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."

All about balance, Back was too short to be an international for example. Once players start to come through in a steady stream it'll benefit SA a lot. So much untapped potential to write everyone off as too small is incorrect. You could have looked at Englands rugby team 20 years agao and said there isn't much diversity (they're not good enough, interested, big enough) now look at it. Make the avenues into the sport as attractive and easy as possible and you'd be surprised what can be unearthed.

No 7&1/2 wrote:All about balance, Back was too short to be an international for example. Once players start to come through in a steady stream it'll benefit SA a lot. So much untapped potential to write everyone off as too small is incorrect. You could have looked at Englands rugby team 20 years agao and said there isn't much diversity (they're not good enough, interested, big enough) now look at it. Make the avenues into the sport as attractive and easy as possible and you'd be surprised what can be unearthed.

England rugby team in the carling years was quite diverse

Brian Moore  
Tony Underwood
Rory Underwood
Paul Hull
Steve Ojomoh
Jeremy Guscott
Chris Oti
Victor Ubogu

6 of those were on the 1995 world cup squad with 5 starting. That's 1/3. Ojomoh was first reserve for the backrow too.

It is a balance you are correct but balance as in you can accomodate a small guy under certain circumstances. But if the small guy isn't pacey, isn't a fetcher and he's played as an eightman or blindside than you'll be fighting a losing battle.

This isn't to say size is not there, hell look at the Chinese basketball team. But its a difficult balance to find tall non-whites in SA who crucially have sporting genes such as good hand eye cordination (how many chaps 2 metres plus have that for starters) and have a good grounding in the game i.e. from childhood.  Sure you have to give people the chance but simply saying, oh you're being racist or you're not giving them enough chances isn't really the truth.

I mean that a ludricrous thing to say, how many non whites are there in SA? You're saying within that population there isn't sporting genes? That's just not true. What may be true is that the strength isn't there in the professional set up due to numerous reasons. And that's why an area such as this becomes difficult, do you push forward with positive discrimination and give those black/mixed race/etc role models or just let things trundle along with the 'knowledge' that they others don't like the game or are inferior.

No 7&1/2 wrote:All about balance, Back was too short to be an international for example. Once players start to come through in a steady stream it'll benefit SA a lot. So much untapped potential to write everyone off as too small is incorrect. You could have looked at Englands rugby team 20 years agao and said there isn't much diversity (they're not good enough, interested, big enough) now look at it. Make the avenues into the sport as attractive and easy as possible and you'd be surprised what can be unearthed.

Would point out that Back was too short for Jack Rowell rugby but then again most still are.

Rodber 6'6
Clarke 6'5
Richards... the shortie at 6'4 and 120kg (120kg is being generous I think).

Today you see some fetchers about that size. George Smith, Heinrich Brussow etc... but they're all fetchers. Carr, Johnson, Kolisi.... none of them are.

No 7&1/2 wrote:I mean that a ludricrous thing to say, how many non whites are there in SA? You're saying within that population there isn't sporting genes? That's just not true. What may be true is that the strength isn't there in the professional set up due to numerous reasons. And that's why an area such as this becomes difficult, do you push forward with positive discrimination and give those black/mixed race/etc role models or just let things trundle along with the 'knowledge' that they others don't like the game or are inferior.

Thats not what I said.

I said sporting genes i.e. things like hand eye cordination isn't in all of us. Some of us have it, some don't. Then you have to apply that to say those abve 6ft for instance. I didn't say some races have sporting genes, some don't. Now if certain populations are shorter than others (and 5-6 inches is quite significant) then you're already narrowing yourself down. There are about 40 million africans in SA. However how many of them are above 6ft. I'm literally on the cusp myself and only have ever been shorter than a African on a few occasions. Some Cape Coloureds are tallish but still few. Amongst whites I'm probably on the verge of being slightly below average, especially Afrikaners.

We'll have to agree to disagree on this, I don't think that white people are superior.

