What can be done to change the view of the Springboks.. or does it not need to..

I bet we have all watched Invictus, and not going to get into the debate on whether it was a good film or not, whether it portrayed the RWC correctly or any of that stuff...

.. but one thing that stood out for me, was the young black South African not wanting the Springbok jersey at the beginning of the film, but at the end accepting it has his own. The speech Mandela made to retain the Springbok as the emblem of SA rugby... I felt that a strong and very brave line to take and for me underpins what a remarkable and wise person he was.

I'm therefore a little surprised at this BLOG I spotted on the BBC, and have to ask our Bok posters on here... Do you think this is complete hogwash or accurate, and if the latter, does this represent a backward step or has it always been the case and simply the cracks are reappearing..

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/rugby-union/30028782

Personally, I hope it is just Tom Fordyce's usual hogwash, as I'm a strong believer that rugby, beyond any other sport, has the ability to unite people rather than create divides. And I have believed, that South Africa, more than any other nation, due to its "past politics", has demonstrated this more than any other rugby playing nation. I for one would be really disappointed if there is credibility in this Blog...

Be interested in your comments...

Ever watched when the Crusaders play in Cape Town? Home game....

I know a lot of black South Africans will still support England over the Boks. Old habits die hard.

chewed_mintie wrote:Ever watched when the Crusaders play in Cape Town?  Home game....

I wouldn't say that.... I've seen the crusaders play in CT and saw a couple of shirts at best. But TV cameras always seem to capture the odd toothless crone in an NZ top cheering.

perhaps a small part of a single stand will be cape coloured NZ or Crusader fans but they are very much in the minority... and they're dying out.

Cape Coloured players were numerous in rugby but were prevented from playing for the boks for until Errol Tobias got his call up. Even after then it was difficult. Some in the community started supporting the opposition and many started supporting NZ and still do to this day.

It getting less numerous though given that numerous members of their community are starting to don springbok colours. Kids in these communities are boks, their parents and grandparents still find it tough to support the boks mind. Its not exclusive to all cape coloureds though... go to Newlands on a match day and its very diverse.... it probably was people only from a specific township etc.

chewed_mintie wrote:Ever watched when the Crusaders play in Cape Town?  Home game....

No... well not in a way that I would have noticed fan support...

fa009 - Thanks for the info...

Not sure if this is a different "cultural" thing, but I noticed you used the term "coloured" several times... In the UK and I believe many other European and in the USA the term is now seen as derogatory. They prefer to be called Black... I dont believe, from your other posts that you intende anything from it, so I hope you realise I'm pointing this out, incase you weren't aware and not for any other reason.

Back to your info though, I take it you believe this to be a "generation" thing, where those who lived through the troubled politcal times may be having more issues with the evolving establishment than those who, by being younger, have grown up knowing a more united SA and hence embracing it. If so, that makes perfect sense... if not, I must have mis-understood...

Its a sensationalist article, complete drivel if you ask me.

1. Rugby in SA is dominated by whites and cape coloureds still in terms of numbers.
2. Its dominated by the public schools. I looked into it a few years back and since 1992, 40% of all springboks have come from 21 schools (mainly catered for the white community via cost).
3. Rugby is not really liked by Africans. They prefer football.

4.SARU released a document on school rugby a while back. It stated that only 13% of schools in SA offered rugby. In heavily African dominated provinces of Limpopo, Northwest, Mpumalanga and Natal the no. of schools offering rugby was under 5%.

The province with the highest white population (the Western Cape) had 50% of schools offering rugby (the only province with >20% of schools playing the game).

Given that who do you think is going to turn into top class players?

5. People in Europe think all Africans are the same. Its a joke. They look at Nigerians, or Caribbean based athletes and think, woah they all look like Usain Bolt. Central-East Africans (who make up the majority of Africans in SA, ancestral wise are very different).

The average height of the Zulu is 5'5-5'6 compared to Europeans 5'10-5'11.
Boere on the other hand are massive. They derive mainly from the dutch, the tallest people in the planet.

Rugby is a physical sport. Compare rugby with football for instance.... how many children of say England footballers who played for England had sons who also played for England.

