Wales v South Africa, 26 November

First topic message reminder :

   
WALES v SOUTH AFRICA
26 November 2016
KO: 17:30 GMT
Principality Stadium, Cardiff

Live on BBC Two & S4C

Referee: Romain Poite (France)
Assistant Referees: Greg Garner (England), Tom Foley (England)
TMO: Graham Hughes (England)

A. Head to Head

31 Played 31
2 Won 28
1 Drawn 1
28 Lost 2
837 Points 459

B. Recent Form

17 October 2015
Twickenham Stadium, London, England
23–19 to South Africa

29 November 2014
Millennium Stadium, Cardiff
12–6 to Wales

21 June 2014
Mbombela Stadium, Nelspruit
31–30 to South Africa

14 June 2014
Growthpoint Kings Park, Durban
38–16 to South Africa

9 November 2013
Millennium Stadium, Cardiff
15–24 to South Africa

11 September 2011
Wellington Regional Stadium, Wellington
17–16 to South Africa

13 November 2010
Millennium Stadium, Cardiff
25–29 to South Africa

C. Teams

WALES 

Halfpenny; North, J Davies, S Williams, Liam Williams; Biggar, G Davies; Jenkins (capt), Owens, Francis, Charteris, Wyn Jones, Lydiate, Moriarty, Tipuric.

Replacements: Baldwin, Smith, Lee, Hill, Faletau, Lloyd Williams, S Davies, Roberts.

SOUTH AFRICA

Johan Goosen; Ruan Combrinck, Francois Venter, Rohan Janse van Rensburg, Jamba Ulengo; Elton Jantjies, Faf de Klerk; Tendai Mtawariri, Adriaan Strauss (capt), Lourens Adriaanse, Pieter-Steph du Toit, Lood de Jager, Nizaam Carr, Uzair Cassiem, Warren Whiteley.

Replacements: Malcolm Marx, teven Kitshoff, Trevor Nyakane, Franco Mostert, Jean-Luc du Preez, Piet van Zyl, Pat Lambie, Lionel Mapoe.

SecretFly wrote:That C O'J Stander now.  COJ  

20 euros he's for the duration only and will be back on his platteland farm within 1 year of his career ending... bit like prisoners, gay for the stay right?

fa0019 wrote:

SecretFly wrote:That C O'J Stander now.  COJ  

20 euros he's for the duration only and will be back on his platteland farm within 1 year of his career ending... bit like prisoners, gay for the stay right?

Sin E will be more capable of telling you about his future plans after rugby, fa. But he seems to think CJ has been caught by the Munster bug... same one Howlett caught, who is still a big part of the Munster family three years after he retired.

fa0019 wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:Well there was you for a start, know you're a Scottish not SA but basically talking about genetic superiority, everything was fine with the big old white boys (paraphrasing); it doesn't sit well with me in 2016. As mentioned talknig to Springbok fans who won't follow the team anymore purely on the basis it's now a black team. Past comments from prominant members of this forum saying life in general under aprtheid was better for everyone. Just makes me realise why this is being pushed through.

Who said genetically superior?

I said South African Africans are much much shorter than Europeans. And its true whether you like it or are comfortable with it or not. If you have a problem with this then I think you're going to have a problem with much in life. It happens to be a fact and I gave you many links to support it... including those owned by African companies.

Differing heights doesn't mean genetically superior... but it may mean some people are better suited for some sports in question. Gymnastics tends to favour shorter persons as does weightlifting. Basketball favours taller people, rugby too as I showed you that in Englands test team there were only 5 people shorter than 6ft out of 35, 2 shorter than the national average. The link is undeniable no matter how you put it.
I myself would have been a better rugby player if I was taller. I was decent and achieve more than most but in the end physical stature stood in my way as it does for many. I was not supremely talented ala Neil Back, David Pocock etc that physical stature became obsolete but you could say that about many of the very best players today too?

Height is not just about genetics. Its nature and nuture combined. SA has a big HIV problem, it has a big poverty problem. Growth is stunted, people are too sick to learn to play, keep on playing etc. Yet even after all that is factored in... Africans are still shorter... and significantly so. It does matter.

There is no doubt there are many white South Africans who don't support black players. I've heard what you mentioned yes and they shouldn't be defended. But what you're asking for is revenge for crimes past. It doesn't help African south africans or South Africans so why bother? To knock Afrikaners off their perch? Would that make you feel better?