No 7&1/2 wrote:I mean that a ludricrous thing to say, how many non whites are there in SA? You're saying within that population there isn't sporting genes? That's just not true. What may be true is that the strength isn't there in the professional set up due to numerous reasons. And that's why an area such as this becomes difficult, do you push forward with positive discrimination and give those black/mixed race/etc role models or just let things trundle along with the 'knowledge' that they others don't like the game or are inferior.

I think that its a bit pot kettle black thing.

Have a look at team GB in the Olympics. Outside of athletics its nearly all white, all upper class, all public school raised.

When was the last time you saw an Indian premiership footballer? Do they not like the game, bull. Half of those I know are massive football fans. Can you list any other than Michael Chopra without google?

No 7&1/2 wrote:We'll have to agree to disagree on this, I don't think that white people are superior.

um they're not. Saying they're taller is not saying they're superior.

Zak Knight. I've spoken about the Indian thing with football on here before. It's certainly looks under represented, and knowing some people around Middlesbrough I would certainly say racism has a part to play in it along with other factors. Very complicated matter and made worse by SAs past on this.

No 7&1/2 wrote:Zak Knight. I've spoken about the Indian thing with football on here before. It's certainly looks under represented, and knowing some people around Middlesbrough I would certainly say racism has a part to play in it along with other factors. Very complicated matter and made worse by SAs past on this.

Rugby is the only sport where they have such quotas. Cricket they literally threw it out and said.... not happening. Do they have quotas in football? Perhaps they should given when they were successful in the mid 90s they were a multiracial team whereas today they're at best top 100 and have little representation outside of Africans but still no.

Rugby they want to crush, the government like to hammer because they want to punish whites. Its that simple.

We already have a number of non whites representing SA on merit. Say 4-5 in a squad. Why impose quotas which increases numbers by 1-2 but crucially taints all with the token label, lowers results (as better players in some cases are left behind) and thus reducing the appeal of the masses? Cricket there are no quotas and kids love all the players.. Rugby, outside of JP and Bryan most are labelled token players and whilst unfair in some circumstances it sticks.

Had Meyer had the option of picking whoever he wants its no doubt the boks would have been better under his tenure. They got as close as anyone to beating NZ last year, led at halftime and lost by 4 in the SF... who knows what they would have done had they had the ability to chose whatever players they wanted... and no that doesn't mean dropping non whites. You think it helps morale when non whites come into a side and teammates may think... hmm is he here because he's good or because he needs to fill the gap?

Its no way to enhance appeal.

No 7&1/2 wrote:We'll have to agree to disagree on this, I don't think that white people are superior.

Look at the number of international standard rugby players who are of polynesian ancestry compared to their overall population. Race does make a difference and its crazy to ignore that.

It is also worth saying that where it makes a difference is in numbers, in potential and probability. The best individuals could still come from anywhere.

Rugby isn't owned by white people. Positive discrimination as I said first up is something which is difficult to come to grips with, whether it's a help or hindrance but if it helps break down that view that this is the last bastion for the white people of SA that's a good thing. Sport should encompass not hold people at arms length.

lostinwales wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:We'll have to agree to disagree on this, I don't think that white people are superior.

Look at the number of international standard rugby players who are of polynesian ancestry compared to their overall population. Race does make a difference and its crazy to ignore that.

It is also worth saying that where it makes a difference is in numbers, in potential and probability. The best individuals could still come from anywhere.

My view of it is that race doesn't make a difference in how good a player can become; it certainly impacts overall though, opportunities, peer pressure etc etc.

lostinwales wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:We'll have to agree to disagree on this, I don't think that white people are superior.

Look at the number of international standard rugby players who are of polynesian ancestry compared to their overall population. Race does make a difference and its crazy to ignore that.

It is also worth saying that where it makes a difference is in numbers, in potential and probability. The best individuals could still come from anywhere.

I agree

the best, the very best come from all over but those 1 or 2 notches below... there are definitive trends.