Frank Lampard jnr - Frank Lampard snr
Mark chamberlain - Alex Oxlade-camberlain

then wait 15 years

Nigel Clough - Brian Clough and then bar the 20s and before I think that's it.

however physical size is so important in rugby that genetics is very distinct

Ruan Pienaar
Schalk Burger
Flip van der Merwe
Wikus van Heerdan
Cobus Reinach
Andries Bekker

That's just 6 guys (all of whom have tested in the last 6 years). Big guys have big kids and in rugby... size does matter. These days its seen as normal for every  position to be filled with someone above 6'1-6'2... that's constitutes the tallest 20% of the population for whites let alone Africans.

6. AIDS. It has a big impact trust me. HIV in SA is heavily weighted amongst the African community. Whites have HIV rates akin to most NW European countries around 0.5%. Africans on the otherhand have HIV rates of near 20%. Youngsters in the African community are at risk from HIV very early on either through catching it from their parents (via breastfeeding etc) or social conditions. Remember the up series which amazingly included Willem Alberts. The show watching 20 randomly selected children in the 90s into how they grow. If I recall in the latest version, 4 of those kids have already died from AIDs, all African. that's 4 from 20 (28%). Do the math on the wider population and how this impacts sporting success and opportunities.

What an interesting informative post.

No9 wrote:fa009 - Thanks for the info...

Not sure if this is a different "cultural" thing, but I noticed you used the term "coloured" several times... In the UK and I believe many other European and in the USA the term is now seen as derogatory. They prefer to be called Black... I dont believe, from your other posts that you intende anything from it, so I hope you realise I'm pointing this out, incase you weren't aware and not for any other reason.

Back to your info though, I take it you believe this to be a "generation" thing, where those who lived through the troubled politcal times may be having more issues with the evolving establishment than those who, by being younger, have grown up knowing a more united SA and hence embracing it. If so, that makes perfect sense... if not, I must have mis-understood...

Cape Coloureds in SA would probably give you a slap if you called them black or African. In SA that's the official term and the one they prefer. Obviously if I called someone in Europe of being coloured it wouldn't go down well but that's differing cultures.

Cape Coloureds are a mix of Europeans, Malay colonial slaves and the original bushman of the western part of SA. Whites came to SA in the 1640s and inter-ethnic mixing was common (lots of European soldiers/farmers.... not many woman). Then in the 1700s they decided to ban the mixing of races so those of mixed white-black could only mix form relationships with other mixed white-blacks etc and thus became a distinct group in themselves.

They speak Afrikaans mainly and are more European in terms of religion, language, culture even names then African.

Africans are in effective that.... African. They speak African languages, have African names, have tribal customs etc. It is not always the case. Walter Sisulu one of the pioneers of the ANC was half white, half African but raised African.

Cape Coloured anyhow are quite distinct... they are dark skinned but don't look like they could be the son of Nelson Mandela right?

Think

Bryan Habana
JP Pietersen
Juan De Jongh
Elton Jantjies
Conrad Jantjies
Nizaam Carr
Enrico Januarie
Breyton Paulse
Ashwin Willemse
Gio Aplon
Gunthro Steenkamp
Errol Tobias
Pieter De Villiers
Cornal Hendricks
Ashley Johnson

Africans would be

Tendai Mtawarira
Mahlatse Ralapelle
Brian Mujati
Toboho Mahoje
Lwazi Mvovo

What can be done to change the view of the Springboks, and is it necessary?

Ever watched when the Crusaders play in Cape Town? Home game....

I know a lot of black South Africans will still support England over the Boks. Old habits die hard.

First answer that comes to mind is wit perceptions like this you won't.

As for the article of Tom Fordyce

England's team, drawn from a population that is 85% white, have a starting XV that is only 73% white. South Africa, representing a nation where whites makes up less than a 10th of the population, have a team that is four-fifths white.

Sensationalism, simple.

The fact is how do you measure transformation? And what is the purpose of transformation? Do you want the team to representative of the population or do you want the team representative of the ethnic groups playing rugby?

Not sure what needs to be done anyhow but the best thing is to promote the sport to youths.... get the number of schools around the country playing the game is without doubt key to the growth.

Kids love winners anyhow. Don't mess with the sport so it becomes some n.azi social experiment. Should we expect the NBA to become ethnically representative of the USA or UK athletics to have 95% white athletes (they'd lose a lot of medals!).

