Distorted tale of two talents
4 Mar 2013
MARK KEOHANE, in his Business Day column, writes that one rule seems to apply for Johan Goosen and another for Elton Jantjies.
Jantjies will be back in the transfer market after his Super Rugby commitments with the Stormers and my advice to him would be to get the hell out of Cape Town.
Jantjies is a darn good flyhalf. He is just 22 and one of South Africa’s most exciting talents. He is an investment and he has already played big games, the biggest of which was his 40 minutes against the world champion All Blacks in South Africa last year.
Yet so many are treating him like a kid who has never done anything and who needs to do it in 80 minutes to get another chance.
The media around Jantjies in the past week was shocking, short sighted and prejudiced. It will be explained and justified as passionate supporters and rugby media in the Cape refusing to accept second best.
I don’t buy that. The supporters and media have only known second best in the history of Stormers rugby.
Jantjies missed four penalties against the Bulls in the season opener – a match in which the Stormers forwards took a beating.
Jantjies was blamed for the defeat. He was deemed not good enough, defensively and as a goal kicker, and the kicking was given to Joe Pietersen, who promptly banged over the first kick from the corner.
The Stormers coaching staff made all the right noises about backing Jantjies in the build-up to the visit to Durban and then promptly pulled the player after 52 minutes.
Peter Grant replaced Jantjies and the former’s qualities of stability and Super Rugby experience were backed to break a 3-all deadlock in Durban.
Jantjies had created the only try-scoring chance in the first half with a perfectly weighted cross kick to Gio Aplon who knocked on the ball.
A similar moment, be it through a clever kick, a break, a step or something magical, as Jantjies did regularly for the Lions, could have won the match for the Stormers, but the coaching staff showed no trust in the genius of the young Bok.
Grant, who spends his year between Cape Town and Japan and is only available for Super Rugby doesn’t add the attacking dimension of Jantjies, whose career would be better served playing for coaches and in a region that values his natural game.
The Stormers are a team that plays low risk and defence orientated rugby. It makes them difficult to beat but it does not make them unbeatable.
Given the attitude towards Jantjies and the rush to revert to what is safe but has never translated to success in Grant should be a red flag to Stormers supporters that this season will again be one in which the hope will be greater than the conviction of championship glory.
Humidity in Durban and Brisbane always make for testing encounters in February and March. Teams struggle with ball control and it is difficult to play with attacking confidence.
I wasn’t surprised with the nature of the contest in Durban and I wasn’t surprised with the result. It was always going to be tough for the Sharks but it was a game they couldn’t afford to lose, regardless that it was this early in the tournament.
John Plumtree, when I interviewed him pre the tournament, said to win the competition a team had to start well and finish well. The Sharks, with an away victory and a home win against the Stormers, have started well. Winning against the Stormers was very necessary in the context of gaining an edge in the South African Conference.
The Sharks composure was impressive, especially scrumhalf Cobus Reinach. He will be a Springbok sooner rather than later as he is the best scrumhalf in South Africa. Francois Hougaard is a better athlete and definitely a better winger but he isn’t as good a scrumhalf.
Hougaard struggled against the Force and he is playing with the strain of issues greater than rugby; he recently lost a good friend in Reeva Steenkamp. He deserves empathy and not rugby ridicule.
The Bulls clearly underestimated the Force and were fortunate to win and get a bonus point, but the men from Pretoria will be more miss than hit on their overseas trip.
The Cheetahs were given a second half lesson in Hamilton and Johan Goosen’s goalkickng was as poor as it was a week ago. It was equally inconsistent against Australia and New Zealand in 2012.
Goosen’s misses don’t evoke quite the vitriol that accompanies a Jantjies miss and the Cheetahs taking a beating somehow never is deemed an embarrassment to South Africa rugby.
There are so many (myself included) willing Goosen to succeed. I just wish there were as many who gave Jantjies similar support, starting with his coach.
737 Comments
Pages: « 1 … 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 [15] Show All
4 Mar 2013, 20:48 pm
sorry Dawn. I was doing some research
Nz rugby is geared towards the Abs, but it still has factions within it.
4 Mar 2013, 20:49 pm
OK, it has cool off to 36degrees C now. Better prepare me something to eat.
Will be at Newlands on saturday to bring my team some Namaqua luck.
Have them by 1 (one) on bru. It will be an open match, I believe.
Good night.
4 Mar 2013, 20:49 pm
Is it diverse in terms of race?
4 Mar 2013, 20:57 pm
The NZRU Board is charged with setting strategy, direction and policy for the NZRU, and is ultimately responsible for the decisions and actions of NZRU management and staff. Many of the decisions concerning New Zealand’s national teams, domestic competitions, financial management and rugby traditions can only be made by a vote of the NZRU Board
The Board is comprised of nine Board Members: six zone representatives, one Maori representative and two independent Board Members.