Its like birthdays.  In England most pro footballers are old for their age group i.e. born Sept-Dec. In the academies they were bigger, more physically developed and coaches still bias these things. However guys like the beckhams etc, those with superior talents come from all months

No 7&1/2 wrote:

lostinwales wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:We'll have to agree to disagree on this, I don't think that white people are superior.

Look at the number of international standard rugby players who are of polynesian ancestry compared to their overall population. Race does make a difference and its crazy to ignore that.

It is also worth saying that where it makes a difference is in numbers, in potential and probability. The best individuals could still come from anywhere.

My view of it is that race doesn't make a difference in how good a player can become; it certainly impacts overall though, opportunities, peer pressure etc etc.

Polynesians Americans are something like 40 times more likely to appear in the NFL than white European Americans. Some peoples are more suited to some sports than others.

So you are now saying that white people are superior in rugby?

No 7&1/2 wrote:So you are now saying that white people are superior in rugby?

well rugby is similar to NFL and I said Polynesians are 40 times more likely to play in the NFL than whites... so how did you get that from that?

So everyone is equally adept overall and it's about giving opportunties and raising interest then.

No 7&1/2 wrote:So everyone is equally adept overall and it's about giving opportunties and raising interest then.

Get over yourself 7.5.

Why is it that East Africans dominate long distance running, why is it that those of West African descent dominate sprinting?

Athletics is massive in Europe. Don't kid yourself its simply opportunity and interest.

Sorry I'm now not understanding where you're coming from. Are you saying that whites are better at rugby or not?

No 7&1/2 wrote:Sorry I'm now not understanding where you're coming from. Are you saying that whites are better at rugby or not?

dude, seriously thats the 3rd time you've accused me of such. Its out of line. I never said that nor have inclined such. I even suggested that Polynesians in a similar sport see higher proportional representation let alone their higher than  whites participation amongst ANZAC teams which in part suggests they are superior to white ANZACs... yet still you try and pin white supermacism on me. Its actually quite pathetic and wrong.

In SA, whites are taller than non whites and by quite a margin (the diff is around 5-6 inches off the average) and Africans above 6ft are rare. That means finding Africans in a sport where at the elite level perhaps 12 persons in 15 will be above 6'2 will forever be a challenge. I was listing backrows and forwards as an example. I never mentioned backs as its less of a problem. In the forwards especially the back five... it is a problem and simply trying to cast it off as saying oh, you're not looking hard enough/you're racially biased is wrong.

So as I said in the previous, it's about ensuring that everyone has the opportunity and raising interest.

White people are better, neither are black, neither are etc so it's about better scouting, ensuring people are welcomed into lower levels etc. And at the same time it's about considering the use of such things as quotas to increase numbers at the top level to reinforce the idea this isn't a closed shop.

And Coetzee is another step towards this; as I said early doors, hopefully he gets the recognition from the fans that he's playing to the overall strategy as well as making SA as strong as possible while doing it. He needs that support and understanding, it'll benefit SA in the long run but may lead to short term hits.

No 7&1/2 wrote:So as I said in the previous, it's about ensuring that everyone has the opportunity and raising interest.

White people are better, neither are black, neither are etc so it's about better scouting, ensuring people are welcomed into lower levels etc. And at the same time it's about considering the use of such things as quotas to increase numbers at the top level to reinforce the idea this isn't a closed shop.

So why in SA and not elsewhere? Why not England?, why not Scotland? Take this beyond race, why so few are from inner city backgrounds, think Chris Robshaw speaks for them... better drop him no and bring in some players with experiences that can relate to such an untapped resource no? Garbage.

Because you perceive SA to have a race problem? Apartheid is long dead, those in academies today weren't even born when Nelson Mandela became president.

Tokenism helps no one. It lowers team morale, players think they only made it because they are a certain colour (however unfair), those who miss out think they only lost out because of tokenism. It terrible for team sport. Those who think that only Africans can appeal to Africans are racially thinking in themselves. Its not true and in SA in kids today kids don't simply say... I'm African, ok who is the best african player, he's my idol..... they say "I'm a lock, I love playing lock, my idol is Lood de Jager".

