New SA Coach - Allister Coetzee

Any of our SA contributors able to share your thoughts please on this appointment?

South Africa have appointed former assistant coach Allister Coetzee as their head coach.

Coetzee, 52, coached Stormers and Western Province in the Super 14, before a brief stint with Japanese side Kobe Steel Kobelco Steelers.

He succeeds Heyneke Meyer, who resigned in December after leading the Springboks to third place at last year's World Cup.

"I am very excited and grateful for this opportunity," Coetzee said.

"This job comes with a huge amount of responsibility because our passionate fans rightfully demand the best from the Springboks at all times."

Coetzee was part of the Springbok coaching team in 2000 and, most notably, between 2004 and 2007, including during their World Cup triumph in France.

"Allister's appointment marks the changing of the guard at the top of Springbok rugby," South Africa Rugby president Oregan Hoskins said.

"He was the outstanding candidate in terms of his rugby credentials, his understanding of our unique South African transformation imperatives and also in the image he will present as Springbok coach."

The obvious choice, has all the right credentials, and hopefully will prove the right man for the job. Good to see another non-white coach coming through too. 'Toetie' probably should have got the job after Jake White retired, ahead of Peter de Villers.

Best of luck to him. It's a tricky old job but there are some fantastic players to work with and certainly with B Du Plessis (or Strauss), Du Jager, Etzebeth and Vermeulen the nucleus of an outstanding pack of forwards.

It was either him or Johan Ackermann and Johan pulled out of the race last month. Even if Johan remained in the race I think Allister would still have gotten the nod. He has coached the Stormers from 2008 and since 2011 the Stormers have been the top SA team in Super rugby.

People that dislike him do so because of his conservativeness - the Stormers was the most defensive team in Superrugby under his term as coach. It was also the Stormers/WP most successful period since professionalism when he was coach. He was Jake White's assistant coach and Jake White said they should make him coach when they told him that his contract wasn't going to be renewed.

He had the best credentials of all the coaches that they considered and is probably the best SA choice (depending how you view Johan Ackerman who has some success with the Lions). Some people wanted Rassie Erasmus as well. There were calls to not choose a South African coach.

Would the SA Union ever go for a non SA coach? Surely someone from outside just wouldn't understand the systems and the politics there.

For what it's worth I think he'll be a good appointment, the stormera were a very organised, defensive team who could score tries when needed.

He'll need to add to that to challenge at the very top but good foundations.

yappysnap wrote:Would the SA Union ever go for a non SA coach? Surely someone from outside just wouldn't understand the systems and the politics there.

For what it's worth I think he'll be a good appointment, the stormera were a very organised, defensive team who could score tries when needed.

He'll need to add to that to challenge at the very top but good foundations.

I am a Stormers supporter, but were among the least try scoring teams. But then again, we scored more than what was scored against us.

Here is an article from our leading rugby website:

http://www.supersport.com/rugby/blogs/gavin-rich/Coetzee_has_walked_the_walk

Basically, I don't think an international coach would fit and SA based Coetzee is the best on SA rugby criteria - he had the best (and most transformed - by quite some distance) team.

The quotes there for Hoskins are the really interesting bits for me. It's another big moment in the transition to a more diverse team. Lets hope Coetzee can keep SA strong while implementing the changes.

No 7&1/2 wrote:The quotes there for Hoskins are the really interesting  bits for me. It's another big moment in the transition to a more diverse team. Lets hope Coetzee can keep SA strong while implementing the changes.

The goal is 50% players of colour, of which 60% has to be black African. I do not know if it is attainable, no franchise is close to that - not even Coetzee's Stormers.

Extremely challenging. Hope he gets a real go with some understanding.

The truth was that his work for the Stormers was little more than an extension of Rassie Erasmus' tenure. He was the one that put in the major turnaround of the team. Coetzee never really built them up.
Lets see but his hands are pretty tied.. I mean firstly such regulations are abhorrant and have no place in sport....15/30 must be non white, 9/30 must be African. Its pure racism nothing more. Do they put the same quotas in cricket, in football? No. Rugby is seen as the Afrikaners sport and therefore the powers in government simply want to punish them. Its tragic.

Everyone had dire ideas on PDV but he did ok... mainly because he didn't pick on race. But if Coetzee's hands are tied with such strict rulings then it will certainly have an impact.

World rugby needs to step in at some point. Its ridiculous. The only good thing is that at least at the Stormers he didn't tend to overtly pick less deserving non-whites.

BUt who will be captain?

