Parliamentary report: Meeting held 2 August 2011, between SARU and SA Sport Committee

This may shed some light on what is going on behind the scenes at SARU. Source Parliamentary Monitoring Group.

A delegation of SARU presented a report of the preparation of the Springboks for the RWC.

Their strategy was highlighted under two main areas.

Internal factors, the things they could control. Basically their strengths and weaknesses.
Strengths of the team included: the wealth of experience of players, internationally respected players who had the talent to be the best in the world, honesty and openness among the players and support structures
Weaknesses of the team included the form of the players, unity amongst unions/franchise players due to performance clauses in contracts, the lack of a killer instinct, and there was a fear of risk

External factors were things like opportunities and threats the team has no control over.
The threats faced by the team were: to win seven games to be the best, to play New Zealand in New Zealand, home union players who played their last games in March and would be fresh, the international media and the overexposure of most Springbok players.
The team wanted to win seven games in a row in order to be the best in the world. The team was looking for fresh and revitalized players, the players and management needed to be focused and goal-orientated. Players needed to be relaxed, but not without the necessary pressures that comes with doing well for the country and “building a nation.” The team understood the country’s demands and possessed the tools to unite the country “to the best of their ability”

The team understood the country’s demands and possessed the tools to unite the country “to the best of their ability”.

Tools included good coaching and technical staff who could provide players with accurate feedback on the day’s performance, on practice sessions and on player status before and after games. The logistics manager took the pressure off of players especially regarding travel. There was a small problem regarding conditioning strategies due to a reliance of franchise conditioning of players. This led to a variance in conditioning levels in the squad, but through hard work the gap had been narrowed. The stronghold at moment was a strong medical team

The team strived for consistency in team selection- the priorities were experience and leadership
The way forward was to have a single database from Craven with centralized medical records and skill database on strengths and weakness. As the sport leaders in South Africa, there needed to be one sport base in South Africa like a “sport village” to bring across all expertise and experience. This would result in coordination in the areas of sport psychology, medical and conditioning.

Questions
It was noted that there was a very strong feeling amongst the public that the team that went to the Tri-Nations had weakened the badge of the Springboks because a weakened side was played. It had not brought any glory to the country in the crucial time of trying to reclaim a championship. It was a dangerous thing to ostracise a public who supported the Springboks.

The A-team had been rested five out of the last six matches plus the Tri-Nations, this had resulted in immense pressure for the two remaining home legs of the 2011 Tri-Nations.

He raised questions about team selection to Australasia and asked was this not a case of “leading the lambs to slaughter?” Lastly, he asked what has been done to bridge the gap between the two countries ranked ahead of South Africa?

It was asked to Mr de Villiers to clarify conflicting statements about the Rustenburg camp. How far had the coaching staff gone to reduce the players’ fear of risk taking? What had they done to curb it? Regarding the issues of fear of risk, there needed to be a message of “enjoy yourself and become confident.” With winning comes confidence and momentum. If the team continued to lose, they would lose confidence. They asked the coach to address the issue of player selection and the credibility issues that came with the public perception that the best and most experienced players were left behind.

The body language of the players gave the message that there was a problem and the players were not happy. He asked whether Mr de Villiers was aware of the importance for the team to perform well during the Mandela Cup and of the dignity that the Cup deserved. In addition, he mentioned that the issue of representation of players of colour in the national squad was a concern. It was also noted that some players who were not on form received preference over others.

Answers.
background on the team’s performance in New Zealand. Since 1996, the team had played in New Zealand 19 times and only won three times with the best team available. Only one of those teams went on to win the World Cup. The average margin of defeat was 16 points when the Springboks played the All Blacks in New Zealand. Results needed to be seen in the perspective of the performance of New Zealand in their home country. The Springboks only win 64% of their games.

Mr Roux addressed the perception of the team playing a conservative game with the example that the team played this very style against British opposition at the end of last year and won three out of four games. Results in the Tri-Nations had never been great, but according to planning, the team was en route to where it wanted to go. There was no doubt that the best available fit team was selected.

Mr Roux was open and frank with the New Zealand media members about the rehabilitation camp. He emphasised the point that in a normal year the team might have pushed five or six players to play in the Tri-Nations, but with the World Cup it was not a normal year. Both Jean de Villiers and Jacques Fourie had groin injuries and by allowing them to heal and rehabilitate, SARU was not ignoring stakeholders and supporters, but doing what was best for the team. The team could not play Schalk Burger, as he had a fractured finger. Andries Bekker had been ruled out of the World Cup due to injuries. SARU had a contractual obligation to the players to manage their welfare in the best interests of South African Rugby

On talent identification, SARU conceded that it was lacking in that area, but it was a big focus. This matter could only be addressed through broadening the game at every level. If the game was not expanded within the regions and schools it would die.

Transformation was not simply about getting players of colour on the pitch it was about transforming mindset and skills of players from under serviced areas. Human resources and human capital needed to be transformed; throwing money at the structure to achieve transformation would not help.

On the issue of style of play, in the last three years 68% of tries had been scored from inside the 10-yard line and only 6% through 6 or more phases by keeping the ball in the hand. By keeping the ball in hand there was a chance of giving away points. The team had a strong kicking philosophy even though execution was not always right. In last year’s Tri-Nations, New Zealand kicked 20% more and Australia kicked 15% more than the Springboks in test matches. It was not feasible to not have a strong kicking strategy in the modern game. The style of play worked to the team’s strengths. The biggest problem was that international players were overplayed by their club teams. The best player was Fourie du Preez and the team had not had the luxury to play him since 2009. Andries Bekker would be one of the best locks in world rugby but could not play internationally, because he was overexposed and played every game in the Super 15.

On the question of unity it was the coach’s challenge to keep everyone happy. The coach assured the Committee that he was 90% sure that the team could bring back honours the World Cup

The Chairperson did not understand the excuses about overexposure, as Australian and New Zealand players also played the same number of games in the Super 15 and it was not the first time that this issue had been raised. It appeared as if there was something wrong with the administration and not the players. The Chairperson agreed that a transformational mindset needed to occur across society however players of colour remain under-represented. SARU needed intervene and provide guidance to set benchmarks. He instructed SARU to get its house in order.

The Chairperson emphatically stated that on the issue of the Mandela Cup. South African Rugby needed to respect and defend the name of Madiba by sending the best team to win that cup. If the team did not change gears it would become a “laughingstock”.
On the subject of talent identification, Mr Lee added that the Department of Sports and Recreation needed to work in collaboration with the Department of Education as many youth athletes started at school.


There were other issues raised as well, but not relevant to the world Cup.

In my view, a lot of lip service, excuses, and blatant BS.