie is not a Hooker, well maybe he is a male Hooker in Aliwal street
26 Feb 2013, 22:29 pm
@Robzim-124:
‘Urg Virlee’? Whasssattt??
26 Feb 2013, 22:32 pm
@nortierd-114: when was cheeky in front of parliament, before or after the match?
today is tuesday, in this morning’s Herald cheeky was talking about how Sergeal struggled to gel with the big boys when drafted from Kings academy to train with the senior team. he was quoted talking about sykes & dries’ leadership qualities.
now i ask again, when was he in cape town?
26 Feb 2013, 22:34 pm
Okay guys I’m out for the night!
2 points before I leave: 1) We can’t field 6 quality franchises – not even 5 quality franchises actually; and
2) SARU made a big mess with the process of the allocation of the 5th franchise to the Kings. Their planning was poor to say the least.
I’m not speaking about the merits of the Kings or the Lions for that matter being there, but the drawn out and lengthy process.
Having said that, I concur with the sentiments expressed by Angostura in 123 above!@Robzim-124: Yes Rob…and so say all of us. We are in trouble in that department (putting it mildly!!)
26 Feb 2013, 22:34 pm
Cheeky is saying to the parliamentary commission that if he had been given more time and more backing with a long-term building structure he could have wooed some of the current black players who signed for other franchises back to their home province EP. Such as Ndunganes Mapoe Kolisi Mvovo Sithole Mjkevu etc.
But whatsoever Cheeky or Luke utters anywhere the Sharkishits and BullShitters latch onto it and take it out of context.
26 Feb 2013, 22:36 pm
@carol-128:
Extremely embarrassed.
@Transformation-129:
That is the million dollar question we have all tried to get the answer to.
My first impression was, if it was made after the match, I feel it is poor timing especially in light of how the guys performed.
If it is an old statement that was republished, it is extremely poor judgement from the editor to have allowed it.
26 Feb 2013, 22:38 pm
Transie @ 129: it was during last week
Carol @ 128: quite embarrassed
26 Feb 2013, 22:40 pm
@nortierd-132:
@CharlesM-133:
Another one for my ‘dictionary’!!
Thank you
26 Feb 2013, 22:41 pm
@skopdiekan-131: odwa ndungane, akona ndungane, mvovo, sithole, mjekevu, mapoe…… how many wings could the Cheeky Kings need or want?
Isn’t the point of the Kings to DEVELOP LOCAL YOUNG TALENT?
26 Feb 2013, 22:41 pm
@Angostura-123: hahaha the euphoria & feel go factor of the Kings win was too much for some & Cheeky had to be put back in his proper place as the persona non grata of SA rugby.
the articles by mark keohane calling people haters were also not conducive.
26 Feb 2013, 22:41 pm
Not to buy mercenaries…..
26 Feb 2013, 22:41 pm
@skopdiekan-131:
They have all probably signed long term contracts with their current Unions.
I don’t think they could just be lured back, more to it than that.
Only those players can answer whether they might be willing to earn less to play for another franchise and if they could be allowed to be released from their current contracts.
26 Feb 2013, 22:43 pm
here we have the mercenary hater encouraging the kings to…. buy mercenaries!
26 Feb 2013, 22:44 pm
@ShaunB-135: ” Isn’t the point of the Kings to DEVELOP
LOCAL YOUNG TALENT?”
you realistically think they can do that in one season? be honest.
26 Feb 2013, 22:45 pm
@Transformation-136:
Not quite
If you follow the thread from nr 8 where Sharkgirl posted the News24 article you will see there are many questions and not too many answers.
Most of us have only been trying to figure out whether it was in fact true and what the purpose was.
It is not a bash the Kings sentiment.
26 Feb 2013, 22:46 pm
@ShaunB-137: what was your nic before you changed it to shaunb?
26 Feb 2013, 22:47 pm
@carol-134: You are welcome !!
Now I’m really out !!
26 Feb 2013, 22:48 pm
@ShaunB-135:
Don;t be an idiot. Developing local young talent isn’t the same as throwing them into the S15. The idea is to develop them so that they’re ready for S15. Without the franchise they’ll only be developing them for the other franchises.
26 Feb 2013, 22:48 pm
@CharlesM-143:
Cheers
26 Feb 2013, 22:48 pm
@Angostura-123:
> the parliamentary committee on sport should summons Oregan Hoskins & SARU’s General Committee of 24 to appear before them & to explain: –
Why?
Why should government get involved in business?
The franchises are businesses and could run them as they see fit
The Brits and Spaniards don’t dictate to Man U or Barcelona how to run their clubs or who to pick, just like Congress doesn’t dictate to the Rangers or Yankees
26 Feb 2013, 22:49 pm
@Transformation-140: Sergeal Petersen???????????????
@Transformation-142: Optimus Slime
26 Feb 2013, 22:49 pm
@nortierd-141: not you nortie. the people from die burger, news24 – as you alluded earlier, the editor’s MO has to be questioned if this man went to parliament “last week” according to charlesm.
26 Feb 2013, 22:49 pm
@David-144: Sergeal Petersen???????????
Pages: « 1 2 [3] 4 5 » Show All
Have your say
You must be logged in to post a comment.