The top schools over a lot of scholarships for the best kids and this should be advanced. Schools don't have a preference for ethnic groups.. they just want to win.
One of the big issues however is language. Take an African child for instance who is good at rugby and is offered scholarships. The problem is that many of these schools will be Afrikaans speaking and if not certainly English speaking. Near impossible for an English kid to go to an Afrikaans only school let alone an African.

I think it would be wrong for these schools to stop their Afrikaans traditions and many Afrikaans speaking kids from cape coloured backgrounds get scholarships... hence why their numbers in the sport are quite numerous.

If you look at the 10 top rugby schools in SA they are dominated by Afrikaans schools (7/10)

In 2013 ranking

Grey College
Hoerskool Garsfontein
Paul Roos
Hoerskool Monument
Grey High PE
Selborne
Hoerskool Waterkloof
Paarl Gim
Hoerskool Nelspriut
Glenwood High

only Grey high, Selborne & Glenwood are English schools. The rest are Afrikaans or Afrikaans-English dual (Grey College) albeit Afrikaans dominated.

so if these schools provide the majority of the springboks (from an early post 40% of boks since 1992 came from top 21 school) and most of these are Afrikaans, is it any surprise that the majority of boks will be Afrikaans speakers?

PS - I disliked the James Small comment. He was just a publicity loving idiot. Still is. Overrated, notorious liar who feigned injuries and accused many of things like eye gouging when they never got even close.
In 1995 yes he was one of a few English players... but the coach was English. Joel Stransky was English, James Dalton was English, Mark Andrews was English, Gary Teichmann was English. Oh I was a minority too... no you were just an overrated blowhard.

Near all the white guys of that age were heavily dual medium educated. It was an Afrikaans dominated society yes yet near all the Afrikaans chaps could speak English... its just many of the English refused to learn Afrikaans. Similar to their kin when they go on holiday to the med.... fish & chips, Burgers, Irish and British bars only.

The good ol BBC. Full of extremist who want to tell the world how to live, while keeping quiet about one of their own ie Jimmy Savile.

You also have to love the timing of the article, don't you?

Biltong wrote:You also have to love the timing of the article, don't you?

In the end the BBC are publicity seeking journalists.... one above estate agents in terms of the evolutionary food chain.

The problem goes way beyond rugby...Firstly, it's actually more of an education problem: As has been stated above, the vast majority of rugby players come from a small group of elite schools that are still populated by a disproportionately high number of whites (even though some may be 50% black, this still does not reflect the national demographic). The overwhelming majority of black children go to government schools that offer no sport at all let alone rugby!...Secondly, it is a cultural thing. I watch rugby, because my father and all his friends watched it, and now all my friends watch it. Rugby simply doesn't have the foothold amongst black people. They may watch the odd World Cup match and support the boks then (in much the same way as I may watch a bit of soccer if Bafana Bafana ever make the World Cup) but they are not going to be ardent supporters who live and breath rugby. It also doesn't help that the national broadcaster doesn't broadcast rugby: it is broadcast exclusively by the SA equivalent of Sky; and hence is unavailable and out of reach for the vast majority of black people.

Mr Fishpaste wrote:The problem goes way beyond rugby...Firstly, it's actually more of an education problem: As has been stated above, the vast majority of rugby players come from a small group of elite schools that are still populated by a disproportionately high number of whites (even though some may be 50% black, this still does not reflect the national demographic). The overwhelming majority of black children go to government schools that offer no sport at all let alone rugby!...Secondly, it is a cultural thing. I watch rugby, because my father and all his friends watched it, and now all my friends watch it. Rugby simply doesn't have the foothold amongst black people. They may watch the odd World Cup match and support the boks then (in much the same way as I may watch a bit of soccer if Bafana Bafana ever make the World Cup) but they are not going to be ardent supporters who live and breath rugby. It also doesn't help that the national broadcaster doesn't broadcast rugby: it is broadcast exclusively by the SA equivalent of Sky; and hence is unavailable and out of reach for the vast majority of black people.

I think the TV thing is a massive point I agree.

DSTV is expensive, similar to prices in Europe for Satellite TV so just imagine who can actually afford it. We have it but that's because I'd rather watch paint dry otherwise.

Good post Mr.Fishpaste.

