New SA Coach - Allister Coetzee

First topic message reminder :

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."

No 7&1/2 wrote:Yes and no. By increasing interest in rugby across all demographics you increase your player pool, potential etc. I guess I just see alot of people in general across different countries and sports as happy with the status quo, for a number of reasons. It's been said several times over threads like these across numerous forums that rugby is seen as white sport in SA, from the Government but also by a lot of fans. Some are happy with this and want it to stay, some see it as inevitable that different races will take an interest. In relation to your point (correct me if I'm wrong) that should people be chosen on race grounds if they're not good enough, I find myself very easy to persuade one way or the other. I'm swinging to something needs to be done to increase representation currently.

I'm not against increasing interest in Rugby, and I agree with your comments about the player pool. I just don't think a quota at National level is the way to do it...as I've said elsewhere in this thread, the root of the problem is at school level, and this is where it needs to be addressed...only this would take time, effort and money, and the Government is not prepared to invest any of the above in school sport....it's much easier to make grand dictates to SARU, and hence score cheap political points and also be able to blame 'the white' if it doesn't work properly.

I've seen those as well. Then a Kyle sinckler comes through at Prop or Iroje at lock and pereptions start to change. There was an argument in USA for a long time that black guys were good at speed etc for playing American Football but don't put them in a position like Quarter back or a god forbid head coach.  There's always thoughts that people don't suit something or can't be good until suddenly there they are performing well.

I've said I probably prefer a pincer movement of some change at top and bottom togther. Like it or not but a country like SA with it's history is going to struggle with bias perceived or not, when it comes to things like this.

As far as the ANC wanting to remove the Springbok emblem...make no mistake, this has nothing to do with Rugby...the ANC doesn't care about rugby; they don't really even care about transformation in general; and I'd go so far as to say they barely care about the people of South Africa at all...they care about power and access to the gravy train...and currently the ANC is undergoing probably the biggest crisis in its history and the easiest way to try to deflect attention from it is to bring out the old Springbok emblem debate...

The things that make a real difference is the long term investment at the bottom levels and include things like improved nutrition etc. The problem is that that is expensive and the pay off takes years.

Quotas are cheap and the results are instant so you can see why they are popular with politicians.

I should also say that along with the request to remove the Springbok emblem, the same parliamentary committee also asked for proportional gender representation across all levels of SARU (what ever that means)...

In the end I think that the idea to pretend that everyone is physically and culturally equal is a dangerous notion to hold. In my opinion its better to embrace everyone's differences and sure that leaves the door open to idiots who say....

"Afrikaners are the biggest, they make the best rugby players, if they are superior in rugby, they are superior in life" crap.

however its not difficult to find immediate flaws in such characters. Ask the average Afrikaner on how many books they've read for instance and excluding rugby, braaivleis and the kurt darren fanzine it would probably amount to less than can be counted on 2 hands.

Now at the elite elite level we often see people who buck the trend and you'll see whispy white guys like Shane Williams, 6'4 cape coloured chaps who smash all comers similar to Schalk. It will happen but these instances are certainly not the trend.

Take Michael Jordan for instance. Probably the greatest or close to the greatest sportsman of the last 50 years. He's 6'6. He has 2 brothers... both were 5'5. His parents were short and he himself was short until his last year of school. Bit of a genetic freak but perhaps he had a giant granddaddy or his mom was a little bit of a naughty lass !!! Even his kids are only about 6ft.
In some ways I like to think he was gifted his height by the almighty as without it he obviously wouldn't have been able to grace the game with such dominance.

lostinwales wrote:The things that make a real difference is the long term investment at the bottom levels and include things like improved nutrition etc. The problem is that that is expensive and the pay off takes years.

Quotas are cheap and the results are instant so you can see why they are popular with politicians.

Go to Singapore and the diet and general wealth of its indigenous inhabitants are as high or higher than you'll see in the Netherlands. It does make a difference yes, but genetic disposition is still a leading cause of height.

fa0019 wrote:

lostinwales wrote:The things that make a real difference is the long term investment at the bottom levels and include things like improved nutrition etc. The problem is that that is expensive and the pay off takes years.

Quotas are cheap and the results are instant so you can see why they are popular with politicians.

Go to Singapore and the diet and general wealth of its indigenous inhabitants are as high or higher than you'll see in the Netherlands. It does make a difference yes, but genetic disposition is still a leading cause of height.

Absolutely, but these things can and do help. The average heights in lots of parts of the world seem to be going up.

lostinwales wrote:

fa0019 wrote:

lostinwales wrote:The things that make a real difference is the long term investment at the bottom levels and include things like improved nutrition etc. The problem is that that is expensive and the pay off takes years.