Think Bryan Habana speaks for the African community? Think again. For starters he's not African and secondly Cape Coloureds and Africans hate each other more than they hate whites respectively.

No 7&1/2 wrote:And Coetzee is another step towards this; as I said early doors, hopefully he gets the recognition from the fans that he's playing to the overall strategy as well as making SA as strong as possible while doing it. He needs that support and understanding, it'll benefit SA in the long run but may lead to short term hits.

No one said Coetzee was not the best choice. Most are saying the new ruling set to him will make his job impossible. He's proved himself in Currie Cup, in Super Rugby in test rugby as a assistant so he was at least one of the top 2 candidates.

People outside of SA trying to suggest whites were up in arms is simply talking up their backside. They're up in arms of the 2019 ruling, not Coetzee.

fa0019 wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:So as I said in the previous, it's about ensuring that everyone has the opportunity and raising interest.

White people are better, neither are black, neither are etc so it's about better scouting, ensuring people are welcomed into lower levels etc. And at the same time it's about considering the use of such things as quotas to increase numbers at the top level to reinforce the idea this isn't a closed shop.

So why in SA and not elsewhere? Why not England?, why not Scotland? Take this beyond race, why so few are from inner city backgrounds, think Chris Robshaw speaks for them... better drop him no and bring in some players with experiences that can relate to such an untapped resource no? Garbage.

Because you perceive SA to have a race problem? Apartheid is long dead, those in academies today weren't even born when Nelson Mandela became president.

Tokenism helps no one. It lowers team morale, players think they only made it because they are a certain colour (however unfair), those who miss out think they only lost out because of tokenism. It terrible for team sport. Those who think that only Africans can appeal to Africans are racially thinking in themselves. Its not true and in SA in kids today kids don't simply say... I'm African, ok who is the best african player, he's my idol..... they say "I'm a lock, I love playing lock, my idol is Lood de Jager".

Think Bryan Habana speaks for the African community? Think again. For starters he's not African and secondly Cape Coloureds and Africans hate each other more than they hate whites respectively.

I think it's important that strong consideration is given across the board you're spot on. SA has a recent history of apartheid which does impact on things like this; issues don't disappear within a generation or even 2. Look at USA and how long slavery has echoed. I fully respect that kids will look at Bismarck and idolise him etc but seeing that overall representation or a particular player reflect your own background is different. hell I love it when people from Boro and nearby get representation, take a bow Stockton boy Geoff Parling.

fa0019 wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:And Coetzee is another step towards this; as I said early doors, hopefully he gets the recognition from the fans that he's playing to the overall strategy as well as making SA as strong as possible while doing it. He needs that support and understanding, it'll benefit SA in the long run but may lead to short term hits.

No one said Coetzee was not the best choice. Most are saying the new ruling set to him will make his job impossible. He's proved himself in Currie Cup, in Super Rugby in test rugby as a assistant so he was at least one of the top 2 candidates.

People outside of SA trying to suggest whites were up in arms is simply talking up their backside. They're up in arms of the 2019 ruling, not Coetzee.

Not arguing either of those, simply saying now he's been given the job he needs that time support and understanding.

No 7&1/2 wrote:

fa0019 wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:So as I said in the previous, it's about ensuring that everyone has the opportunity and raising interest.

White people are better, neither are black, neither are etc so it's about better scouting, ensuring people are welcomed into lower levels etc. And at the same time it's about considering the use of such things as quotas to increase numbers at the top level to reinforce the idea this isn't a closed shop.

So why in SA and not elsewhere? Why not England?, why not Scotland? Take this beyond race, why so few are from inner city backgrounds, think Chris Robshaw speaks for them... better drop him no and bring in some players with experiences that can relate to such an untapped resource no? Garbage.