For me this is just because of the history.  SA rugby was the white mans game.  This will make it unlikely blacks will play. Few heros, dad didn't support a rugby team, no one at school is interested.  Some in rugby have embraced the new south africa.  Some have not. Some in the new SA have embraced rugby, some have not.

Nice post mr fish.

I don't think anyone who had been to SA before or after the fall of the Apartheit regime ever thought that the change would happen fast.

What is positive is the sport is not solely white, just predominantly white. And there are many people black white and coloured working hard to spread the game outside of its typecast culture.

Here is a breakdown of the number of African players per Craven week U18 team.

Squad consisted of 22 players

Valke 6
Pumas 9
Cheetahs 4
South Western Districts 1
Western Province 0
Natal 7
Eastern Province 4
Border 3
Bulls 1
Lions 7
Limpopo 8
Griffons 1
Leopards 6

I went by surnames so it might not be 100% accurate.

Total players 286, African players 57

I can't give numbers for Coloured players as their surnames are often the same as whites. But you can work on at least the same number as the African players if not more. The Western ape and Eastern Cape teams will have much higher numbers of coloured players than African players

Biltong wrote:Here is a breakdown of the number of African players per Craven week U18 team.

Squad consisted of 22 players

Valke 6
Pumas 9
Cheetahs 4
South Western Districts 1
Western Province 0
Natal 7
Eastern Province 4
Border 3
Bulls 1
Lions 7
Limpopo 8
Griffons 1
Leopards 6

I went by surnames so it might not be 100% accurate.

Total players 286, African players 57

I can't give numbers for Coloured players as their surnames are often the same as whites. But you can work on at least the same number as the African players if not more. The Western ape and Eastern Cape teams will have much higher numbers of coloured players than African players

A rough stat but a positive one

Breakdown of Currie Cup teams this year.

TEAM, AFRICAN, COLOURED, WHITE
WP 8 8 38
Lions 4 3 42
Shark 9 0 37
Kings 12 2 36
Bulls 4 6 41
Cheetahs 5 6 40
Pumas 5 6 36
Griquas 2 6 38

More political BS, rears its head once per year usually. Not even worth debating.

The Saint wrote:More political BS, rears its head once per year usually. Not even worth debating.

Alas! More often than that. Every time there's an election or some political crisis from which to divert attention (which is not that infrequent these days), some politician hauls SARU over the coals for a lack of 'transformation'.

Honest opinion when i read the BBC article this morning was WOW! and not wow in a good way.,
It was wow! as in how arrogant self righteous can you get, the article should have been renamed "We use more black players than you do so therefore we are better than you racist nasty South Africans".

The article stunk of spite and it did basically suggest racism is still rife in South African rugby
Giving no consideration that the team only uses the best players available regardless of colour and if that happens not to fit the quota that the PC BBC want they just going to have to suck it up.

Biltong wrote:The fact is how do you measure transformation? And what is the purpose of transformation? Do you want the team to representative of the population or do you want the team representative of the ethnic groups playing rugby?

I think that transformation if done well means that rugby is embraced by all ethnic groups and the composition of the team changes as a result, organically and over time. i.e. change begins at the grassroots and filters up.

What makes me sad is the 'transformation' thing is driven by politicians who want to enforce change from the top down so they can point to a headline an further their own careers. It's the exact opposite of how I think real change happens. You don't change things by forcing the elite level into changes they don't want to make while ignoring the grassroots. It's the exact opposite of that that needs to be done. But I suppose doing it right is harder and less politically expedient.

When you look at the Sevens they have unearthed some brilliant non-white talents. I love watching Seabelo Senatla and Cecil Afrika play so there is untapped talent out there. The saddest thing for me about that article is hearing that people at the grassroots are not being consulted about this kind of thing, transformation, because that is where it begins and ends. Increase the numbers playing the sport in all communities and the player pool will eventually begin to level out. Create the circumstances where change happens in the grassroots and the elite game will organically change over time.

During the SA v Ireland game, one of the RTE commentators brought up a point that he said was fact.... and that was his belief that there will be structures in place Before the next world cup that will force defined numbers of black SAs in any SA squad.,,, and defined numbers actually playing on the field.  He said that, therefore, how this SA choose to play during this Autumn is irrelevant, as many of the current players won't be allowed play in the next world cup because of racial quotas.

