Time for Unions to decide where their priorities lie!

'Time we put Bok rugby first' - Brenden Nel

Bok coach wants to change system

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

by Gavin Rich 01 November 2012, 07:52


Springbok coach Heyneke Meyer is determined to succeed at something that none of his predecessors have managed to do – he wants to drive a change to the current South African system that consistently seems to leave the national team second on the list of priorities.

The whole issue of player management started to become a big talking point towards the end of The Castle Rugby Championship. The Boks and Wallabies in particular were wracked by injuries that prevented them from being anywhere near what the coaches would have imagined to be their perfect team, and fuel was added to the fire when the All Black coach Steve Hansen attributed his team’s success to the Kiwi management system.

Players in New Zealand are contracted centrally, which means that the NZ Rugby Football Union is essentially their boss. That means the national body can direct when players need to be rested, and the spotlight on the advantages of the New Zealand system intensified when it was announced during the Championship that All Black captain Richie McCaw was to be withdrawn from next year’s Super Rugby.

The NZ national body determined which players were released to play in the final rounds of the domestic competition. Contrast that with the South African system, where the top Currie Cup provinces all called on their players to play in the deciding rounds of the tournament, and sometimes, such as when Western Province returned all their Boks straight into the starting team, it seemed risky.

WP did go on to win the competition, which in a region where the winning of a trophy had become an unhealthy obsession was an achievement, but you still have to ask whether the clinching of a Cup that doesn’t carry quite the same gravitas as it used to was worth it when it cost the Boks three players for the end of year tour.

Andries Bekker and Tiaan Liebenberg were ruled out playing against the Cheetahs the week after the end of the Castle Rugby Championship, and Jean de Villiers has been in doubt for the tour up to this week because of a hamstring injury aggravated during that same period. And in the final Meyer lost the services of the inform Bryan Habana.

The team doctor, Craig Roberts, admitted that he had had his heart in his mouth watching the closing stages of the Currie Cup, and the number of walking repairs and the impact of fatigue after a long and busy season means that Meyer is going to have to cut back on the training during the end of year tour.

“The Currie Cup has been hard to watch, I watched it with a lot of trepidation, but the focus is on who is fit now, and we are going to have to manage those players,” said Roberts.

ATTRITION RATE

Meyer is of course paid by the South African Rugby Union so he can’t come out and slam the system, but he made it clear that he wanted to push through for a change in the system, something that he may find hard to do as it has been talked about since the 1990s without anything being done about it.

“Being Springbok coach is a managerial job as much as anything else and it has been frustrating at times for me in this first season,” said Meyer.

“One of my big strengths has always been to look at the system and then go about getting it right. In my opinion, the All Blacks have it right. Their management of the players is unbelievable, and they are also doing the right thing on their end of year tour, taking 34 players and introducing talented youngsters around a core of experienced guys.

“My strength has always been to change systems, and I really have to look at trying to get a change to be made in South Africa as we are just going to lose more and more players to overseas otherwise. The amount of rugby that is being played is just too much, but it is more than just how much rugby that is being played, it is also how physical that rugby is.”

The introduction of the double round of derbies to Super Rugby will be what Meyer was referring to in that last sentence. In South Africa and New Zealand in particular the derbies see teams ratcheting up their intensity and physicality, and the attrition rate has been high as a result, with a franchise like the Highlanders, known for their physicality, ending the season with a very different team to the one that started it.

Their coach Jamie Joseph has a reputation for being a little less co-operative with the New Zealand system than other Kiwi franchise coaches, and Kiwi rugby writers said when in South Africa for the Championship clash at Nasrec that Adam Thomson’s injuries during the international season were down to him being played too much in Super Rugby.

That though is an isolated incident. Meyer and his coaches have to deal with several cases like Thomson’s, and had Habana gone on tour, he would have done so not having had a break from playing for several months, and ditto for De Villiers had he not missed the last two rounds of the Currie Cup.

“We just can’t expect the players to keep playing everything. Apart from anything else, they are just never at home, and that is why players are looking to go overseas, where they can be part of a more stable environment where they travel less and thus spend more time with their wives and their kids,” said the Bok coach.

“I am a positive guy, I like to look at what is best for my players and my teams, and we definitely need to look at the systems going forward. If we don’t then we are never going to see a situation where the teams are playing each other at full strength. I do believe it is possible that coaches may get to choose their perfect teams, but it will require changes to the system.”

Meyer added that the players are being consulted on the issue through SARPA and that movement was being made. The trick though will be to convert all the talking into action, for while there are administrators who will support Meyer’s views, the bottom line is that the provinces control South African rugby.

maestegmafia wrote:Bil this is part of the HEC argument the English PRL have over the Celts and Italians.