Because you perceive SA to have a race problem? Apartheid is long dead, those in academies today weren't even born when Nelson Mandela became president.

Tokenism helps no one. It lowers team morale, players think they only made it because they are a certain colour (however unfair), those who miss out think they only lost out because of tokenism. It terrible for team sport. Those who think that only Africans can appeal to Africans are racially thinking in themselves. Its not true and in SA in kids today kids don't simply say... I'm African, ok who is the best african player, he's my idol..... they say "I'm a lock, I love playing lock, my idol is Lood de Jager".

Think Bryan Habana speaks for the African community? Think again. For starters he's not African and secondly Cape Coloureds and Africans hate each other more than they hate whites respectively.

I think it's important that strong consideration is given across the board you're spot on. SA has a recent history of apartheid  which does impact on things like this; issues don't disappear within a generation or even 2. Look at USA and how long slavery has echoed. I fully respect that kids will look at Bismarck and idolise him etc but seeing that overall representation or a particular player reflect your own background is different. hell I love it when people from Boro and nearby get representation, take a bow Stockton boy Geoff Parling.

The UK and USA had laws which discriminated against non whites until the 1960s and application of it for a little longer. SA had until the 1990s. The west like to label SA as a racist singularity but in reality they were just the last to conform whereas others only conformed a few years before. Does racism still exist, it also exists everywhere else from all races and nations. Its no more of a problem in SA than in the west and whites in SA probably have more exposure, more friends and day to day living with non whites than Europeans do.

There are enough players on merit to justify non white selection. So at the moment their may be only 3-5. Those 3-5 with both them, their team and the country knowing they are there fully on merit is far better than 5-7 with questions (perhaps unfairly) asked by themselves, their team and their country on whether or not they are good enough or just their for the cameras and government box tickers.

Similar arguemnts pop up in a lot of countries. Look at the massively successful Rooney rule in USA and how it was shouted down in England when mentioned as a way forward.

No 7&1/2 wrote:Similar arguemnts pop up in a lot of countries. Look at the massively successful Rooney rule in USA and how it was shouted down in England when mentioned as a way forward.

The rooney rule is just an rule to increase opportunity in terms of job interviews not a specific number that needs to be represented/hired.

That's a big difference.

Yes there is a difference, but they recognised the under representation and implemented a way to improve it. Guaranteed interview rather than guaranteed post but improved things straight away. There were a lot of arguments against it; black people are intertested in being head coaches and some worse. When it was mentioned in relation to football in England saw similar arguments. SA have decided to go with quotas, will hopefully see representation and involvement increase. Will only benefit them in the long run.

No 7&1/2 wrote:Yes there is a difference, but they recognised the under representation and implemented a way to improve it. Guaranteed interview rather than guaranteed post but improved things straight away. There were a lot of arguments against it; black people are intertested in being head coaches and some worse. When it was mentioned in relation to football in England saw similar arguments. SA have decided to go with quotas, will hopefully see representation and involvement increase. Will only benefit them in the long run.

politics and sport... always the worst of combinations.

Improved things in USA, could improve things in SA etc.

No 7&1/2 wrote:Improved things in USA, could improve things in SA etc.

they don't have quotas in the USA. They did so because you saw a vast majority of one racial group who dominate at elite player levels shielded from coaching roles. In this case can you recall a non white forward who dominates in SA rugby when given their chance. A few props such as Tendai do well true, but in the back five?

There are still more whites playing the game than Africans in SA at all levels. If Africans came in and did better than expected perhaps you could think.... hang on a minute but its not the case. In terms of forwards and back five forwards, those who do... bar a few exceptions tend to struggle to keep up.
Coaches may be racist but they love winning and only a fool will stop themselves from winning games.