Mtawarira, Etzebeth, De Jager, Coetzee, Whiteley, Pollard, De Allende, Kriel, Le Roux... not really a stellar list of captain types to be truthful. Could be bold and say Pollard but that would take some weight on a guy who is already out for the season let alone young and the playmaker.

I keep changing my mind about such things. I naturally like to see the best being picked but there are some questions about a better mix in the pool of players available. I think something like this will benefit SA a huge deal in the future but may result in some rocky years. Obviously needs to be built from top to bottom as well. It'll no doubt increase interest among those who think it's a white sport but they need to have those opportunites all the way through, from grass roots to the very top.

No 7&1/2 wrote:I keep changing my mind about such things. I naturally like to see the best being picked but there are some questions about a better mix in the pool of players available. I think something like this will benefit SA a huge deal in the future but may result in some rocky years. Obviously needs to be built from top to bottom as well. It'll no doubt increase interest among those who think it's a white sport but they need to have those opportunites all the way through, from grass roots to the very top.

it doesn't help IMO.

Should England field more Indian rugby players to increase their participation?

If it was a case of non whites being unfairly discarded I think it would be good.... but its not really the case. All it means is that non whites instantly get a tag of "token black guy". Often they get thrust into the test arena earlier than they would have done and tend to suffer... guys like Kolisi, Jantjies, Paige get bad reputations because they struggle initially and first impressions count for a lot.

Unfortunately rugby is a physical sport. Different racial groups have different physical make ups in terms of height, muscle tone, speed etc. Rugby does tend to discriminate from a physical standpoint. Afrikaners are near perfect for the game. Tall, strong with many coming from tough farming stock peoples and many have speed (maybe its because of the shhh, don't mention it but the small but still reasonably large sub-saharan african DNA in them).
Of whites Afrikaners make up 60% of South Africans, the other 40% are English. Yet is their a 60/40 split amongst springboks whites? No. Do English kids not play rugby... of course they do yet struggle to get more than 1 "representative" on the field at any test match.

In terms of role models. I think we need to get away with the racial ideas of....

African children can only be inspired by African people. Automatically you're making the divide. I was playing cricket with my son and his friends the other day, one was AB DeVilliers, the other was Amla because they are the best batsman nothing more.

Kids are inspired by winners.

And that's where it becomes a difficult subject to think through where and if there are onstacles. Given the amount of Asian players in England, the participation is low. What are the factors here? Culture, other interests, racism? I think that is better directed towards cricket where (generalising) a lot of focus remains for them, given the numebrs there for a long time it looked under represented.

Look at Englands rugby team now, pretty multicultural but hasn't been at times in the past. Is that down to better players from ethnic monorities or mixed race famillies or a more inclusive approach generally?

The last point you make is where discussions get really difficult. I heard for a long time Asians weren't in football teams as they weren't as phyically strong etc and I find it very hard to believe. That for me is why these sorts of 'positive discrimination' may be required but by the time any discussion gets to that this thread will be locked!

I'll leave it as good look to Coetzee, as they'll be people wanting him and the team to fail.

No 7&1/2 wrote:And that's where it becomes a difficult subject to think through where and if there are onstacles. Given the amount of Asian players in England, the participation is low. What are the factors here? Culture, other interests, racism? I think that is better directed towards cricket where (generalising) a lot of focus remains for them, given the numebrs there for a long time it looked under represented.

Look at Englands rugby team now, pretty multicultural but hasn't been at times in the past. Is that down to better players from ethnic monorities or mixed race famillies or a more inclusive approach generally?

The last point you make is where discussions get really difficult. I heard for a long time Asians weren't in football teams as they weren't as phyically strong etc and I find it very hard to believe. That for me is why these sorts of 'positive discrimination' may be  required but by the time any discussion gets to that this thread will be locked!

I'll leave it as good look to Coetzee, as they'll be people wanting him and the team to fail.

Less issues than with PDV. He's qualified. Got a decent CV so no qualms on that... the ruling is tricky given there is hardly 9 african players getting into SR matchday 23s let alone for a bok squad.

And that's where it's going to be really challenging. It needs changes through the whole system. Long term there's so much untapped potential though.

No 7&1/2 wrote:And that's where it's going to be really challenging. It needs changes through the whole system. Long term there's so much untapped potential though.

I'm not convinced it does. Outside of increased participation, social engineering in sport is not really the answer to building a stable long term solution where merit overrides all selection.
Unless coaches subconciously are choosing whites over non whites because of perceptions they are better purely for being white then I don't think there is any benefit and the downside consequences are huge.