He didn't seem to be stirring and he seems to have caught all fellow analysts and the presenter off guard.  They mumbled and said it wasn't relevant to the talk of the game on the day.

But is he right?  And if so - how come nobody seems to be writing about the idea that this current squad might look dramatically different come the next world cup?

SecretFly wrote:During the SA v Ireland game, one of the RTE commentators brought up a point that he said was fact.... and that was his belief that there will be structures in place Before the next world cup that will force defined numbers of black SAs in any SA squad.,,, and defined numbers actually playing on the field.  He said that, therefore, how this SA choose to play during this Autumn is irrelevant, as many of the current players won't be allowed play in the next world cup because of racial quotas.

He didn't seem to be stirring and he seems to have caught all fellow analysts and the presenter off guard.  They mumbled and said it wasn't relevant to the talk of the game on the day.

But is he right?  And if so - how come nobody seems to be writing about the idea that this current squad might look dramatically different come the next world cup?

FLy, that was the statement by the minister of Sport in SA. But you have to realistically think about these issues.

There will be immediate negative financial impact as SANZAR would most likely lose money if the quality of the competition is impacted and broadcaster will not pay more for a diluted product.

The ARU and NZRU will not be happy and it could mar relationships that are already on the edge

SPonsorships will withdraw

If you consider that many South Africans will boycott gong to games or supporting a Racially quota team, I cannot see how it is anything other than a political tool used by the ANC to divert attention away from their accountability to incompetence.

SecretFly wrote:During the SA v Ireland game, one of the RTE commentators brought up a point that he said was fact.... and that was his belief that there will be structures in place Before the next world cup that will force defined numbers of black SAs in any SA squad.,,, and defined numbers actually playing on the field.  He said that, therefore, how this SA choose to play during this Autumn is irrelevant, as many of the current players won't be allowed play in the next world cup because of racial quotas.

He didn't seem to be stirring and he seems to have caught all fellow analysts and the presenter off guard.  They mumbled and said it wasn't relevant to the talk of the game on the day.

But is he right?  And if so - how come nobody seems to be writing about the idea that this current squad might look dramatically different come the next world cup?

SARU's official wording was pretty sly: they said that they have agreed to work towards a target of a certain number of black players. They realised that the Sports Minister was using rugby as the perennial whipping boy in the run up to our general elections. He'll probably lose interest until the next elections.  There was similar pressure to transform before the 2007 World Cup. It was all forgotten when we won and the Springboks lifted the then President Mbeki onto their shoulders at the post match celebration...I don't think the politicians are genuinely interested in transformation in rugby. They are just looking for cheap publicity.

Thanks for the clarifications guys.

I was thinking about this last night and myself, I don't see at least in the western cape a lack of trying to develop integration.... The problem is not only social inequality but again very importantly, genetics.

With the average Zulu being 5'5-5'6 compared to the average boer at 5'11-6'0 it shows how much of an uphill task we have here.

Let's look at prominent flankers

White

Burger 6'4
Vermeulen 6'4
Louw 6'2
Coetzee 6'3
Spies 6'4
Smith 6'5
Kriel 6'0
Whiteley 6'4

These are the most recent boks and are average well over 6'3.

Let's have a look the African or coloured flankers

Kolisi 6'1
Carr 6'0
Johnson 6'1
Mahoje 6'4

Averaging 6'1.

You can see the same for centres too.. It's pretty stark.

Play coloured teams in the cape and you rarely see guys above 6'0. We always joke that when you play coloured teams they will all be 5'9 tall, 5'9 wide, are super fast and tough as they come.

Maybe poverty has something to do with it but even still.... Count the Englishman in the bok lineup. They constitute 40% of white South Africans yet they number only 1 vs England today against 11 boere.

boere are simply bigger chaps.

If you're average height is 5'5 in your ethnic group what is the proportion of those taller than 6'2 in a standard bell curve?

Then compare that to an average height of 5'11 and their proportion of those above 6'2.

Then bring up player numbers and devise those proportions.

Back in the UK I recall knowing many big Nigerians well over 6'0..... But that's west Africa. The distance is like comparing Britons with Tatars in Russia.

Get enough kids involved the balance will be readdressed but you see the odds stacked up against SA. It's not simply throw them the ball.