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 all fairness, though, how welcome would they have felt in a sport which refused to afford them international status? For all intents and purposes, they might just as well have been blocked from playing the game, under those circumstances. Also, the comment about 'separate lives' is not exclusive to South Africa, and might as easily be applied to the Aborigines of Australia (who nonetheless produced those remarkable Ella brothers back in the 80s) and even African-Americans and New Zealand Maori, among others. So I presume I'm correct in reading this more as a description of the circumstances, rather than any justification for them.

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.

But non-whites are more than 90% of the population, and we have certainly seen plenty of beefy players coming through. I don't know for certain, but I'd guess that if you lined up the 100 biggest men in South Africa at least half of them would be non-white.

The point being, that if rugby were more popular among them, this wouldn't be a major issue. Pacific Islanders are actually the biggest people in the world in terms of average weight (Tongans are the official title-holders), but you'll still find more white players in an average All Blacks team than Polynesians because they constitute around 80% of the population are are just as passionate about the game.

Also, hate to remind you of this, but a nation of 'smallish people' recently defeated the Springboks in a RWC group match

Meanwhile, if you lined up the 100 fastest men in South Africa, I'd guess at least 9/10 would be non-whites. I might be wrong about that, and speed is perhaps just as important to back rowers as it is to the backline itself. So I don't see any reason in terms of 'genetics' that the Springboks shouldn't be dominated by non-whites by now - with the possible exception of the tight forwards.

fa0019 wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:Improved things in USA, could improve things in SA etc.

they don't have quotas in the USA. They did so because you saw a vast majority of one racial group who dominate at elite player levels shielded from coaching roles. In this case can you recall a non white forward who dominates in SA rugby when given their chance. A few props such as Tendai do well true, but in the back five?

There are still more whites playing the game than Africans in SA at all levels. If Africans came in and did better than expected perhaps you could think.... hang on a minute but its not the case. In terms of forwards and back five forwards, those who do... bar a few exceptions tend to struggle to keep up.
Coaches may be racist but they love winning and only a fool will stop themselves from winning games.

I've certainly seen arguments like that for Asians and football in England. It's a point of view.

No 7&1/2 wrote:

fa0019 wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:Improved things in USA, could improve things in SA etc.

they don't have quotas in the USA. They did so because you saw a vast majority of one racial group who dominate at elite player levels shielded from coaching roles. In this case can you recall a non white forward who dominates in SA rugby when given their chance. A few props such as Tendai do well true, but in the back five?

There are still more whites playing the game than Africans in SA at all levels. If Africans came in and did better than expected perhaps you could think.... hang on a minute but its not the case. In terms of forwards and back five forwards, those who do... bar a few exceptions tend to struggle to keep up.
Coaches may be racist but they love winning and only a fool will stop themselves from winning games.

I've certainly seen arguments like that for Asians and football in England. It's a point of view.

Why would people be racist to Asians in football but not those of African descent; either from Africa itself or from the Caribbean who heavily outweigh their proportional makeup amongst indigenous britons in the pro ranks? With the money in the game today coaches would be fools to pass up players who could perhaps in a single contract make decades of scouting and academy coaching worth the hassle.

One group of persons in the UK whom I think would make excellent rugby players are Sikhs. They are not only huge (I'd say on average if you took them as a race/nationality they'd be the tallest in the world) but also they're made of pretty stern stuff.

It happens fa, certainly where I live now there's alot of animostity towards Pakistanis and Muslims which you don't really see or hear towards other races. Starting to get that way towards the Poles now. Guess that a lot of the black immigrants came a couple of generations ago and seem more integrated. More complicated than to say its 100% racism which keeps them out but it will be involved.

No 7&1/2 wrote:It happens fa, certainly where I live now there's alot of animostity towards Pakistanis and Muslims which you don't really see or hear towards other races. Starting to get that way towards the Poles now. Guess that a lot of the black immigrants came a couple of generations ago and seem more integrated. More complicated than to say its 100% racism which keeps them out but it will be involved.

I don't doubt that racism will play a part in making things more difficult. That's society in the 21st century. It was worse before but still admittedly in place. However I don't think its the main reason as you do see other races come through.