In sport everyone is not equal. The better we accept that the better we will be as a global family.. IMO at least.

Yes but thats down to individuals not really races especially in a team sport designed not to favour a 'standard' as such. If the interest isn't there one of the aims should be to increase it. If there's blockages they should be unblocked. The perception looking into SA seems to be that big white people are superior (amongst the fowards etc) which is clearly nonsense.

Not quite the same implementation (offering a guaranteed interview for coaches rather than a guaranteed job) but similar final aim; the Rooney Rule in America was hugely successful.

No 7&1/2 wrote:Yes but thats down to individuals not really races especially in a team sport designed not to favour a 'standard' as such. If the interest isn't there one of the aims should be to increase it. If there's blockages they should be unblocked. The perception looking into SA seems to be that big white people are superior (amongst the fowards etc) which is clearly nonsense.

Not quite the same implementation (offering a guaranteed interview for coaches rather than a guaranteed job) but similar final aim; the Rooney Rule in America was hugely successful.

I don't think its nonsense if white people are genuinely bigger.

Ever seen a tall black south african? They are very rare. The average zulu (the largest ethnic group in SA) is about 5'5. The average afrikaner is about 5'11 to 6'0. In terms of cape coloureds (i.e. Habana) you rarely ever see men above 6ft. JP Pietersen at 6'3 is one of the tallest coloured persons I've met.

I think we need to stop thinking... no, no, no, all people of all races are the same physically (anything else is racist!!!). Different people are suited to different sports. Some transcend the norm sure, I'm sure you find whispy dancing afrikaner wingers and big and tall Zulus but we're talking of the masses here, the average.

Japan are a nation of tiny guys for instance. They'll never be any good. I think we've got to acknowledge there will be people in grass roots and elsewhere with the thoughts that white people (or any race) are genetically superior and thus favour them (even subconciously) and that's where this sort of initiative comes in.

No 7&1/2 wrote:Japan are a nation of tiny guys for instance. They'll never be any good. I think we've got to acknowledge there will be people in grass roots and elsewhere with the thoughts that white people (or any race) are genetically superior and thus favour them (even subconciously) and that's where this sort of initiative comes in.

But does that mean if its not done at professional level we should counter it?

Surely to fix that we need to address a) if its an issue and b) address it full on. My own opinion is that its something that is hard to break.

Say you have a Caribbean Briton and other a white Briton. Both are young, same age, both the same size, both are sprinters with similar track times. Who would you say has more potential? We'd like to say, both.... can we ever not say the Jamaican in reality from our subconscious.... if you are right 8/10 then as a coach you simply may go with that trend.
I would say though that more than anything, coaches want to win.. unless they have a vested interest i.e. their son is amongst the candidate players etc.

Sprinting is another interesting one. Some say black people are faster runners. The champions actually come from a tiny set of places, normally descended from slaves. There's an argument that the harsh crossing to America made the gene pool stronger etc. Jamaica also has lax drug testing.

Racial sterotyping is bad.

fa0019 wrote:The truth was that his work for the Stormers was little more than an extension of Rassie Erasmus' tenure. He was the one that put in the major turnaround of the team. Coetzee never really built them up.

I think that is not as true as people make it out to be. Sure we had a good 2008, but 2009 we were at the bottom of the log again after which a big chunk of our stars left to Europe or retired. So Coetzee had to rebuilt again and a few people got called up from the Varsity Cup, which started in 2008. Rassie's tenure was only 2 years, 1 good and 1 bad. Coetzee only once went to the bottom half of the table when more than half of the first choice team and even more regular reserves had long term injuries over a period of 6 years. Not really just an extension. And his starting team and the team he ended with only overlapped with 1 or 2 players.

I don't think the quota issue is such a challenge, especially if every coach in SA is committed to find 9 players out of a population of 50 million.

It is a commitment issue, nobody previously were committed to transforming, now they have no choice.

The bigger question is can Coetzee change his rugby philosophy?

Will he continue with the belief of we will stick to what we are good at, even though under White, Mallett, De Villiers and Meyer it has proven not to work against Australia and New Zealand?

Will he embrace positive attacking rugby when during his tenure at the Stormers he never ever embraced it?

Is he sincere and committed, of course he is.

The only coach in SA currently to change our rugby culture has no chance of becoming Springbok coach.

No 7&1/2 wrote:The perception looking into SA seems to be that big white people are superior (amongst the fowards etc) which is clearly nonsense.