One nations system is better than another's that is stuck in its archaic ways.

It is an argument that will continue on and on as I can't see the game as a whole adopting one system to govern all. We all need diversity in the way we manage our rugby to be competitive.

Ireland have basically the same system as NZ, Wales are talking about doing something similar, Englands RFU have massive club vs country issues with their clubs owners organisation the PRL that prevent everything moving forward, France have hugely wealthy clubs but the clubs are in coherence with their national union FFR.

The world in most parts USA shambles at club and international level.

Nearly two decades of professional rugby and all bar the kiwis are struggling to reach a positive, sustainable, workable future.

maestegmafia wrote:Bil this is part of the HEC argument the English PRL have over the Celts and Italians.

One nations system is better than another's that is stuck in its archaic ways.

It is an argument that will continue on and on as I can't see the game as a whole adopting one system to govern all. We all need diversity in the way we manage our rugby to be competitive.

Ireland have basically the same system as NZ, Wales are talking about doing something similar, Englands RFU have massive club vs country issues with their clubs owners organisation the PRL that prevent everything moving forward, France have hugely wealthy clubs but the clubs are in coherence with their national union FFR.

The world in most parts USA shambles at club and international level.

Nearly two decades of professional rugby and all bar the kiwis are struggling to reach a positive, sustainable, workable future.

maestegmafia wrote:Bil this is part of the HEC argument the English PRL have over the Celts and Italians.

One nations system is better than another's that is stuck in its archaic ways.

It is an argument that will continue on and on as I can't see the game as a whole adopting one system to govern all. We all need diversity in the way we manage our rugby to be competitive.

Ireland have basically the same system as NZ, Wales are talking about doing something similar, Englands RFU have massive club vs country issues with their clubs owners organisation the PRL that prevent everything moving forward, France have hugely wealthy clubs but the clubs are in coherence with their national union FFR.

The world in most parts USA shambles at club and international level.

Nearly two decades of professional rugby and all bar the kiwis are struggling to reach a positive, sustainable, workable future.

maestegmafia wrote:Bil this is part of the HEC argument the English PRL have over the Celts and Italians.

One nations system is better than another's that is stuck in its archaic ways.

It is an argument that will continue on and on as I can't see the game as a whole adopting one system to govern all. We all need diversity in the way we manage our rugby to be competitive.

Ireland have basically the same system as NZ, Wales are talking about doing something similar, Englands RFU have massive club vs country issues with their clubs owners organisation the PRL that prevent everything moving forward, France have hugely wealthy clubs but the clubs are in coherence with their national union FFR.

The world in most parts USA shambles at club and international level.

Nearly two decades of professional rugby and all bar the kiwis are struggling to reach a positive, sustainable, workable future.

boomeranga wrote:I apologise for how remarkedly boring this post is. Unless you care, or wish to sleep, don't read.


Our bunch commissioned a governance review earlier in the year which was released on Monday. The report didn't say that the system wasn't supporting the Wallabies (you wouldn't get away with saying that), but said there was a disconnect between the Wallabies and the rest of the system, plus between the pro system and the community. It had no specific answers, but it's a good first step as it will end up with the board of the ARU being an independent board without responsibilities to the union they came from.

The constitution of the existing board dates to 1950 or so is very much out of the amateur era. The bloke commissioned to undertake the review highlighted the challenge of converting from amateur to professional in such a short period, plus he compared rugby to our other three codes plus cricket which all had the benefit of evolving into professionalism over 100 years as opposed to 1 night. Aussie Rules and League were semi-pro as early as the WWI, so they came with a natural growth in the structures around them.

His view seems to be that many of the outcomes were a result of turning pro overnight, coupled with the external pressures of other the already professional leagues having the jump. Decision have been made that are bad, but they had to be made at the time, and now we need to undo some of them.

I don't think it's a silver bullet for Oz rugby, but a less political structure cannot hurt us.

Toadfish wrote:Is it possible for you to post on here without having a dig in some way at English Rugby?

maestegmafia wrote:

Toadfish wrote:Is it possible for you to post on here without having a dig in some way at English Rugby?

I am not having a dig at English rugby.

Casartelli wrote:Morning Maes.

Just out of interest, serious question, when you say 'there is far more clarity in the direction than a decade ago' - what is this based on? What's your take on what the direction actually is?

The WRU report uses lots (and lots) of words like 'developing, delivering, supporting, expanding' etc. but is completely devoid of any specifics when it comes to any goals and objectives.

http://www.wru.co.uk/downloads/WRU_ARA_2011_Final.pdf

Casartelli wrote:Maes - I'd argue most of those changes came about as a result of the game going pro, not because of any strategy of the WRU.