One reason I think is valid is the impact of the family. Of my British Asian friends, sport was accepted but not as a career... Doctor, Accountant, Lawyer, Engineer, that was drilled into these guys as kids i.e. you can play sport but eventually knuckle down to your studies. Same with Chinese Britons although in the 80s/90s they were well represented. 

In terms of my own youth when I was 15-17 I was probably at the same level as such kids who eventually got into academies (albeit admittedly on the fringe). The diff between myself and those of my group who made it into these pro academies was that whilst none of us were supremely talented albeit gifted; those who did make it weren't necessarily academically focused and placed great emphasis onto their rugby. Not saying those in rugby are stupid, but for those on the fringe of having/not having pro potential, those of us who had other priorities concentrated less time than those who had less academic priorities/pressures and it probably made a difference.

Not to be massively generalistic here but there's an awful lot of Asians who don't go down the academic route either. Think it's too easy to use culture as a reason without some sort of targeted approach. You're starting to see them come through in cricket now a little more. Comes back to a really complex set of issues to which there are various approaches. Not sure that the laissez faire approach has been working quick enough in a lot of these areas.

No 7&1/2 wrote:Not to be massively generalistic here but there's an awful lot of Asians who don't go down the academic route either. Think it's too easy to use culture as a reason without some sort of targeted approach. You're starting to see them come through in cricket now a little more. Comes back to a really complex set of issues to which there are various approaches. Not sure that the laissez faire approach has been working quick enough in a lot of these areas.

Maybe a bit of a generalisation true but doesn't mean it isn't without validity.

Rowanbi wrote:
But non-whites are more than 90% of the population, and we have certainly seen plenty of beefy players coming through. I don't know for certain, but I'd guess that if you lined up the 100 biggest men in South Africa at least half of them would be non-white.

The point being, that if rugby were more popular among them, this wouldn't be a major issue. Pacific Islanders are actually the biggest people in the world in terms of average weight (Tongans are the official title-holders), but you'll still find more white players in an average All Blacks team than Polynesians because they constitute around 80% of the population are are just as passionate about the game.

Its not the size of the body that counts but the type of body. Different races have different body types. The NZ team highlights this by having more whites as forwards while more islanders as backs. The islanders can move better while the whites have a higher workrate, more power per pound etc. Most in demand Islander forwards tend to be big, ball carrying number 8s.


I'm generalising to make my point but its fairly accurate. Of the 100 fastest men in the world over 100m, I'd say about 98% would be of west African decent. That shows how specialised nature can be. Even if the biggest 100 South Africans are 50% black, they still have a different body type.

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 . . .

Meanwhile, this just in: ANC member of parliament Strike Ralegoma asked for the Springbok’s removal during Tuesday’s meeting of South Africa’s parliamentary portfolio committee on sport and recreation.

Rowanbi wrote:But non-whites are more than 90% of the population, and we have certainly seen plenty of beefy players coming through. I don't know for certain, but I'd guess that if you lined up the 100 biggest men in South Africa at least half of them would be non-white.

Hmm, I don't think so. I am South African and I am non white. I am the tallest person of my race that I socialize with regularly (have met taller though) and have only met 2 black people taller than me, and maybe 1-2 Indian people. Where I work all but 1 Afrikaner guy is taller than me and if I were to guess they are on average probably 12cm taller than me. In my social group though, I am taller than half of my Afrikaner friends though.

Although I do think the diet of the non white people have been better recently as you see more and more taller youngsters, but I still don't think it is at the same prevalence than with the Afrikaner people. But I also have to mention that the Stormers is smaller than the average South African team and they have been the best SA team in the last 5 years or so. They just lost to the Lions though, but are still on top of the SA group.

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 . . .

Meanwhile, this just in: ANC member of parliament Strike Ralegoma asked for the Springbok’s removal during Tuesday’s meeting of South Africa’s parliamentary portfolio committee on sport and recreation.