Quotas are cheap and the results are instant so you can see why they are popular with politicians.

Go to Singapore and the diet and general wealth of its indigenous inhabitants are as high or higher than you'll see in the Netherlands. It does make a difference yes, but genetic disposition is still a leading cause of height.

Absolutely, but these things can and do help. The average heights in lots of parts of the world seem to be going up.

And furthermore, early childhood diet affects injury rates and recovery rates. Mfaneko Ngam was an up and coming SA cricket fast bowler whose career was cut short by repeated stress fractures that were later linked to poor childhood diet! I imagine that'd be even more pertenent in Rugby.

fa0019 wrote:
Saying the stormers are short is not quite right though. Now yes but over the last 5 years they have had a massive pack. Absolutely massive. Their pack 2-3 years ago was quite possibly the biggest in club rugby. They now have a small backrow... and it showed vs. the sharks and lions. They won't top the SA conference by the end of the season.

Look back into the days of

Kitsoff, Leibenberg, Malherbe, Etzebeth, Elstadt, Burger, Kolisi, Vermeulen.

That pack was weighing in at over 930kg regularly and I recall it even touched 940kg+ at one point. They have whispy 3/4s but thats because they get a lot of cape coloured kids in their academy. Height wise too it was huge, everyone above 6ft and when Kolisi wasn't playing and guys like Rhodes and Elstadt where on the flank the back 5 had an average of about 6'5 maybe more.

Yes on occasion we did have a massive pack.  But Burger was injured more than he played.  We didn't always have Vermeulen, we had issues with Etzebeth as well.  Kolisi is small if you compare him to Louw,Burger and almost all other SA back row players.  Nizaam is also not the biggest.  When everyone was fit and available, we could put out a monster pack, but that didn't happen very often.  There was a time when 12 of our first choice 15 were not available.  But I was referring more towards the back-line players.  Aplon is tiny, same with Cheslin.  Our centres, wings and fullbacks are smaller than the other franchises.

Edit:  And I am taller than you 6'1

FerN wrote:

fa0019 wrote:
Saying the stormers are short is not quite right though. Now yes but over the last 5 years they have had a massive pack. Absolutely massive. Their pack 2-3 years ago was quite possibly the biggest in club rugby. They now have a small backrow... and it showed vs. the sharks and lions. They won't top the SA conference by the end of the season.

Look back into the days of

Kitsoff, Leibenberg, Malherbe, Etzebeth, Elstadt, Burger, Kolisi, Vermeulen.

That pack was weighing in at over 930kg regularly and I recall it even touched 940kg+ at one point. They have whispy 3/4s but thats because they get a lot of cape coloured kids in their academy. Height wise too it was huge, everyone above 6ft and when Kolisi wasn't playing and guys like Rhodes and Elstadt where on the flank the back 5 had an average of about 6'5 maybe more.

Yes on occasion we did have a massive pack.  But Burger was injured more than he played.  We didn't always have Vermeulen, we had issues with Etzebeth as well.  Kolisi is small if you compare him to Louw,Burger and almost all other SA back row players.  Nizaam is also not the biggest.  When everyone was fit and available, we could put out a monster pack, but that didn't happen very often.  There was a time when 12 of our first choice 15 were not available.  But I was referring more towards the back-line players.  Aplon is tiny, same with Cheslin.  Our centres, wings and fullbacks are smaller than the other franchises.

Edit:  And I am taller than you 6'1     

6'2 in heels!  

Yeah in some ways I recall the days when we played a backlines with Ricki, Grant, Gio,  JDV, De Jongh, and Joe Pietersen. The gainline... that was a mythical place in those days. You cold see Joe Pietersens moves from fullback a mile off... 10 metres before contact... here comes the little chip (which he never recovered).

According to Wiki, the tallest people in the world are the Dutch with an average male height at 1.83m (6ft) for men, followed by Germany & Scandinavia at 1.8m (5'11). 2011 RWC contender nations are listed below:

USA, Scotland 1.78m
NZ, Australia, England, Wales, Ireland 1.77m
Canada, Italy 1.76m
France 1.75m
Argentina 1.73m
Romania, Japan 1.72m
Uruguay 1.7m
SA 1.69m

NB: Namibia, Georgia & the Pacific Islands not listed.

