Give our boys a fair crack
8 May 2008
South African teams always start four league points down in the Super 14.
Once again it is down to two rounds in the Super 14 and one league win that separates teams two and seven.
Once again those who devised the structure of the tournament are commending themselves because any tournament in which the play-offs only get determined in the last week has to be a good one. At least that’s the self indulgence you will hear.
But the Super 14 is not a fair tournament. It favours the New Zealand and Australian teams because of travel determined by geography and it also gives half the teams a more favourable draw each year, which in essence means it is not a fair tournament.
The Super 14, like the Super 12, is weighted against South African teams.
This is not a gripe but a fact and yet we wonder why we continue to fail more than succeed.
Let’s take the Lions as an example. They are fair game and All Blacks legend Sean Fitzpatrick gave them a bollocking for their shabby performance against the Hurricanes in Wellington last weekend.
What Fitzpatrick did not say was that the Lions had been on tour for five weeks, jetting between New Zealand and Australia.
At most, New Zealand teams play three games in South Africa. Australian teams get two. Occasionally a New Zealand team will get an Aussie team on the way over or one on the way back and when they do you never hear the end of how demanding the schedule is.
This brings us back to the South African teams, for whom a short tour is four weeks.
The South African players in time have improved and learned to enjoy Australia and New Zealand, but no matter how much you enjoy a place the difference between three and five matches is a fortnight away from home and in all probability eight league points lost on the road.
When you consider that four league points have historically separated teams four and eight, you get to appreciate the impact of the additional two weeks away from home.
Given the circumstances and the disadvantage of the draw (based on geographics) the fact that South Africa invariably has one team in the semi finals and on most occasions two in the top five is a credit to the boys.
The reality is South Africa does not have the depth for five teams and neither does New Zealand. Australia also does not have the depth for four teams. But outside of the depth issue, the best South African teams do bloody well.
I don’t think we give them enough credit and I have been as guilty as the next person. Our expectations are high and we demand success every weekend. But the reaction too often is over the top.
Because of this South African inferiority complex, which too many still have, it seems improper to object to the schedule because then South Africans are accused of being an extension of Pommy whingers.
The obvious solution is for South African teams to play in Europe, but that doesn’t ever seem likely. South Africa, by playing in the Super 12, have improved New Zealand and Australia’s development of players, to the detriment of their own.
If there is to be an expansion to the Super 14 then it has to ensure the teams all play the same amount of games overseas and spend equal time away from home.
Otherwise we will be wasting our time again and continue to be the whipping boys of New Zealand and to a lesser degree Australia.
The point is the Kiwis are not that good and we are not that bad. But when we continue to give them an eight point tournament head start we will never know how good we can be in this tournament or just how ordinary their teams can look.
280 Comments
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 » Show All
8 May 2008, 23:16 pm
They should just shut up about the NH, the true litmus test is playing NZ and Aus, the rest are 2nd grade competition, we want to lower our standards then chicken out and be a big fish amongst little fishies, the only true test of character and ability is to compete and become successful in the S14 and 3N, just because our lack of ability or domination is shown up to be somewhat under baked should not encourage us to pack up shop and head for the laager, we should be girding up our loins and getting to the sharp end of the issues, rectify the shortcomings, increase the resolve and take the fight to the Southern warrior, else turn tail and become nincompoop second graders like our NH counterparts, who wants to be playing in a second grade competition when the real McCoy’s right here in front of us to test our wits against?
8 May 2008, 23:19 pm
We are reaching a cross roads for the premier competition in world rugby. NH money is trying to influence it towards the North. Pure quality players and skil levels are still holding top position in the south.
Whatever you do, SANZAR, DON’T BLINK NOW. Get the Argies in and make it a proper SH competition. Starve the european market of Argie and PI players – undermine their strong points, while holding steady on our own. and get a huge nation involved, like China/India/Japan for funding.
O’ Neill was right.
8 May 2008, 23:21 pm
Hear faking hear. About time our administrators showed the size of their gonads and fought for an even deal. Who brings in the most doe as a matter of interest?
8 May 2008, 23:23 pm
#187 Keen to swop for a few years to check out the theory?
8 May 2008, 23:24 pm
#201 whatever:
SA by a country mile. we also have the biggest crowds.