Changing though, Fa. As the diet, and living conditions improve, average height will increase. If I look at my closest black mates, I'd say working roughly from my height (6'0), most of them would be 5'11-6'2 (the 5'7 outlier is the one who made it furthest in rugby... go figure). I suppose Afrikaans people will on average generally fill out their height better (ie, a 6'0 Afrikaner generally weighs more than a 6'0 black south African) though, and I probably have my Afrikaans genetics to thank my size

kingraf wrote:Changing though, Fa. As the diet, and living conditions improve, average height will increase. If I look at my closest black mates, I'd say working roughly from my height (6'0), most of them would be 5'11-6'2 (the 5'7 outlier is the one who made it furthest in rugby... go figure). I suppose Afrikaans people will on average generally fill out their height better (ie, a 6'0 Afrikaner generally weighs more than a 6'0 black south African) though, and I probably have my Afrikaans genetics to thank my size

And early childhood diet is also crucial to maintaining sporting physique. I recall some promising cricketers at junior provincial level who came from poor rural backgrounds who were plagued by stress fractures etc to such an extent that they couldn't continue. It was thought that this was a result of poor diet when they were growing up. If it affects cricketers, imagine rugby players!

Oh yes. Mfuneko Ngam. Capable of hitting 150 clicks when his body was willing. Pity then, he's body wasn't willing

And I'd imagine close to 60% of SA children grow up on a poor diet...

It will have an impact sure.... but look around you, all the African and coloured kids in the boarding schools with rich families and never having seen hardship... where is there height? Where are the huge locks and backrow forwards?
The answer is, nutrition can only make you reach your genetic optimal height.

For instance Japan... highly developed nation, yet their average height is what 5'7? You can't fight genetics.

It certainly is holding them back but not in terms of getting them places in the big man positions such as lock, backrow and centre.

I read an article though years back in the FT on sport in Africa and I think the whole nutritional issue is way over blown.  IN essence the journalist was saying the same thing but look at bafana bafana. It was rubbish apologetic liberal trash as per usual.

In the 90s they were quite strong. All the players then were born in the 60s/70s all grew up under apartheid. Built around Mark Fish, Lucas Radebe etc.

Today, most of the players were <5 in 1994. Yet Bafana bafana has dropped down significantly both in terms of their quality and strength. Now why is that.... can't be nutrition unless nutrition was better for these players under apartheid than they have been for the 2014 class??

To say that poverty is only seen in SA's sports stars is rather obtuse... few kids from middle class backgrounds in Europe make it in football, very few in S. America in fact and their poverty is just as extreme. Isn't a factor for them... in fact they say its a benefit... giving them a hunger to succeed.

South Africa is a big country.  Population is big.  Surely the racial lines aren't so pure as saying the whites have all big boned and tall Dutch genes and the indigenous black population (by far the majority) are all short statured Zulus.

And even if the black population had an overall genetic predisposition to short stature and lack of muscle on bones - such a limitation would be negated by the randomness even in genetic groups.

There are tall Japanese too.  There are bulky Japanese too.  Not the general, but in a large population enough to do things with if you needed height and bulk.

So, I'm certain there are enough large powerful black athletic South Africans in a 50something million population to assume they could naturally provide a bigger contribution to the National squad than they do now.

There are reasons I'm sure, and they're probably cultural and political and will take even more time to break down than the Apartheid regime.... but I doubt comparative genetic sizes come into it.

SecretFly wrote:South Africa is a big country.  Population is big.  Surely the racial lines aren't so pure as saying the whites have all big boned and tall Dutch genes and the indigenous black population (by far the majority) are all short statured Zulus.

And even if the black population had an overall genetic predisposition to short stature and lack of muscle on bones - such a limitation would be negated by the randomness even in genetic groups.

There are tall Japanese too.  There are bulky Japanese too.  Not the general, but in a large population enough to do things with if you needed height and bulk.

So, I'm certain there are enough large powerful black athletic South Africans in a 50something million population to assume they could naturally provide a bigger contribution to the National squad than they do now.

There are reasons I'm sure, and they're probably cultural and political and will take even more time to break down than the Apartheid regime.... but I doubt comparative genetic sizes come into it.

Well to be honest, yes they are.

The reason why....

until the early 90s it was illegal for Whites to marry non Whites, Africans to marry non Africans, Cape Coloured's to marry non Cape Coloured's.