Rowanbi wrote:According to Wiki, the tallest people in the world are the Dutch with an average male height at 1.83m (6ft) for men, followed by Germany & Scandinavia at 1.8m (5'11). 2011 RWC contender nations are listed below:

USA, Scotland 1.78m
NZ, Australia, England, Wales, Ireland 1.77m
Canada, Italy 1.76m
France 1.75m
Argentina 1.73m
Romania, Japan 1.72m
Uruguay 1.7m
SA 1.69m

NB: Namibia, Georgia & the Pacific Islands not listed.

Many new world countries are collections of ethnic groups and thus their "average" not really a fair reflection of heights.

Rowanbi wrote:I take it, then, that you'd agree with my comment that the Springboks ought therefore to be dominated by non-whites from the number 6 jersey up, given speed and athleticism take precedence over physical size and strength in these positions . . .

Not really. If you look at the best backrows in the world you'll see the likes of McCaw, Pocock, Vermuelen etc. None of those are lightening fast.


Theres another good example of body types being more important than size. I just saw that white Americans are taller than black Americans, on average. If I didn't see that data I would have never guessed that. Look at basketball, its dominated by black players. Its obvious why, because they can move better. There was even a film called 'white men can't jump'!

In swimming, the ideal body type is a long torso and short legs. It's like the long hull of a canoe for speed over the water. And the opposite is advantageous in running. You want long legs and a short torso. And this shows in athletes' bodies today. Here you see Michael Phelps, the greatest swimmer in history, standing next to Hicham El Guerrouj, the world record holder in the mile. These men are seven inches different in height, but because of the body types advantaged in their sports, they wear the same length pants. Seven inches difference in height, these men have the same length legs

With the back rowers it would probably depend on the style of game the team wanted to play. I was a flanker myself, mostly, though I sometimes played wing and was also a winger during my stint in Aussie league. So I certainly relied more on speed and athleticism than size or physical presence (I'm an average 6ft/1.82). I was a huge fan of Springbok legend Rob Louw, whose main attributes certainly appeared to be speed and athleticism. Shame it was during the Apartheid era, as well as the amateur era, because I'd liked to have seen more of his play.

But as far as the backs go, you'd have to agree that, if anything, black South Africans should have the advantage in this department. We're seeing a few come through, of course, but you'd expect that players like Bryan Habana would be a dime a dozen by now; popping up all over the show in every club and provincial team, the way Pacific Island backline starts are in New Zealand (despite only being 7% of the population). Also, look at the backfields in American football; QB's notwithstanding, the vast majority of them are African-Americans.

profitius wrote:

Rowanbi wrote:I take it, then, that you'd agree with my comment that the Springboks ought therefore to be dominated by non-whites from the number 6 jersey up, given speed and athleticism take precedence over physical size and strength in these positions . . .

Not really. If you look at the best backrows in the world you'll see the likes of McCaw, Pocock, Vermuelen etc. None of those are lightening fast.


Theres another good example of body types being more important than size. I just saw that white Americans are taller than black Americans, on average. If I didn't see that data I would have never guessed that. Look at basketball, its dominated by black players. Its obvious why, because they can move better. There was even a film called 'white men can't jump'!

In swimming, the ideal body type is a long torso and short legs. It's like the long hull of a canoe for speed over the water. And the opposite is advantageous in running. You want long legs and a short torso. And this shows in athletes' bodies today. Here you see Michael Phelps, the greatest swimmer in history, standing next to Hicham El Guerrouj, the world record holder in the mile. These men are seven inches different in height, but because of the body types advantaged in their sports, they wear the same length pants. Seven inches difference in height, these men have the same length legs

They are very fast for their stature. When you're 6'3 and 115kg and develop your body to have great upper body and core strength you're never going to be a sprinter.

fa0019 wrote:

Rowanbi wrote:According to Wiki, the tallest people in the world are the Dutch with an average male height at 1.83m (6ft) for men, followed by Germany & Scandinavia at 1.8m (5'11). 2011 RWC contender nations are listed below:

USA, Scotland 1.78m
NZ, Australia, England, Wales, Ireland 1.77m
Canada, Italy 1.76m
France 1.75m
Argentina 1.73m
Romania, Japan 1.72m
Uruguay 1.7m
SA 1.69m

NB: Namibia, Georgia & the Pacific Islands not listed.

Many new world countries are collections of ethnic groups and thus their "average" not really a fair reflection of heights.

Afrikaners are from mainly Dutch decent so I think their average height willprobably be similar.

Rowanbi wrote:With the back rowers it would probably depend on the style of game the team wanted to play. I was a flanker myself, mostly, though I sometimes played wing and was also a winger during my stint in Aussie league. So I certainly relied more on speed and athleticism than size or physical presence (I'm an average 6ft/1.82). I was a huge fan of Springbok legend Rob Louw, whose main attributes certainly appeared to be speed and athleticism. Shame it was during the Apartheid era, as well as the amateur era, because I'd liked to have seen more of his play.