We do tend to go for bigger - and Afrikaners tend to be the biggest - tall and muscular. Sure the NZ forwards are smaller than ours and tend to beat/match us, but they are about it in terms of physicality. Sure we do get outsmarted a lot, but it doesn't mean we get shoved around regularly.

Biltong wrote:Will he embrace positive attacking rugby when during his tenure at the Stormers he never ever embraced it?

I doubt it - he has been the most conservative of our franchise coaches the last couple of years.

Biltong wrote:The only coach in SA currently to change our rugby culture has no chance of becoming Springbok coach.

Johan Ackermann?

I think he can

FerN wrote:

Biltong wrote:The only coach in SA currently to change our rugby culture has no chance of becoming Springbok coach.

Johan Ackermann?

I think he can

Yeah he can, but they won't select him.

Biltong wrote:

FerN wrote:

Biltong wrote:The only coach in SA currently to change our rugby culture has no chance of becoming Springbok coach.

Johan Ackermann?

I think he can

Yeah he can, but they won't select him.

Why won't they select him?

Because he is a Lion? Okay I see your point

But I thought he was second in line until he withdrew his name.

Fern politically with the transformation goals and the ANC now not holding back anymore on transformational issues he had no chance

Biltong wrote:Fern politically with the transformation goals and the ANC now not holding back anymore on transformational issues he had no chance

depends on how strong Coetzee is mentally. He can say.. well I'm compliant with the rules but that's a hill of beans excuse when a team is losing or backpeddling etc.

I don't think SARU would ever dare say... look we win less but we're more representative of the people, so that's a good thing.

If we're honest, the Government actually doesn't care about rugby, and neither does it actually care about transformation. The imposition of a quota on the Boks is about window dressing and giving an otherwise inept department the appearance of achieving something. If they really wanted transformation, they'd invest money in spreading schoolboy rugby...

And as to Coetzee changing the Bok's rugby style...I think our problem is broader than the Boks. It's one thing to try to coach creativity into players at bok level, but you're never going to succeed if the players don't already have the necessary pre-existent skill set, and if we're honest, the NZ-style 'thinking rugby' is not really taught in SA, from schools right up to the Boks.

If we're honest, the Government actually doesn't care about rugby

Outside of the South Pacific Islands, no government really does

Rowanbi wrote:If we're honest, the Government actually doesn't care about rugby

Outside of the South Pacific Islands, no government really does

Fair enough, but my point is that, given that the SA government interferes a lot in SA rugby (I would hazard to guess, more than most), we must not mistake frequent SA government involvement in rugby with an actual concern for rugby. To the SA government Rugby is a battle ground whereupon they can score cheap political points.

To be honest, I would've thought that South Africa would be fielding a mostly non-white team by now. It's been quarter of a century since the end of Apartheid. An entire generation has presumably grown up with equal opportunity. So how is it that 90% of the population is still represented by only a minority of the national team? Obviously integration within the sport has not been successful.

It's complicated. But amongst other things, the vast majority of blacks in SA don't care about rugby. They don't watch it, they don't play it, and they'd never want to be Springboks...they support soccer.



It's a poor quality video, but it gives you some idea.

Sure, I understand it's not so interesting for the non-white community. Obviously that's largely due to its legacy. Also, if you were a non-white, would you really want to go and join a sport that is dominated by the white majority? It would be a lot more inviting to them if the demographics of the sport more closely reflected the demographics of the nation, don't you think? So that creates a Catch 22 situaton, of course, and perhaps the only way to break out of that cycle is by forcing it to change - ie through quotas.

Rowanbi wrote:Sure, I understand it's not so interesting for the non-white community. Obviously that's largely due to its legacy. Also, if you were a non-white, would you really want to go and join a sport that is dominated by the white majority? It would be a lot more inviting to them if the demographics of the sport more closely reflected the demographics of the nation, don't you think? So that creates a Catch 22 situaton, of course, and perhaps the only way to break out of that cycle is by forcing it to change - ie through quotas.