That always pops up before elections, but the Springbok is a brand and government can't really do anything against it.

And on your first point there are a few of non-white 1s,6s,11s,12s,13s,14s,15s, there is also a presence at 9s,10s. But at 6 the first 3 choices are white. At 9 is Rudy but he isn't first choice for his franchise at the moment. 10 is Elton, who will probably be the first choice this coming tour, but that is because the 2 ahead of him is injured. 12 and 13 there were fights about when Meyer was coach, but he had valid arguments, although I would have gone with 1 non white and one white, but then we wouldn't have had a captain in the world cup.

The presence is coming through, I don't think there is a reason to force it at top level. In 1995 there was only 1 person floating around. Someone posted on supersport comments a non white team that actually looked quite formidable, but still not the best we could put out on the field in as a South African team. Progress is happening, but people shouldn't try to make your best team reflect the demographics.

FerN wrote:

Rowanbi wrote:But non-whites are more than 90% of the population, and we have certainly seen plenty of beefy players coming through. I don't know for certain, but I'd guess that if you lined up the 100 biggest men in South Africa at least half of them would be non-white.

Hmm,  I don't think so.  I am South African and I am non white.  I am the tallest person of my race that I socialize with regularly (have met taller though) and have only met 2 black people taller than me, and maybe 1-2 Indian people.  Where I work all but 1 Afrikaner guy is taller than me and if I were to guess they are on average probably 12cm taller than me.  In my social group though, I am taller than half of my Afrikaner friends though.

Although I do think the diet of the non white people have been better recently as you see more and more taller youngsters, but I still don't think it is at the same prevalence than with the Afrikaner people.  But I also have to mention that the Stormers is smaller than the average South African team and they have been the best SA team in the last 5 years or so.  They just lost to the Lions though, but are still on top of the SA group.

Its pretty much on the line with my own feelings on the matter.

I'm 5'11. I'm probably on the average for white people, if anything on the slight short side for Afrikaners and have only really met 1 or 2 africans and cape coloured who have ever been taller than me and whilst I could ring out a list of white chaps over 6'4-6'5 I think I could muster 1 Cape Coloured chap of that height within my own personal sphere. Some Indians are tall but most of them came from the South of India rather than the Mountain regions such as where Sikhs come from and thus aren't as tall as Indians from the UK.

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.

At 5 11 you're a giant among the Scots I know!

7,5 said earlier that sport is about 'ensuring everyone takes an interest'...while I agree with this in terms of sport in general (and certainly school sport, where I ensure that every boy that comes to practice gets game-time on the weekend, even if they're useless)...is this really the point of elite sport? Surely the point of elite sport is to have the best challenge the best? If not, then why are we stopping at racial barriers to rugby? Why not class (as I mentioned earlier) why not height, disabilities etc. If the Boks should have people that are racially representative, then every team should have a blind person on the field (other than the ref) and a disabled person (other than the openside who's on the wrong side of the ruck) and discussions on this forum should not be about 'who's the best player for each position' but about who is the most 'representative and interested person'...in which case the bloke who watches every match at the pub and stands to sing the national anthem every time...he should be in the national team...furthermore the best way to stimulate interest in a sport is to win. Around the time when the Bulls won several Super Rugby Trophies in a row, it was revealed half of the Bulls fan club were non-white...and the Bulls have traditionally been the whitest, most afrikaans union in SA - yet when they were winning, suddenly a whole lot of non-white people became interested in them - and they didn't seem to care that the Bulls were very white and very Afrikaans.

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.

Another point: I echo Fern. I'm 6'3" and I've met only one or two South African blacks who are taller than me, but I've met plenty of Afrikaners who are, and I live in KZN which very not-white (unlike Cape Town, which is Europe by the sea!).... This said, that kind of size is only really essential in some positions, and in School rugby, you'll find, certainly in KZN, that there tend to be many blacks in the Front row and the backline (especially the back three)...and this is reflected in the Professional set-ups.