But as far as the backs go, you'd have to agree that, if anything, black South Africans should have the advantage in this department. We're seeing a few come through, of course, but you'd expect that players like Bryan Habana would be a dime a dozen by now; popping up all over the show in every club and provincial team, the way Pacific Island backline starts are in New Zealand (despite only being 7% of the population). Also, look at the backfields in American football; QB's notwithstanding, the vast majority of them are African-Americans.

Rowanbi... that is a very misunderstood error about Africa.

Africa and more significantly sub-saharan Africa is the most diverse place (genetics wise) on earth. Europeans have more genetic ancestry with Chinese, Indians... even Australian Aborigines than persons from West Africa have with East Africa.

The Africans from Southern Africa only really migrated to the region from the 1400s and came mainly from the great lakes of East Africa. The indigenous persons of Southern Africa are in fact the San people, nomadic bushman, much of whom survive within Cape Coloured generic mix.

Africans in South Africa are therefore less renowned for their sprinting ability and more their middle to long distance prowess. There are a number of quick Africans but IMO most come from white and coloured backgrounds.

Habana, Pietersen, Pietersen, Paulse, Aplon, De Jongh, Basson... they are all cape coloured, all with huge mixture of European, SS African, Indian and Malay DNA. We see fast Africans; chaps like Mvovo, Nokwi had he stayed injury free was for me as quick as Habana and there are fast chaps from Zimbabwe i.e. Chavanga and that USA guy who burnt Habana at his peak but I don't see them as quick. Afrikaners are also very quick... maybe its the dash of African/Cape Coloured they all have in them??? shhh, don't talk about that!!!!!  
The SA sprint sensation Wayde van Niekerk.. first man to break 10s for the 100, 20s for the 200 and 44 seconds for the 400 (and current 400m world champion) is Cape Coloured.

FerN wrote:

fa0019 wrote:

Rowanbi wrote:According to Wiki, the tallest people in the world are the Dutch with an average male height at 1.83m (6ft) for men, followed by Germany & Scandinavia at 1.8m (5'11). 2011 RWC contender nations are listed below:

USA, Scotland 1.78m
NZ, Australia, England, Wales, Ireland 1.77m
Canada, Italy 1.76m
France 1.75m
Argentina 1.73m
Romania, Japan 1.72m
Uruguay 1.7m
SA 1.69m

NB: Namibia, Georgia & the Pacific Islands not listed.

Many new world countries are collections of ethnic groups and thus their "average" not really a fair reflection of heights.

Afrikaners are from mainly Dutch decent so I think their average height willprobably be similar.

well yes and no.

Apparently something like

34% Dutch (inc. flanders), 33% German, 17% French, 9% British and 6% SS African/Indian/Malay from memory of past studies. When researching my children's maternal lineage I found similar findings. Most of the woman in the initial years of white settlement were non whites.

fa0019 wrote:

FerN wrote:

fa0019 wrote:

Rowanbi wrote:According to Wiki, the tallest people in the world are the Dutch with an average male height at 1.83m (6ft) for men, followed by Germany & Scandinavia at 1.8m (5'11). 2011 RWC contender nations are listed below:

USA, Scotland 1.78m
NZ, Australia, England, Wales, Ireland 1.77m
Canada, Italy 1.76m
France 1.75m
Argentina 1.73m
Romania, Japan 1.72m
Uruguay 1.7m
SA 1.69m

NB: Namibia, Georgia & the Pacific Islands not listed.

Many new world countries are collections of ethnic groups and thus their "average" not really a fair reflection of heights.

Afrikaners are from mainly Dutch decent so I think their average height willprobably be similar.

well yes and no.

Apparently something like

34% Dutch (inc. flanders), 33% German, 17% French, 9% British and 6% SS African/Indian/Malay from memory of past studies. When researching my children's maternal lineage I found similar findings. Most of the woman in the initial years of white settlement were non whites.

Hmm, I would have thought more French than German going by prolific surnames. But I might mistake the German surnames to be Dutch too.

Africa and more significantly sub-saharan Africa is the most diverse place (genetics wise) on earth. Europeans have more genetic ancestry with Chinese, Indians... even Australian Aborigines than persons from West Africa have with East Africa.

Indians, yes. The people of Southern Asia are a European-Austroloid hybrid, as a result of the Aryan invasions from the Caucasus region several thousand years ago. Hence the Indo-European language family (& the caste system).