8 May 2008, 23:26 pm
F’ck the money it will drag the game to a level of overpaid soft glory boys doing shampoo and Gilette razor ads, the only option is keep it hard and close to the hard edged southern hemisphere grindstone where the real game is played and won or lost, they milking our nurseries and luring the natural genetic talent to go sell itself short up there, O’Niel is right, tell em to F’ off, gird our traditions and make this hemisphere strong and proud of its heritage.
The North know exactly how superior we are thats why they’re buying it up with their first world marketable money, if we sell it short and capitulate to market forces, the youthful raw energy will be dissipated within a couple generations, and poof, rugby union as we know it will be no more.
8 May 2008, 23:28 pm
The only way to equalize the travel would be to bring some Argie teams into the mix. The flight over the Atlantic to Argentina for SA teams is shorter than the flight over the Pacific for the Anzacs.
Or dump those cheaters from Down under anyway and have a trans-Atlantic competion with SA, Argentina, the 5 home unions and maybe North America.
8 May 2008, 23:32 pm
#204 skopskiet:
Fully agree, the defeatist attitude portrayed by Keo in his article and accepted by many people on this site, is very sad.
8 May 2008, 23:35 pm
Hey the Cheetas lost against the Stormers at Newlands, it is totally unfair as the Cheetas suffered from Jet lag
and what is this rubbish anyway about you should win your home games
8 May 2008, 23:39 pm
Shouldn’t you be asleep Robzim, like me, shouldn’t be wandering around these hallways of analogy this late hour of the day (night). Glad we on the same page wrt this and other issues tho.
8 May 2008, 23:40 pm
the 8 points we missing each super season is because of our teams very slow starts, basically stemming from the lack of preseason games, and the length of time our guys train together before super season kickoff.
my example is the stormers. squad is only decided in january. couple of preseason games. combinations are not settled or tested at all. the result is the sh1te performance for the first 3 or 4 rounds of the competition.
the teams should be ready from day 1, not looking to fire come week 5.
some might say that its tactics and management preparing the team so that they can last the long tournament for the 16 required weeks.
i dont buy the whinging about tour length. like someone above said, the long tour only prepares our guys for the lengthy tours that come with winning World Cups. you have to take the positives out of it.
catching up with stormers players when they were here in auckland. none of those i spoke to said the tour was too long. the tour is a great chance to go and have change of scenery. its part and parcel of pro rugby.
8 May 2008, 23:49 pm
Yeah Tomsta thats all very well but stats show that home games are won more than away games. 5 aways games and a few losses, it season over. It can never be fair mate
8 May 2008, 23:55 pm
No SA teams should win all home games, by the way when last did the Boks do well on an end of year tour
9 May 2008, 00:01 am
#209 Tomsta:
tomsta – the tour is not too long so long as you’re winning, as the stormers were this year; but if you are losing on tour it would be great to able to go home after 2 weeks and regroup. instead of having to soldier on on a hiding to nothing.
if the schedules were fair then why are NZ and Aus so against adopting similar travel schedules? do they think they are too soft and that only the south africans can manage it? what are they so afraid of?
9 May 2008, 00:09 am
#204 skopskiet: plus 195,197,199 etc.
Please, with all due respect, get of your misplaced soapbox now. Not a single point you are ranting about(and some of them not even factual) is vaguely pertinent to the fact that SA teams are at a huge physiological and psychological disadvantage(as alluded to in the article) in this competition and that is why it has taken so long to have a winning team and yet only when the NZers had removed their 22 best for more than half the competition.
Does the name Webb Ellis ring a bell? Does that Ennnglish town of Rugby ring a bell? Does the very first tour by Britsh teams to the first world test venues of The Crusader Ground(St. George’s Park) and Newlands fit in to you rugby history? So don’t even whisper the word heritage when it comes to rugby.
And please remind me what was not hard fought, hard earned, hard edged and brave about the most victorious 1971 and esp. 1974 British Lions and ’95/’96 England team(in SA) and the late ’90s(’98/’99 Br.Lions) agin in SA? And I have not yet mentioned the French who always seem to teach SA a rugby lesson more now than again.
Have you forgotten that the Aussies are really jonny come lately i.e. since late ’80s (Ella bothers advent) when it came to a demanding test series in Aus. or SA? Have you now realised you soapbox is rickety?
9 May 2008, 00:15 am
#196 munkiboi</a etc.
Are vou sure about the point you really want to make because you are contradicting your self in your different posts. Or are you just jumping on the Skoppie (yes master) bandwagon?