I accept that the admin and debt situation is managed more professionally now.

But in terms of the rugby, and having all the component parts working to benefit 'Welsh Rugby' as a whole, it's as rudderless as it ever was. The WRU doesn't seem to have any priorities (other than dealing with the bank) or a plan as to how the clubs are supposed to support the regions and the regions then support the test team. Or even if they want that sort of cohesion.

In April the Chairman stated that we could never have central contracts, then last month the CEO says he's been trying to negotiate them with the regions since the summer!

Casartelli wrote:I think you give them too much credit Maes (I'd suggest it was full time wages and, more recently, Gatland/Edwards) but, as ever, I respect your enthusiasm.

Without harmony between club/region/national team and without a big commercial sponsorship deal for 'Welsh Rugby' as an entity (which could, ideally, cash in on naming rights for the stadium), I don't think the CEO is earning his £300k+pa salary.

Maybe we need a respected rugby man at the top? Let Roger do the paperwork.

BigTrevsbigmac wrote:However, from what I understand is that there is serious discontent at club & regional level because of lack of funds/facilities basically money. I know the WRU recently invested £3.5m into grass roots but that really is a drop in the ocean.

BigTrevsbigmac wrote:It's better than it was for sure but it ain't fixed & it certainly shouldn't be held up as an example to the English system, as better. It's different, but you pays your money & takes your pick.

BigTrevsbigmac wrote:

Casartelli wrote:I think you give them too much credit Maes (I'd suggest it was full time wages and, more recently, Gatland/Edwards) but, as ever, I respect your enthusiasm.

Without harmony between club/region/national team and without a big commercial sponsorship deal for 'Welsh Rugby' as an entity (which could, ideally, cash in on naming rights for the stadium), I don't think the CEO is earning his £300k+pa salary.

Maybe we need a respected rugby man at the top? Let Roger do the paperwork.

Sounds like a good idea. Lewis is a music man not a rugby (sports) man.

All the money is at the top in Wales & that is fine if the national team are successful & it makes most welsh fans happy.
However, from what I understand is that there is serious discontent at club & regional level because of lack of funds/facilities basically money. I know the WRU recently invested £3.5m into grass roots but that really is a drop in the ocean.
It's better than it was for sure but it ain't fixed & it certainly shouldn't be held up as an example to the English system, as better. It's different, but you pays your money & takes your pick.

maestegmafia wrote:

BigTrevsbigmac wrote:However, from what I understand is that there is serious discontent at club & regional level because of lack of funds/facilities basically money. I know the WRU recently invested £3.5m into grass roots but that really is a drop in the ocean.

£3.5m is more than half the profit made by the WRU last year. That is a large increase in their contribution not a drop in the ocean.

BigTrevsbigmac wrote:It's better than it was for sure but it ain't fixed & it certainly shouldn't be held up as an example to the English system, as better. It's different, but you pays your money & takes your pick.

The whole point of this article is that very few nations have it "fixed". The only example I have held up as an example of success is the Kiwi one. It works well for them and makes a great deal of sense why similar sized countries like Wales and Ireland have been heavily based on that model. As two very small nations we are doing well because of it, Ireland in Provincial rugby, Wales at international.

What Wales do, the direction Wales chose would not suit England in the slightest.

The RFU have their own things to sort out. You can re read all the post RWC investigations lead by several fractions for a reminder on the long list of modifications to English rugby that were wished to be implemented.

BigTrevsbigmac wrote:maestegmafia wrote,

'The whole point of this article is that very few nations have it "fixed". The only example I have held up as an example of success is the Kiwi one. It works well for them and makes a great deal of sense why similar sized countries like Wales and Ireland have been heavily based on that model. As two very small nations we are doing well because of it, Ireland in Provincial rugby, Wales at international.'

Success at International will not exist if there are no Regions to supply the players. The money in Wales is all top end & for all your constant 'everything in welsh rugby is great' attitude the Regions are declining & are becoming an unattractive place for welsh rugby players with ability.
They have only survived in the past through rich benefactors & it appears they are losing patience with the WRU & in particular Lewis.

debaters1 wrote:Recwatcher,

Given that only 4 of the Aviva clubs made a profit or broke even last season, domestic fans and outsiders alike can ask question regarding whether or not the 'big country' model of independant clubs & league is sustainable. 2/3rds of teams making a loss? As a rugby fan in general I do not like hearing that. The same goes for the Welsh regions not being as successful entities as the Irish provinces; we need each other and you can have all the bread & butter domestic league action you want, but do not kid yourself into thinking it is without flaw or that nothing can be taken from how the small countries do things and applied to England or France or South Africa.