The Africans from Southern Africa only really migrated to the region from the 1400s and came mainly from the great lakes of East Africa. The indigenous persons of Southern Africa are in fact the San people, nomadic bushman, much of whom survive within Cape Coloured generic mix.


I know. San Bushman are neither Negroid nor a member of any of the other three major ethnic groups (Caucasian, East Asian and Austroloid).

Africans in South Africa are therefore less renowned for their sprinting ability and more their middle to long distance prowess. There are a number of quick Africans but IMO most come from white and coloured backgrounds.

What happened to their fast-twitch muscle fiber? Also, the non-white South African players who are coming through seem primarily of the speedy rather than brawny variety. So who are the fastest sprinters in South African then? Are you telling me they're mostly white?

Rowanbi wrote: So who are the fastest sprinters in South African then? Are you telling me they're mostly white?

Well not since that incident with the toilet....

Rowanbi wrote:Africa and more significantly sub-saharan Africa is the most diverse place (genetics wise) on earth. Europeans have more genetic ancestry with Chinese, Indians... even Australian Aborigines than persons from West Africa have with East Africa.

Indians, yes. The people of Southern Asia are a European-Austroloid hybrid, as a result of the Aryan invasions from the Caucasus region several thousand years ago. Hence the Indo-European language family (& the caste system).

The Africans from Southern Africa only really migrated to the region from the 1400s and came mainly from the great lakes of East Africa. The indigenous persons of Southern Africa are in fact the San people, nomadic bushman, much of whom survive within Cape Coloured generic mix.


I know. San Bushman are neither Negroid nor a member of any of the other three major ethnic groups (Caucasian, East Asian and Austroloid).

Africans in South Africa are therefore less renowned for their sprinting ability and more their middle to long distance prowess. There are a number of quick Africans but IMO most come from white and coloured backgrounds.

What happened to their fast-twitch muscle fiber? Also, the non-white South African players who are coming through seem primarily of the speedy rather than brawny variety. So who are the fastest sprinters in South African then? Are you telling me they're mostly white?

Rowanbi... everyone from outside of Africa are related to each other from a single migration about 60,000 years ago. Every people, every ethnic group... from Europeans, Indians, Chinese, Polynesians, Australian Aborigines... all of them.

East Africans are very different DNA wise from West Africans. South African Africans are East African people DNA wise.

No I said Whites are very fast, especially Afrikaners. Cape Coloured's are exceptionally fast. Wayde van Niekerk... first man in history to break 10s, 20s and 44s for 100, 200 and 400 metres. He is Cape Coloured... like Habana et al.

FerN wrote:

fa0019 wrote:

FerN wrote:

fa0019 wrote:

Rowanbi wrote:According to Wiki, the tallest people in the world are the Dutch with an average male height at 1.83m (6ft) for men, followed by Germany & Scandinavia at 1.8m (5'11). 2011 RWC contender nations are listed below:

USA, Scotland 1.78m
NZ, Australia, England, Wales, Ireland 1.77m
Canada, Italy 1.76m
France 1.75m
Argentina 1.73m
Romania, Japan 1.72m
Uruguay 1.7m
SA 1.69m

NB: Namibia, Georgia & the Pacific Islands not listed.

Many new world countries are collections of ethnic groups and thus their "average" not really a fair reflection of heights.

Afrikaners are from mainly Dutch decent so I think their average height willprobably be similar.

well yes and no.

Apparently something like

34% Dutch (inc. flanders), 33% German, 17% French, 9% British and 6% SS African/Indian/Malay from memory of past studies. When researching my children's maternal lineage I found similar findings. Most of the woman in the initial years of white settlement were non whites.

Hmm, I would have thought more French than German going by prolific surnames.  But I might mistake the German surnames to be Dutch too.

This is what I found when I researched the family tree. At least from such persons who arrived in SA in the 17th century. Have a look at Geni if you're interested. Its an excellent site... and free. Also got a genealogist to do the donkey work.

German originated surnames

Botha, Burger, Bekker, Steyn, Kruger, Snyman, Meyer, Potgeiter

French Originated surnames

De Villiers, De Klerk, Pienaar, Du Preez, Russouw

Dutch originated surnames

van der Merwe, van Zyl, Strydom, Claassen, van Rooyen, van der Walt, van der Westhuizen, Smit

Rowanbi... everyone from outside of Africa are related to each other from a single migration about 60,000 years ago. Every people, every ethnic group... from Europeans, Indians, Chinese, Polynesians, Australian Aborigines... all of them.