9 May 2008, 00:19 am
#212 munkiboi:
nz prob not keen to adopt long tours as that means not as many home games.
as you prob heard there is lots of chat around nz about rugby losing its following in a massive way. (keo write something on this topic).
the nzru prob cant afford sending their teams on 5 week tours. having empty stadiums like last year have really brought to light how rubbish the following of rugby is in nz. its a complex thing. as you say winning teams will draw crowds. thanks to henry and his men, and in a way to nuci. there is not much interest around auckland for going to games or watching them on tv.
to answer your questions. dont think its a psyche thing for nz teams to tour sa. they love the women, they love the weather, they love the change of scenery.
9 May 2008, 00:20 am
So you prefer to sell out and go join your European paymasters sounds like to me ET
Johnny come lately Aussies or 74 successful Br Lions is consigned to history books for now, we are talking current migration of rugby talent, and it still rests emphatically more hard edged down south than up north, until we sell out that is and give them the cherry with the cake.
9 May 2008, 00:23 am
#210 whatever:
fair is what you make of it.
half empty or half full?
sure looking at it, the sa teams have longer tours. the teams that are prepared for the tour tend to do alright.
9 May 2008, 00:29 am
12:24 am, not the time to enter or debate superfluous yes sir no sir three bags full type arguments for the sake of prodigious intellectual bragging rights
Another time or place for such astutely accurate or inaccurate prognosis of where the ebbs and flows of rugby’s supremacy rests or hastens to.
9 May 2008, 00:30 am
#216 skopskiet:
Does your heritage not consider all your rugby past everywhere, whether it is good or bad? Or just the seemingly recent not that good but which gives us loads of arrogance because we associate with the mighty All Blacks and the now not so hot Wallabies?
9 May 2008, 00:39 am
#216 skopskiet:
More than 98% of my posts on this on this thread dealt only with the sport science component of this matter. And I added that the only way for balance/equilibration to the inflexible and bullying Australasians(they are ganging up against us(66% to 33%) was to play in your time zone for purely physiological reasons.
Can you suggest any other reason why the WPStomers have consistently been the best SA region even when the pathetic KvdM was there? My advance is simply because of Noake’s Sport Science Dept.
9 May 2008, 00:40 am
#214 ET:
Skop rants incoherrantly at times – and is self indulgent with his attempts at being somehwat poetic.
what i am saying is – i believe we are disadvantaged by the way the shedules are done – proof is what happened to the waratahs a few seasons ago when faced with 4 on the road in a row – they lost, and their media had a field day claiming the travel was ludicrous coz the other aussie teams didn’t have to do it…
but to suggest we go and join a euro league is just plain dumb. we are playing with the right countries in the right competition – it just needs a wee bit of tweaking.
no contradiction.
9 May 2008, 00:42 am
#220 ET:
should read “best region away from home etc.”
9 May 2008, 00:44 am
#219 ET:
Do you consider the Southern hemisphere or Northern hemisphere teams to be currently and consistently the best? If you perhaps consider the Southern hemisphere teams to be the best, don’t you think it will be better to compete with them even if it means you might have some disadvantages as far as the travelling schedule is concerned.
As far as the history is concerned I think South Africa and New Zeeland have by far the best win/loss ratios of all the rugby playing nations.
9 May 2008, 00:45 am
#219 ET:
It has accurately or inaccurately largely remained an SA/NZ standoff till late 80′s as to who donned the unofficial world crown of Rugby Union Football, though it originated in England and was adopted and mastered by Wales for a period and cherished and expounded on by the flair full Gauls through the 60′s and through the past 5 decades, and as you correctly insisted was mastered by more than one combined British Lions touring team in 71 and 74.
However over the duration of our association with this most English of sporting codes, in recent times, SA, NZ and Australia have dominated to a greater extent than their northern counterparts, the progress and development and physical attributes associated with the scope of the evolving sport of rugby. notwithstanding the fact that England, France and Ireland in recent times and again recently a resurgence in Welsh rugby (through the influence of NZ coaching acumen) has also enjoyed some hard won success.
Nevertheless, there has been a muted call for us to sever our ties with our SH brethren and cajole up to the NH participants, where I strongly believe we will in so doing lose every vestige of our Southern hard edged heritage that we fought long and hard to engender.
9 May 2008, 00:48 am
#221 munkiboi:
So coherently or incoherently, whichever way you prefer to say it, poetically or plainly, we’re actually more or less saying precisely the same thing.