Steve Tew is the current CEO of the New Zealand Rugby Union
The President of the board is NZ born Samoan AB Bryan beegee Williams..
Wayne Peters is the Maori representative on the board..
4 Mar 2013, 22:17 pm
Madibaz (NMMU) beat UJ 20-13
boyties!!!!!
4 Mar 2013, 22:45 pm
@Transformation-694:
Mooi!
5 Mar 2013, 00:06 am
Goosen’s misses don’t evoke the vitriol that accompanies a Jantjies miss http://t.co/x1Rm6v3kb2
5 Mar 2013, 03:43 am
Think we can go ahead and forget about Timo Swiel for now then. Clear his allegiances don’t lie completely with the Springboks.
And Quinn Roux as well. If you can’t take someone at his word then why bother.
5 Mar 2013, 05:21 am
Ralepelle cleared by hearing
http://www.planetrugby.com/story/0,25883,3824_8540776,00.html
5 Mar 2013, 05:39 am
@rhygwyn-243:
So this is where all your confusion starts, ‘Domklong’?
And typified by this comment of your? :
” The Cape however have all the funds in the world to build a top team but is undermined by infighting and racial interests.”
‘ Onder watter klip is jy dan gebore? ‘
Are you in this day and age in S.A. stupidly saying that the majority people of the W.Cape do not have the right and might to want to claim back their rugby team from those money moguls of Stellenbosch who dictate this, that and the other because they pay the willing,compromised poor pipers?
What have those ‘Boschers achieved with their money in all their money years in Super rugby, if not absolutely ‘fokkol’? At the same time they have entrenched favouritism(just a form of bigotry) for their chosen Matie boys whether they are adequate enough or not(Jean and Schalk in particular).
Now before you return and spit more of your confusion why not improve you history knowledge of the country you know mostly ‘fokkol’ about except for that your which your apartheid forefathers wanted you to accept and thus benefit from
5 Mar 2013, 06:00 am
@rhygwyn-406:
“Maori parents move to NZ so that there kids have a better life”
Where were they born then originally, if not in N.Z.?
Or are you stupidly confusing the Samoans, Tongans ,Fijians and more for your version of ” Maori” ?
Confusion supreme again?
‘Gaan lees jou ****** geskiedenis klongtjie.’
5 Mar 2013, 06:26 am
@Transformation-656: Danie Craven was stating what the govermment’s policy was at the time of his comment. But at the first opportunity of mixing races he went out of his way to grasp it — the mixed SA XV who played vs NZ on their 1976 tour, the selection of Errol Tobias to the Bok test team vs Ireland and on tour to NZ in 1981, etc. These changes came about under Craven’s watch.
5 Mar 2013, 07:10 am
deluded retards dressing up low morals and shady ethics as sporting superiority.
5 Mar 2013, 07:11 am
Australia going down rather quickly. Four wickets already this morning.
5 Mar 2013, 07:21 am
I agree Bakkies
look at Oscar Pistorius
hansie cronje
the white buffalo and drugs
etc
5 Mar 2013, 07:29 am
And another one. I can’t see Mickey Arthur lasting for much longer after this debacle.
5 Mar 2013, 07:36 am
hallo Poppa,
you are right about OP and Hansie but we both know Botha was setup.
Hansie paid the price and justice prevailed, i would think the same will happen to OP.
5 Mar 2013, 07:41 am
Looks like Australia going to be all out before lunch. 7 wickets already down this morning.
5 Mar 2013, 07:46 am
Aussies showing no fight…..
5 Mar 2013, 08:06 am
Australia all out for 131 before lunch. 8 wickets down in one session. Lost by an innings and 135 runs in just over 3 days. This must be the worst Aussie side for decades. Can’t play spin or pace.
5 Mar 2013, 08:13 am
@the curse-703: poeps, give us the number of Samoan players that played for NZ vs the number of players that represented Samoa. Ie what % of the Samoan pool ended in your pond?
5 Mar 2013, 09:07 am
the numbers are on the previous page.
14 Samoan born all blacks
32 nz born all blacks of Samoan heritage
in the 2011 WC, there were 15 nz born players of Samoan heritage in the Samoan squad.
pretty clear I would have thought.
5 Mar 2013, 09:10 am
@the curse-710: no man. How many players have represented Samoa in total?
5 Mar 2013, 10:25 am
Keo obviously has a beef with the WP this year.
When your FH misses all his kicks then yes he is to blame when the margin of loss is smaller than the sum of missed kicks.
Jantjies played like a merc against the bulls and improved against the sharks.
Jantjies is a good player, but has he ever been part of a winning team at top level?
5 Mar 2013, 10:51 am
http://t.co/8QQECDxel0 #eish
5 Mar 2013, 11:42 am
@ET.-699:
No, I said I just use that as a catch all phrase. I don’t care what the various names are. It is just a redherring argument.