Sure, and at that time they were the same people, and the same as those they had left behind on the African continent. But then some turned left, hybridized with Neanderthals and eventually became Caucasians with about 2 or 3% Neanderthal DNA, and others turn right and hybridized with other earlier forms of man, notably the Denisovans, and eventually became East Asians in the north and Austroloid in the south with as much as 5 or 6% Denisovan DNA. East Asians reached the Americas, Caucasians and Austroloid hybridized in southern Asia and an Austroloid-East Asian hybrid spread into the Pacific Islands (& also reached Madagascar ).

Incidentally, the further you get from southern Africa the less sounds languages tend to have. The Khoisan 'Taa' language of Botswana and Namibia has 87 consonants (including clicking and sucking sounds, etc) and 31 vowels, but by the time you reach Hawaii there are only 8 consonants and 5 vowels...

Just one historical correction for you FA: archaeological findings have shown that Bantu people had settled as far South as the KZN / E. Cape border by about 700AD! (A fact that the previous dispensation tried hard to deny)

Mr Fishpaste wrote:Just one historical correction for you FA: archaeological findings have shown that Bantu people had settled as far South as the KZN / E. Cape border by about 700AD! (A fact that the previous dispensation tried hard to deny)

I've read that a while back too. Can't see why its not true. However Zulus, Xhosa etc come from persons who migrated far later (from what I understand the 1400s). What happened to those above persons is not fully known... i.e. did they return further up north, did they interlope with later migrants, did they die out?

fa0019 wrote:

Mr Fishpaste wrote:Just one historical correction for you FA: archaeological findings have shown that Bantu people had settled as far South as the KZN / E. Cape border by about 700AD! (A fact that the previous dispensation tried hard to deny)

I've read that a while back too. Can't see why its not true. However Zulus, Xhosa etc come from persons who migrated far later (from what I understand the 1400s). What happened to those above persons is not fully known... i.e. did they return further up north, did they interlope with later migrants, did they die out?

I read a great book called The Washing of the Spears (Morris) about the Zulus. It talked about how the areas the Boers first colonised were pretty much cleared of people a generation earlier by the Zulus

lostinwales wrote:

fa0019 wrote:

Mr Fishpaste wrote:Just one historical correction for you FA: archaeological findings have shown that Bantu people had settled as far South as the KZN / E. Cape border by about 700AD! (A fact that the previous dispensation tried hard to deny)

I've read that a while back too. Can't see why its not true. However Zulus, Xhosa etc come from persons who migrated far later (from what I understand the 1400s). What happened to those above persons is not fully known... i.e. did they return further up north, did they interlope with later migrants, did they die out?

I read a great book called The Washing of the Spears (Morris) about the Zulus. It talked about how the areas the Boers first colonised were pretty much cleared of people a generation earlier by the Zulus

The notion of the 'empty land' was a myth (comprehensively discounted through historical study and archaeology) that was perpetuated by the Apartheid government to justify their taking of the land...ie 'there was no one here when we took it, so it's our land'...Washing of the Spears, whilst an entertaining read, is not histrically accurate in several places, largely because Morris relied on some sources that have subsequently been shown to be inaccurate.

Mr Fishpaste wrote:

lostinwales wrote:

fa0019 wrote:

Mr Fishpaste wrote:Just one historical correction for you FA: archaeological findings have shown that Bantu people had settled as far South as the KZN / E. Cape border by about 700AD! (A fact that the previous dispensation tried hard to deny)

I've read that a while back too. Can't see why its not true. However Zulus, Xhosa etc come from persons who migrated far later (from what I understand the 1400s). What happened to those above persons is not fully known... i.e. did they return further up north, did they interlope with later migrants, did they die out?

I read a great book called The Washing of the Spears (Morris) about the Zulus. It talked about how the areas the Boers first colonised were pretty much cleared of people a generation earlier by the Zulus

The notion of the 'empty land' was a myth (comprehensively discounted through historical study and archaeology) that was perpetuated by the Apartheid government to justify their taking of the land...ie 'there was no one here when we took it, so it's our land'...Washing of the Spears, whilst an entertaining read, is not histrically accurate in several places, largely because Morris relied on some sources that have subsequently been shown to be inaccurate.

In the past it was all to do with how powerful you were, today its about how many babies you churn out. That's democracy.

What is true is that the painting of Africans as simply peaceful tribal people who had lived on that given patch of earth for thousands of years is just as inaccurate. In almost all cases, those at the top butchered their way to it; black and white.

Anyway, I think we all agree that Coetzee's appointment was a good one, yes?

Rowanbi wrote:Anyway, I think we all agree that Coetzee's appointment was a good one, yes?