Now that's not to say it didn't happen... there were extra martial affairs. Walter Sisulu one of the beacons on the ANC was half Xhosa, half White but it didn't really happen.

White Afrikaners do have a little African and Coloured DNA due to the mixing from the 1640s to the early 1700s when it was banned (for near 300 years) but we're talking small figures here, single digit percentages. All those who mainly came from families post the ban will not have had any real exposure.

Aevrage Briton is what 5'9-5'10. Average Dutchman is 6'1.

Look at the boks. The white breakdown is 60% Afrikaner, 40% English. What is the proportion of Afrikaners/English in the boks. On Saturday it was 11 boere, 1 Englishman. That is a standard breakdown. It rarely gets above 3 Englishman.. John Smit, Butch James, Alistair Hargreaves & Pat Lambie may have played together once????

Fly as I showed before you are right in terms of.. put a 35MM population group into serious training and you will see fruits from your labour.

but only 13% of schools in SA offer rugby and in the regions such as Limpopo and Natal where Africans are at their highest, its as low as 5%.

AIDs ravages the African population. 20% of all Africans and mainly the young.
Do you remember the Up series around the world... the one monitoring 14 kids of a certain age and monitoring how they grow. Had 28 up in SA last year (i.e. the kids were now 28). Well 4 of the 14 were already dead of AIDs, none had it as kids, all African. Yes its a small sample but that's 28% of your catchment already. 28% dead before the age of 28. Included Willem Alberts miraculously.

Take a 20% cut from your player pool randomly selected and see how much that would lower any teams strength?

That, the concentration of the sport around the top boarding schools, nutrition and genetics issue all are consequences of the why Africans are not coming through in droves into the springbok side.

Must be different down Cape. I see plenty big black kids up here, who aren't Nigerian

Also, I'm not actually sure how the nutritional factor is being overstated? 80 years ago there was a four inch disparity between the average African American and European American (yes they aren't called that, but..). Now it's half an inch. Is that just some form of miraculous miracle? Can't be an influx of West Africans because they only average 5'7 (surprisingly, the "much smaller," South African Africans average 5'6.5... perceptions Ey). When 6'5 Max Baer became world champion eighty odd years back, the average Italian height was 5'3, now it's 5'8. Couldn't be improved diet and living conditions could it?

Anyhow…. If it is understated then in future SA’s potential pool increases which is good. But SARU need to harness this. No good doing township tours with the RWC, RC, SR or Currie trophy if the schools aren’t offering it as a sport.

kingraf wrote:Also, I'm not actually sure how the nutritional factor is being overstated? 80 years ago there was a four inch disparity between the average African American and European American (yes they aren't called that, but..). Now it's half an inch. Is that just some form of miraculous miracle? Can't be an influx of West Africans because they only average 5'7 (surprisingly, the "much smaller," South African Africans average 5'6.5... perceptions Ey). When 6'5 Max Baer became world champion eighty odd years back, the average Italian height was 5'3, now it's 5'8. Couldn't be improved diet and living conditions could it?

And Fairy Heatlie, the famous Springbok from the early 1900s was 6'3" and 94kg and was considered a giant amongst his fellow rugby players! He'd be a mid sized centre by today's standards!

What a brilliant name.

Great thread guys, it's refreshing and slightly unsettling that posters can carry out a reasoned debate without the standard wumming quota.

thebandwagonsociety wrote:What a brilliant name.

Great thread guys, it's refreshing and slightly unsettling that posters can carry out a reasoned debate without the standard wumming quota.

Not only did he start the tradition of the Boks wearing green jerseys, he also seems to have started the tradition of Boks being known by nicknames: Os, Beast, Bakkies, Gaffie, Mof, Piston...

I only recently discovered that Bakkies does not mean "two trucks" Botha which I thought was an awesome nickname. Most non-Afrikaans saffas didn't even have a clue what it actually meant when I mentioned it to them.

Very underwhelming by the end.

Okay, okay. Don't leave us non-Afrikaaners in limbo, Fa. What does it mean?

closest in English I believe is chin or mouth. Probably chin. Chin Botha

Chiner Botha. Not as bad as Tulip Botha I suppose. Still has a ring of the boxer about it.

"Butch" James.... now that's a nickname, whoever named him that must have known his temperament very well.