9 May 2008, 00:49 am
#221 munkiboi:
Read my post #220 it refers to’ balance’ the disparate science imbalances we have to go through every S14 season but they like the historical Waratahs cannot do it. Does this not prove they know they have and demand/bully us for a highly favourable situation?
9 May 2008, 00:51 am
Jsis, it is getting late. Good night Skop and everyone else.
9 May 2008, 00:55 am
If all the matches were held in one country each year on a rotational basis, one country’s teams would have home advantage, and everyone else would be in the same boat.
Yes, stadiums in countries not hosting the S? in that year would lose out, but judging by the attendance at franchises like the Lions, I can’t see that making a huge difference. The money is in the TV coverage, and once every 3 years, the hosting countries unions and their local economies would receive a huge boost with such a massive influx of teams and their supporters.
The fans would be happy, because as the World Cup proved, surprizes are always possible in this sort of competition, and therefore there will be fewer tumbleweed fixtures.
The TV people would be happy because it would be an event, which would have much more atmosphere than a series of matches strung out over a month.
The players would be happy because they could get settled in and the effect of travel would be taken out of the discussion of results.
Countries like Argentina, the Pacific Islands, Japan, Canada and the USA could send a couple of clubs each, which would help grow the game. Under the current arranglements the travel implications would be ridiculous. In the case of the Pacific Islands, there pool of talent would help them compete. In the case of the USA and Japan, their financial clout would help them buy the players they needed to put up a fight.
Long term, such a competition could be the cornerstone of a global season and include the Northern Hemisphere, which would help reduce the number of matches players are playing in irrelevant minor competitions, particularly in Europe.
Basically, it would be the IPL for rugby, without forcing all the players in the world to join a franchise from one particular country.
The whole thing could also be set up with limits on overseas players so that the Southern Hemisphere wouldn’t be disadvantaged and could keep at least some of their best players, and countries like Argentina, Samoa, etc… could get some of their players back.
It wouldn’t be in competition with the World Cup, anymore than the Champions League in football is in competition with the World Cup in football.
It’s a dream I know, but the IPL is working, why not this?
9 May 2008, 00:58 am
Stick with the Aussies and AB’s thats where the latent talent pool strength lies for now, and with the Pacific Islanders and Argentinians to lesser or greater degrees,
The NH may have similar time zones but totally opposed climatic conditions and structures.
SH rugby is a different type animal to its NH cousin, rather play the uncompromising hard edged SH derivative than the more sophisticated yet I believe less demanding code of European rugby. Thats why its mainly SA, NZ and Aus and Argie players that are bolstering the English and French clubs to the extent that we do.
9 May 2008, 01:00 am
USA rugby does not have any finacial clout in the US or anywhere sorry to tell you this
.
One way is to maybe give SA teams an extra bonus point for winning in OZ?NZ
9 May 2008, 01:00 am
Yeah its late Robzim, I’m also signing out
So long
9 May 2008, 01:00 am
Sorry, should be financial
9 May 2008, 01:03 am
CoachPete
The USA is a rich place. They invest where there is money to be made. Basketball was a minor sport there, and very quickly became a major sport. If these rich sport franchise owners see the sport growing, they will take out their cheque books.
9 May 2008, 01:05 am
#224 skopskiet:
AH NOW YOUR COBWEBS OF HISTORY/HERITAGE HAVE BEEN SHAKEN/
‘Unofficial’ is merely that, not official. Meaning no acceptable criteria was employed in this measurement, thus unscientific or non-statistical.
Then again what criteria is used for acceptable ‘dominated by etc.? Is it WCs or what? NZ have won it only once and not again in 20 years and counting to at least 22,23,24. But England also won it only once but were the last finalists with SA.
Simply what are you measuring, what is your yardstick. I can put forward an argument that even the present WC system does not necessarily give us the best rugby playing nation. Abberations can and have occurred in its short history would you not say?
9 May 2008, 01:06 am
I have lived in USA for 20 years after moving from SA, and been involved in USA rugby at all levels mainly coaching, and although its a rich country there is no money in rugby. It cant even get coverage on cable here except Setanta sports Lacrosse gets more coverage.
Plus big TV networks dont want rugby as a big sport here because there are no time outs therefore no money from ads.
9 May 2008, 01:19 am
Ah Keo, you are truly a great stirrer ! I’m quite sure if your SA teams were good enough to win more often, we would not hear a squeak out of you and your countrymen.