What! Is this a rugby thread?

so nobody think Rassie's appointment at Munster has anything to do with Coetzee's being made head coach.

Big loss for SA rugby. Probably end up Ireland coach after Schmidt.

fa0019 wrote:so nobody think Rassie's appointment at Munster has anything to do with Coetzee's being made head coach.

Big loss for SA rugby. Probably end up Ireland coach after Schmidt.

That is the speculation in the news - just skimmed though the article in Beeld, they didn't quote anything Rassie said, except that he is disillusioned with SA rugby.

FerN wrote:

fa0019 wrote:so nobody think Rassie's appointment at Munster has anything to do with Coetzee's being made head coach.

Big loss for SA rugby. Probably end up Ireland coach after Schmidt.

That is the speculation in the news - just skimmed though the article in Beeld, they didn't quote anything Rassie said, except that he is disillusioned with SA rugby.

because they said he wasn't qualified to apply for the position in itself.

Probably quadrupled his salary... I think SA should beware about his appointment. Rassie has a great eye for talent and I think he'll take with him a shopping list of perhaps disenfranchised players.
I know a few current springboks loosely and his name often pops up, not just a good coach but one the players respect and admire highly.

fa0019 wrote:

FerN wrote:

fa0019 wrote:so nobody think Rassie's appointment at Munster has anything to do with Coetzee's being made head coach.

Big loss for SA rugby. Probably end up Ireland coach after Schmidt.

That is the speculation in the news - just skimmed though the article in Beeld, they didn't quote anything Rassie said, except that he is disillusioned with SA rugby.

because they said he wasn't qualified to apply for the position in itself.

Probably quadrupled his salary... I think SA should beware about his appointment. Rassie has a great eye for talent and I think he'll take with him a shopping list of perhaps disenfranchised players.
I know a few current springboks loosely and his name often pops up, not just a good coach but one the players respect and admire highly.

Jacques Nienaber said to be coming to Munster with him. Munter are rock bottom right now and are performing way worse than the sum of the talent available.


He won't be allowed take too many South African players. The IRFU are after getting very strict on that and all signings will have to go through IRFU performance director, David Nucifora.

Been reading through this thread and although it has been interesting the race issue in regards to size, speed and athleticism is not the inhibiting factor in why there are such poor representation of non-whites in South AFrican rugby.

IT has everything to do with participation.

That participation is what needs to be addressed.

Government is much to blame for the situation as they are not funding sport.

Traditional rugby schools and traditional White schools still have sports development because most of it is funded via the parents.

Traditional black schools do not have that luxury and must rely on a government that is not interested in correcting the past, but rather use the past as a continual reminder for their incompetency.

In the meantime South African rugby talent will continue to be milked by every nut with a Euro, Dollar or Pound to spare.

Biltong wrote:Been reading through this thread and although it has been interesting the race issue in regards to size, speed and athleticism is not the inhibiting factor in why there are such poor representation of non-whites in South AFrican rugby.

IT has everything to do with participation.

That participation is what needs to be addressed.

Government is much to blame for the situation as they are not funding sport.

Traditional rugby schools and traditional White schools still have sports development because most of it is funded via the parents.

Traditional black schools do not have that luxury and must rely on a government that is not interested in correcting the past, but rather use the past as a continual reminder for their incompetency.

With respect, Biltong, how realistic is it for the government to increase rugby participation in black schools via additional funding? This is a country with over 50% (and rising) unemployment, where almost 20% (and rising) of the population have HIV, where almost 50% of the population are in moderate poverty.

Putting aside questions of the government's competence, how realistic is it to roll out the size of project that would be required to increase participation in rugby among black people in SA?

Been reading through this thread and although it has been interesting the race issue in regards to size, speed and athleticism is not the inhibiting factor in why there are such poor representation of non-whites in South AFrican rugby.

IT has everything to do with participation.

That participation is what needs to be addressed.

Right on I'm up against the same folly on the 2023 (expanded) Rugby World Cup for South Africa thread...

jbeadlesbigrighthand wrote:

Biltong wrote:Been reading through this thread and although it has been interesting the race issue in regards to size, speed and athleticism is not the inhibiting factor in why there are such poor representation of non-whites in South AFrican rugby.

IT has everything to do with participation.

That participation is what needs to be addressed.

Government is much to blame for the situation as they are not funding sport.

Traditional rugby schools and traditional White schools still have sports development because most of it is funded via the parents.

Traditional black schools do not have that luxury and must rely on a government that is not interested in correcting the past, but rather use the past as a continual reminder for their incompetency.