I hear what you're saying. However, I think the real fault line in SA rugby is increasingly a class one rather than a race one (except that in SA class and race are interlinked!)...Rugby in SA is a middle class sport, and the love of rugby is perpetuated by the middle class schools (Called ex-Model-C schools) and by elite private schools. If you look at the pool of Super Rugby players you'll find that the vast majority of them come from a select group of about 40-50 high schools....Hence access to professional rugby is determined, above all, by access to these elite schools...and these schools are disproportionally white (about 50% white, but that is still demographically disproportionate)...so the root of the problem is SA's education system (which, aside from the ex-Model-C and private schools, is a complete shambles): most township schools (which are 100% black; and to which most of SA's black children go) offer no sport whatsoever (not even soccer, let alone rugby). So probably 80% of SA school children go through their entire school career playing virtually no 'organised' sport of any sporting code (of course they kick a ball around with mates, but they're not playing for a school team or a club). Hence, as I said in an earlier post, if the government were serious about transforming rugby, they'd be investing in schools sport (which would have so many beneficial effects on society anyway, rugby transformation being perhaps the least of these!)

Good post, Mr Fishpaste. Thanks for the insight.

I posted this on the wrong thread a few minutes ago.

But  will now post on the right thread.

Regards to SA's new coach. I am very surprised that Bobby Skidstat never became SA coach.

Any one know what he is doing these days?

Great player but a bit psycho, as I posted in response to your post on the other thread a few minutes ago. Has he coached at club or provincial level yet?

Rowanbi wrote:Great player but a bit psycho, as I posted in response to your post on the other thread a few minutes ago. Has he coached at club or provincial level yet?

I honestley do not know. The last i heard of him he was doing some commentating on games.

Regards to coaching at any level. i have not got a clue.

I don't think bobby would be a good coach.... to natural a player. Those types don't tend to make good coaches as what to them is natural, easy etc is a challenge to others. Bobby was never a trenches type guy, he was a kodak Parisse type. Couldn't imagine him trolling through the video tapes in Dunedin at 4am before a match to gain a tiny little insight of the opposition.
In addition I don't think he loves the game enough. He enjoys it but always had other things, his private live, his business ventures (which made him take early retirement as he got bored with the game before returning to win a RWC winners medal). That's not a bad thing, I think many of us are that way including myself.

Commentates for English supersport but that's just a side profession. He's a bit like Will Carling in that way.

Mr Fishpaste wrote:It's complicated. But amongst other things, the vast majority of blacks in SA don't care about rugby. They don't watch it, they don't play it, and they'd never want to be Springboks...they support soccer.



It's a poor quality video, but it gives you some idea.

A while ago I listened to 'the racist' by Trevor Noah. It was brilliant.

It's complicated. But amongst other things, the vast majority of blacks in SA don't care about rugby. They don't watch it, they don't play it, and they'd never want to be Springboks...they support soccer.

Firstly, the vast majority of people in most countries don't care about rugby.

Secondly, if it remains vastly less popular among the non-white majority than it is among the white minority you have to consider the reasons for that. It's surely not an aversion to the nature of the game itself.

Rowanbi wrote:It's complicated. But amongst other things, the vast majority of blacks in SA don't care about rugby. They don't watch it, they don't play it, and they'd never want to be Springboks...they support soccer.

Firstly, the vast majority of people in most countries don't care about rugby.

Secondly, if it remains vastly less popular among the non-white majority than it is among the white minority you have to consider the reasons for that. It's surely not an aversion to the nature of the game itself.

It depends. Africans traditionally never played rugby. Never lived in areas where rugby was popular. When you're kids you generally play sports your school/parents want you to play. Go to a school where football is played and not rugby then you have to really like the sport to find a club etc to play it/have parents willing to take you.
Getting schools to take up the sport in the first place is a task. means you need specialist teachers, equipment, fields... all of which you don't have. Football you can play on a dirt track/concrete the lot... hence why its probably the world's most popular game.

Cape Coloureds on the other hand play rugby as much as whites. They live primarily in the heartland of rugby (western cape) and have never stopped mixing with whites.... culturally they are more closely alligned to Europeans than Africans. Thats why you see many cape coloured rugby players i.e.

Bryan Habana
JP Pietersen
Elton Jantjies
Conrad Jantjies
Ricky Januarie
Ashley Johnson
Adi Jacobs
Ashwin Willemse
Damien De Allende (well kind of, officially according to SARU Cape Coloured but his family says they're white on all sides).
Gio Aplon
Breyton Paulse
Chester Williams
Peter De Villiers (coach)
Allister Coetzee (current coach)
Juan De Jongh
Nizaam Carr

but then when you look for African players the list is far smaller

Jongi Nokwi
Ndugane brothers
Ralepelle
Siya Kolisi
Floors

probably near as many Zimbabwean africans who have played rugby for SA as South African Africans mainly because the game is heavily played especially in the public school arena which are at least now nearly all African attended... guys like Mujati, Mtawarira, Chavhanga.

and that's even before you start to talk about groups who are built for the sport.