And just to put in the facts…..the actual travel miles both outwards and inwards are almost identical. The only real difference is that you stay in one of our class hotels for just 1 week longer than we do in your hotels.
9 May 2008, 01:33 am
“Plus big TV networks dont want rugby as a big sport here because there are no time outs therefore no money from ads.” CoachPete
Then why are guys like Gilette, Hicks and the Glazers buying soccer clubs? There are no timeouts in soccer either.
The reason is that soccer is a global game with alot of money in it, and they want some of that action.
If rugby built up its profile with spectacles like the IPL in cricket, they would start to get interested.
I’m not saying it will happen tomorrow. It all depends on the IRB getting a vision that will appeal to this kind of investor.
The popularity of American football proves that they have a taste for full contact sport. I think if rugby was presented in a more spectacular way, ie. as a large tournament with American interest, they might find that they like a faster moving full contact sport where they can take on the world rather than just play against themselves, which is mostly what they do in their other major sports.
9 May 2008, 01:33 am
quick question. is a week in hamilton as bad as a week in kimberly?
9 May 2008, 01:39 am
Soccer is a thousand times bigger sport including the millions of kids soccer players in USA . The networks dont have too much time for soccer but show it because of the demand. There is zero demand for rugby so its not exposed.
Rugby needs to grow in USA from the kids in school, but even that is difficult since they have cut schools programs, plus the big three sports in schools dont like their players playing rugby.
American football is big yes but after school and college such a smal percentage continue . NFL Football is basically there for the sponsors, and the players salaries are paid by us buying coke and ford.
Jake beleive me I would love to see rugby grow here.
9 May 2008, 01:40 am
Also kids love rugby here but dont understand the rules, mainly because they not exposed to the sport. So they move on or back to US sports
9 May 2008, 01:42 am
If a wealthy person in USA could have an option of paying a percentage to be a part owner in a US Pro sports team or being a owner in a US super 16 team lets say, 100% he would go with the US pro team
9 May 2008, 01:43 am
Ok enough talking to myself.
9 May 2008, 01:48 am
If travelling away from home for 4 or 5 weeks is such a problem, how come the Boks have won Test Series in NZ when tours used to go for 15 or 20 weeks? I think its a mental thing, and your boys are just to soft – they miss their tannie, pap & koeksisters too much.
It’s bullshit about the travel – ‘crossing backwards and forwards over the Tasman Ocean between NZ & OZ is nothing – its a 3 hr flight. NZ is closer to the East Coast of OZ than Perth is in any case. Being away as a “Team” should make a group tighter and more cohesive – it should give them an advantage (if managed right).
Modern sports and nutrition science has also allowed people to manage the effects of travel much more effectively anyway.
SA Teams have an equivalent advantage supposedly – with the difference in altitude between the Coast and the Veldt. Playing at 6000′ is not something you can easily replicate! (Not that you’d know it with the performances of the Lions, Bulls, & Cheetahs this year!!.
Stop making excuses, and ‘harden up’ boys!
9 May 2008, 01:50 am
Tomsta,
I think the local wahines are more willing in Hamilton
9 May 2008, 01:51 am
I don’t doubt you what you’re saying CoachPete. You’ve obviously thought alot about this.
The key is obviously that rugby has to grow, and then as you say, the networks will concede to the demand.
Its great to hear the kids like it and that gives me hope, that if the IRB can get its act together, there is a potential appetite that could cause it to grow. In a way its not surprizing considering that American Football was, once upon a time, pretty similar to rugby, and look how big that game has become.
It’s not only a rich country, it’s also a big country, and it could make a huge difference to the long term future of the sport.
9 May 2008, 01:57 am
Thats ok Jake . Hey I have to personally coach my son because there is no team for him locally. When kids get into the game here they love it , and embrace it with the same passion as all rugby players.
USA needs the exposure . They have the numbers, just need to draw from the really skilled kids.
They also need to change the structure of the clubs and regional mens rugby, to something similar to Currie cup or NPC, but that too is hard. The distances are big here and even as a rich country, air fares are expensive to rugby players too.
9 May 2008, 02:01 am
Thanks coach. It’s been intereresting, but I’ve got some work to do, so I better get back to it. Goodnight.
9 May 2008, 02:02 am
Cheers
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 » Show All
Have your say
You must be logged in to post a comment.