5 Mar 2013, 11:45 am
@David-675:
Apartheid is irrelevant, another emotional redherring. The fact remains that race is more likely than not to cause division. It is like that in every country in the world. People largely congregate together by race.
5 Mar 2013, 11:48 am
@nama1-676:
You are right, not one single thing is to blame and I didn’t say it is.
Diversity makes success less likely, not more so. That statement stands by itself.
All these other side topics are things you guys bring in in an attempt to “disprove” what I have said and then we go around in circles and eventually you say “but it isn’t the only reason”. At least you are now admitting that diversity is not a strength.
5 Mar 2013, 12:03 pm
@nama1-678:
See the problem that people like you is that you want to deal in absolutes. Obviously there will be some residential mixing. And obviously if someone is dirt poor and they are given a house they will live where the house is (within reason). It doesn’t say anything about how world wide all races tend to congregate together. Even nationalities of the same race tend to congregate together. Look the evidence is there for all to see. I can’t help you if you refuse to acknowledge the tree right in front of you.
You ask “what is race?”. Are you questioning whether race exists? If race didn’t exist what is BEE? If race doesn’t exist then surely our whole constitution is flawed because it includes the term? Race has never been a scientific term. It is a fluid and useful social tool to categorize people based on their geographical origins and physical appearance.
If Tiger Woods, Ntini and Ernie Els are standing next to each other and I tell you to give a letter to the white guy you will give it to Ernie. If I tell you to give it to the black guy you will give it to Ntini, not Woods because you will instinctively consider Woods to be a mix of some sort.
But all this is another redherring line of topic although it is standard fare.
My original point is that diversity is not a strength and will usually cause decision making inefficiency. You guys have gone so far off topic with this irrelevant side issues that I doubt you even remember what my original point was.
5 Mar 2013, 12:09 pm
@rhygwyn-716: homogeneity is not a guaranteed strength either.
5 Mar 2013, 12:09 pm
@nama1-678:
And on the topic of an English and Afrikaaans white having kids… obviously not. Because most people will consider a “white person” to mean “from Europe”. Since both are “from Europe” they are both white. English and Afrikaans is just the sub-culture and the kids could be either depending on how they are raised but regardless they would be white.
But questions like these are intellectually bankrupt and is a good indication you have no leg to stand on. You are basically admitting that diversity is not a strength.
5 Mar 2013, 12:10 pm
@David-679:
Race and culture are often linked yes. But there is no confusion. Afrikaans and English white “cultures” will also conflict but they do so less because the two groups are of the same race. They more easily co-operate. Not all “groups” are equally different from each other. This is once again a desperate attempt to see everything in absolutes, but that is not how the world works.
5 Mar 2013, 12:14 pm
@nama1-686:
That is not what I said at all. That is just what you want to hear.
I say diversity is not a strength. That is causes more problems.
Before 1994 there was other conflict (Unions, language etc) sure but at least there wasn’t racial conflict in the rugby administration. Now you have the original problems PLUS racial conflict. And ultimately the fact that there was conflict before 1994 just further proves my point. The more divides you have, no matter what the category, the more inefficient you get.
Ultimately you will never get rid of all conflict, in fact, there is a minimal amount of conflict that is healthy but the statement that “diversity is a strength” is rubbish.
5 Mar 2013, 12:17 pm
@ET.-698:
I have no idea what that rant is suppose to mean. I have repeatedly said that homogeneity does not guarantee success, it is one of many factors. My point is that “diversity” is not a benefit, it is at best a hurdle successfully negotiated.
5 Mar 2013, 12:19 pm
@Transformation-717:
Agreed but I never said that. My statement was that “diversity is NOT a strength”.
Do we agree then?
5 Mar 2013, 17:09 pm
@rhygwyn-716: yeah, Tiger Woods has been “diversified” …
& he doesn’t strike me as particularly weak, except when it comes to the allure of women …
5 Mar 2013, 21:03 pm
@rhyggyziggy-713:
” I just use that as a catch all phrase. ” NOTE, YOUR WORDS
And there is your restriction and problem and tunnel vision and conservatism (‘verkramptheid’)and more right there in black and white.
It means there is NO substance in what you write, no rationale. Your every notion amounts to a “catch all phrase” and you end up catching yourself with NO substantiation of any false claim you make(more correctly demand). You make so many “catch all phrases” that you do not even recognize nor comprehend the ones (just yours) I quote for you.
What would be the opposite to your hated “diversity”, if not sick purity ?
Yet much of science since Darwin’s time speaks to the importance of diversity as being so beneficial to life.
You can take your purity = inbreeding = racism = Nazism = evil and see where it will flourish for you, but in S.Africa and elsewhere you will flounder and go under.
Try your purity = inbreeding on the green planet ,racist , but note it is green and not white. Maybe the so-called cheesy moon will be a better environment.
Pages: « 1 … 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 [15] Show All
Have your say
You must be logged in to post a comment.