With respect, Biltong, how realistic is it for the government to increase rugby participation in black schools via additional funding? This is a country with over 50% (and rising) unemployment, where almost 20% (and rising) of the population have HIV, where almost 50% of the population are in moderate poverty.

Putting aside questions of the government's competence, how realistic is it to roll out the size of project that would be required to increase participation in rugby among black people in SA?

There is a boatload of money in SA, you need the right people to do what is necessary.

I have been told by people who deal with many of these socio economic problems about money not being utilised because of incompetence, until someone of course rocks up with an idea of how to "re allocate" those funds.

The point is nothing, as in zero, ziltch, nada has been done

With respect.

Biltong wrote:

jbeadlesbigrighthand wrote:

Biltong wrote:Been reading through this thread and although it has been interesting the race issue in regards to size, speed and athleticism is not the inhibiting factor in why there are such poor representation of non-whites in South AFrican rugby.

IT has everything to do with participation.

That participation is what needs to be addressed.

Government is much to blame for the situation as they are not funding sport.

Traditional rugby schools and traditional White schools still have sports development because most of it is funded via the parents.

Traditional black schools do not have that luxury and must rely on a government that is not interested in correcting the past, but rather use the past as a continual reminder for their incompetency.

With respect, Biltong, how realistic is it for the government to increase rugby participation in black schools via additional funding? This is a country with over 50% (and rising) unemployment, where almost 20% (and rising) of the population have HIV, where almost 50% of the population are in moderate poverty.

Putting aside questions of the government's competence, how realistic is it to roll out the size of project that would be required to increase participation in rugby among black people in SA?

There is a boatload of money in SA, you need the right people to do what is necessary.

I have been told by people who deal with many of these socio economic problems about money not being utilised because of incompetence, until someone of course rocks up with an idea of how to "re allocate" those funds.

The point is nothing, as in zero, ziltch, nada has been done

With respect.

Fair enough. You know far better than I re finances and the situation on the ground.

I simply wonder how significant an undertaking it would be to roll out a programme that would have a significant, lasting impact on participation. And from that, even if SA had a competent/ honest government who wanted to increase participation, rather than taking a quota short-cut, how politically popular that would be.

Incidentally, when I said "with respect" I did actually mean it. Judging from your last sentence, you seem to have taken it as a veiled insult. It wasn't intended that way.

jbeadlesbigrighthand wrote:

Biltong wrote:

jbeadlesbigrighthand wrote:

Biltong wrote:Been reading through this thread and although it has been interesting the race issue in regards to size, speed and athleticism is not the inhibiting factor in why there are such poor representation of non-whites in South AFrican rugby.

IT has everything to do with participation.

That participation is what needs to be addressed.

Government is much to blame for the situation as they are not funding sport.

Traditional rugby schools and traditional White schools still have sports development because most of it is funded via the parents.

Traditional black schools do not have that luxury and must rely on a government that is not interested in correcting the past, but rather use the past as a continual reminder for their incompetency.

With respect, Biltong, how realistic is it for the government to increase rugby participation in black schools via additional funding? This is a country with over 50% (and rising) unemployment, where almost 20% (and rising) of the population have HIV, where almost 50% of the population are in moderate poverty.

Putting aside questions of the government's competence, how realistic is it to roll out the size of project that would be required to increase participation in rugby among black people in SA?

There is a boatload of money in SA, you need the right people to do what is necessary.

I have been told by people who deal with many of these socio economic problems about money not being utilised because of incompetence, until someone of course rocks up with an idea of how to "re allocate" those funds.

The point is nothing, as in zero, ziltch, nada has been done

With respect.

Fair enough. You know far better than I re finances and the situation on the ground.

I simply wonder how significant an undertaking it would be to roll out a programme that would have a significant, lasting impact on participation. And from that, even if SA had a competent/ honest government who wanted to increase participation, rather than taking a quota short-cut, how politically popular that would be.

Incidentally, when I said "with respect" I did actually mean it. Judging from your last sentence, you seem to have taken it as a veiled insult. It wasn't intended that way.

Yeah, I apologise, I am getting a tad tired of the demand or expectation that 9% of the population who are no longer in power must now fix everything on demand because government says so.

I am all for transformation and have no issue with it

I do have a major issue with outsiders backing a governments demands when they do not realise or choose to ignore the facts.

There is no way on this earth that a tenth of the population is going to fix this.

Participation comes at grass roots, and regardless of whether it would have been successful, the fact is government has done nothing in two decades, yet demand sport must transform.

And the mere fact that they threaten to take hosting rights etc away from these sporting bodies I find utterly ignorant.