Super XV Semi-Final previews.

EBOP wrote:Yup, crazy. Bulls did the same the week prior against the crusaders. Can lump those two teams in the same basket perhaps. The sharks and other SA teams seem to be a litlle bit more adventurous.

Taylorman wrote:

EBOP wrote:Yup, crazy. Bulls did the same the week prior against the crusaders. Can lump those two teams in the same basket perhaps. The sharks and other SA teams seem to be a litlle bit more adventurous.

Sounds a bit cruel guys but it does reflect the psyche a little- SA may think they prefer to play the % game 'beacause it works' but these sorts of incidents hint at a distinct lack of confidence and you have to wonder how much 'holding back' there really is in this thinking. I reckon theres a lot of it.

biltongbek wrote:His answer to them was simple, it was that the senior players fear of failure was akin to a debilitating ilness that prevented them from playing wiith exuberance and expressing themselves on the field of play. From that they had a mindset of 3 points will get us there.

The Chairperson opened the floor to questions
Mr G Mackenzie (COPE) 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. To represent the country, SARU needed to play the best players. Due to the new rules in rugby, the kicking game that the team had enjoyed in the past was no longer a suitable playing style. 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. Mr Mackenzie was fearful that going into the World Cup if “we” did not win those games, there might be a serious problem. In the game against New Zealand, there were two glaring examples where Springbok players going forward made “shocking decisions technically.” He raised questions about team selection 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?

Mr S Mmusi (ANC) commented that Mr Mackenzie was very passionate about sports. In addition, he asked 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? In the opportunities section of the presentation, did the Committee fall under government or under supporters?

Mr T Lee (DA) thanked SARU for the role it was playing in developing rugby in the country. He stated that the philosophy of his party was not to run sport. SARU needed to run sport in the sense of “South Africa first”. Mr Lee agreed with everything said by Mr Mackenzie. 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. He 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. On the class versus form issue, Mr Lee agreed that you could not buy class at the expense of players in form. There should be a uniform structure to measure and condition players in the interest of South African Rugby.

Mr J McGluwa (ID) thanked Mr de Villiers for the presentation and stated that he supported the team. He asked the coach to elaborate on the contracting and remuneration issue. What provisions had been made should the players decide to go on strike?

Mr L Suka (ANC) stated that the team was playing “touch rugby” rather than playing attacking rugby. 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. Finally, he asked the SARU delegation to clarify the myths surrounding injured Rustenburg camp.

Mr J Van Der Linde (DA), who was a former Springbok player, stated that it was important to do well in the next two games of the Tri-Nations. The coach should play the players who were going to win the cup and should not hide injured players. Some players who were not on form received preference over others. Talent identification sounded good, but top teams did not nurture players, but rather bought them from regions in the country that could not afford to keep their players.

The Chairperson re-assured the SARU delegation that Members were not lambasting them, but rather giving voice to the frustrations of South African people. He stated that the lack of players of colour remained an issue as transformation was not optional. SARU needed one constitution because jurisdiction between provinces had become a problem.

Mr Jurie Roux, CEO, SARU, thanked the Committee for the positive comments and accepted all of the comments from Members. He addressed the administrative issues by giving 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.

In response to questions about the camp at Rustenburg, Mr de Villiers was quoted as saying that there was no ‘training camp’ at Rustenburg. The camp at Rustenburg was a rehabilitation camp. This was given in response to a specific question about a ‘training camp’ posed by the New Zealand media. 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.

In response to questions on style of play, Mr Roux replied it was a dangerous topic to engage in and one for Mr de Villiers to address. He mentioned that it was difficult to set a single condition programme in place, as each coach believed he knew what was best. SARU could improve matters by putting the best possible structures in place and getting information out through databases and data collection to facilitate the process. In response to respecting fans, partners and joint venture SANZAR agreements, SARU specifically negotiated a deal with support from New Zealand including a clause to field the best available team at all times because New Zealand shared the same concerns on player welfare issues.

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. Under a leaner, unified structure, SARU would be able to address those issues. Talent needed to be kept within home regions to grow the sport. It was the responsibility of SARU to provide infrastructure, facilities and frameworks to facilitate this transformation. 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.

In response to criticisms from former Springboks, Mr de Villiers stated, “The older you get the better your playing days become.” 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.

Mr de Villiers clarified that the Committee would fall under government, as it was the exit and entry point to government for SARU. On the question of unity it was the coach’s challenge to keep everyone happy. He assured the Committee that the country was more important then any individual. The objective was to unify the country and to the make the team the peoples’ team. He was humbled by the support from South Africans all over the country, from young boys, who exclaimed that they wanted to play for him one day, to an elderly gentleman in Soweto who removed his hat to salute him. The coach assured the Committee that he was 90% sure that the team could bring back honours the World Cup. Mr de Villiers mentioned that the Committee was very important to him, as it was the only chance to hear the concerns of the people at the government level. And no sport could survive without the support of its government.

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 with Mr Roux 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.

Mr Suka restated Mr McGluwa’s question on remuneration

Mr Mackenzie agreed with the CEO about mindset on the issue of transformation. He also agreed with Mr Lee’s view on the urgent need for school integration.

Mr Roux explained that when it came to contracting and remuneration, the team had normal employer-employee contracts. The players union was a member of the SARU board and was completely aware and informed of all decisions. It was difficult to debate with a union when “they know all your financials”.

On transformation, it was necessary to have the human capital to ensure that programmes were sustainable or else it was a waste of money.

The Chairperson invited Mr Alexander to present on the inclusion of the Eastern Cape in Super 15 Rugby.

Summary Report on inclusion of the Eastern Cape in Super 15 Rugby
Mr Alexander presented a report on the inclusion of the Southern Kings, an Eastern Cape franchise team, in the Super 15 in 2013. The last time an attempt was made to establish a franchise in the Eastern Cape, it had failed because there were no formal structures in place and no cooperation agreement between the three provinces. This time around the process took longer but Eastern Cape region was stabilised and there was an agreement between the three provinces on the way forward.

The team was formed in 2009 and SARU funded the Kings in 2010. The decision was made that the team would play outside of Port Elizabeth in 2013. The vision was to entrench the rugby in the Eastern Cape. SARU was participating in ownership of the franchise to guide the process. The goal was to establish the Kings as the flagship of professional rugby in the Eastern Cape.

The organisation needed to be sustainable, growing, viable and have participation from the community. SARU wanted to get a return on the investment for the stakeholders. The objective was to develop and nurture club and school rugby and keep the Eastern Cape talent in the region. The idea behind the academy project was to retain players in the region and create jobs and opportunities. This would establish a professional player base and provide career opportunities to have quality training and coaching with access to sport science amenities.

The objective of the academy system was to identify players between the ages of 18-21 who were leaving school and retain them in the game. The academy would serve as an arena to give players the necessary training, to develop their skills, develop life skills and have further education opportunities. After training the players would be contracted for two years to stay in the region in order to sustain the franchise. The quality of service delivery management would be centralized and knowledge transfer skills delivery would be transferred to the local communities.

The academy would house 45 to 60 boys from U-18 to U-21 in a central facility. They would be given food and a stipend and would have access to physiotherapy, sports science and the best coaching possible. The four provinces would be Port Elizabeth, East London, South Western District and Boland. In a joint programme, the same services would be provided to the South African Defence Force (SADF) to reintroduce Rugby into the army. This was not a brick and mortar project, SARU would utilise existing facilities. The academy programme would increase access and opportunities for players of colour and those who come from a poor background.