Rowanbi wrote:

Firstly, the vast majority of people in most countries don't care about rugby.

Agreed. And no other country insists that the 'majority of people', who are not interested in rugby, be proportionally represented in that country's rugby team! For example: I gather that Rugby, in say, the UK, is very much an upper / middle class sport (as played at Public Schools and 'Grammar Schools' etc). And the vast majority of, shall we say, 'working class' people don't concern themselves with rugby...one would then be incredulous if the UK government insisted that the English Rugby team be representative of the class demographic of England and ensure that 50% (or what ever the proportion is) of the team are 'working class' from secondary schools...or even insist that the correct proportion of the team are Northerners in spite of the fact that the rugby is not as popular up North.

Interesting way of looking at it. You will find some discrepancies in New Zealand sports as well. Cricket and soccer are disproportionately dominated by whites, while rugby league and softball are disproportionately dominated by Polynesians. When you ask people why that is you get two schools of thought: those who say Polynesians prefer more dynamic and physical sports than; and those who say that Polynesians have not been made to feel welcome in white-dominated sports and therefore developed their own sporting counter-culture.

In any case, I think we have to look at rugby in South Africa in the context of its history as the sport of the oppressor. A white-dominated Springbok team is an all-too-vivid reminder of that epoch, The need to redress the imbalance is inescapable, but does not apply to the other examples given here.

Non whites were never blocked from playing rugby. They were blocked from playing for the springboks. Africans never picked up the game in seriousness, mostly because of locality but also because they always lived very separate lives from whites and cape coloureds. Until the last 30-40 years they lived in their homelands, things like organised sport, education etc was limited.

In addition,  look at test rugby today, its an inconvenient truth that big generally wins (not the be all and end all but a general trend). Springboks play physical rugby. Look at the size of Fourie Du Preez their scrumhalf... tiny little guy all 190cm of him.

So how many non-whites in South Africa (that's a crucial thing, don't mistake Nigerians/Kenyans etc for South Africans) are over 185cm? Lots right??? wrong and its not simply because of diet and poverty.

Some sure buck the trend, but its rare. Africans average height in SA is 5'5. Whites 5'11, Cape Coloured probably more similar to Africans height wise. If you play the platteland teams in the cape (most will be coloured teams) you see 15 guys all 5'9 tall and 5'9 wide.  Very good players, very very strong, quick... but they always suffer in the set piece because of it.  This isn't a generalisation.

Look at non white forwards in the game today who get game time and have earned springbok colours

Ashley Johnson 6'1 - blindside
Nizaam Carr 6'0 - no8
Siya Kolisi 6'0 - flanker
Teboho Mahoje 6'4 - flanker (Meyere persisted for ages with Mahoje because he was at least the right physical makeup.. but he lacked the heart of guys like Kolisi, Burger, Louw to make it as a springbok flanker).

sorry but they are simply too small for a forwards game at the highest level bar a number of exceptions. The stormers are giving lots of time to Nizaam Carr but he's lightweight in truth. He's not a fetcher, doesn't have the speed but gets dominated by forwards, centres etc.
These are the best flank forwards coming through the system. Out of those only Kolisi is a genuine player worthy of a springbok jersey. he has an amazing engine, great pace and his tackle completion rate is close to the best in SA and Super Rugby... even better given he is the first phase tackler. I'd say he is easily better than an acclaimed 1st phase tackler in Robshaw or Lydiate for instance.

8 years ago the Stormers were fielding a backrow of the following

Burger 6'4 115kg
Louw 6'3 115kg
Vermeulen 6'4 115kg

Today they field Carr, Kolisi and Notshe... their speed, endurance and mobility is probably about the same as the above but is about 45-50kgs lighter. Height wise they're about 3 inches shorter which in things like lineouts really matter.

Sorry but if these guys are the best coming through, and they really are then its a stark reminder that in this game.. demographics and genetics actually matters. About 5-6 current or recent springboks are sons of springboks... not just because they got into the game early, all white South Africans do... its because there is a trend in genetics and size... got big parents, chances are you will be big too. Not a definitive rule sure but there is a strong positive correlation.

Thought you favoured the lighter back row fa?

No 7&1/2 wrote:Thought you favoured the lighter back row fa?

Lighter as in not having the physical makeup of a front row forward. Your man is shorter and heavier than Phil Vickery was at his peak for example. Not great when your backrow is lighter and shorter than most of the centres/wingers playing SR today.