Ah like the Japanese then. It's not about revenge it's about reaching a level of fairness faster as frankly there appears to be that overall feeling that rugby is the white mans game.

No 7&1/2 wrote:

fa0019 wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:Well there was you for a start, know you're a Scottish not SA but basically talking about genetic superiority, everything was fine with the big old white boys (paraphrasing); it doesn't sit well with me in 2016. As mentioned talknig to Springbok fans who won't follow the team anymore purely on the basis it's now a black team. Past comments from prominant members of this forum saying life in general under aprtheid was better for everyone. Just makes me realise why this is being pushed through.

Who said genetically superior?

I said South African Africans are much much shorter than Europeans. And its true whether you like it or are comfortable with it or not. If you have a problem with this then I think you're going to have a problem with much in life. It happens to be a fact and I gave you many links to support it... including those owned by African companies.

Differing heights doesn't mean genetically superior... but it may mean some people are better suited for some sports in question. Gymnastics tends to favour shorter persons as does weightlifting. Basketball favours taller people, rugby too as I showed you that in Englands test team there were only 5 people shorter than 6ft out of 35, 2 shorter than the national average. The link is undeniable no matter how you put it.
I myself would have been a better rugby player if I was taller. I was decent and achieve more than most but in the end physical stature stood in my way as it does for many. I was not supremely talented ala Neil Back, David Pocock etc that physical stature became obsolete but you could say that about many of the very best players today too?

Height is not just about genetics. Its nature and nuture combined. SA has a big HIV problem, it has a big poverty problem. Growth is stunted, people are too sick to learn to play, keep on playing etc. Yet even after all that is factored in... Africans are still shorter... and significantly so. It does matter.

There is no doubt there are many white South Africans who don't support black players. I've heard what you mentioned yes and they shouldn't be defended. But what you're asking for is revenge for crimes past. It doesn't help African south africans or South Africans so why bother? To knock Afrikaners off their perch? Would that make you feel better?

Ah like the Japanese then. It's not about revenge it's about reaching a level of fairness faster as frankly there appears to be that overall feeling that rugby is the white mans game.

not a good example given that they Japan themselves fill their pack and esp. their back 5 forwards with foreigners. 4 out of 8 in the last world cup. They have a pro league and have had so for a long time. A better set up than Argentina, Italy, the PI nations and probably the pro12 too. Yet physically they can't compete to a point where they will turn losses into wins. Take away their foreigners and they will at current levels not be able to compete.

Still can't come back with anything rational concerning rugby's correlation with height and size. 33 out of 35 taller than national average. 30 out of 35 taller than 6ft i.e. taller than 75% of the male adult population... 86% of test players in England coming from 25% of the population. All Forwards coming from literally the top 2-3%.

Yeah I just agree with your racial stereotyping. Just an excuse to keep the team white.

No 7&1/2 wrote:Yeah I just agree with your racial stereotyping. Just an excuse to keep the team white.

easy to label 7.5. You cannot even refute the findings.... within teams such as England where 85-90% are European... yet they're still come from the highest percentiles in height.
What's the obsession with saying its a white game? Nobody says it. NZ have become the kings of rugby in the pro era and much of that is probably due to the numbers of Polynesians in NZ playing the game; people who were born to play the game.

Polynesian americans are 40 times more likely to play in the NFL than European americans. And like I mentioned earlier, there is quite a lot of Polynesian DNA amongst the Afrikaner population (who DNA wise are actually highly diverse). Afrikaners are probably the least white "white ethnic" group in the world.

And the vast vast majority of people I know aren't 6 foot 8 monsters...and? There will be a vast number of people in SA being ignored through various means and held back. Not enugh has been done to help obviously as the team is still dominated by the minotrity. Why is that? A host of reasons. Are teh actions brought in moving that along fast enough no, hence the drastic measures taken (and needed).

There's more than one issue at play here.

1. Quotas in SA rugby: The implementation of Quotas in Rugby in SA has got nothing to do with 'transforming' rugby, or making it more accessible to a wider pool of players - while those are admirable goals, quotas will not achieve them (much harder work is required and at lower levels) - Mbalula played his Quota Card purely for narrow political reasons (and if you're not familiar with the current political crises in SA, then you really should familiarise yourself with them because they are the context through which the calls for a quota must be understood)

2. The drop in standard in SA rugby: This is due to many factors, and Quotas is only one of them.
A) Quotas: the impact of quotas is probably felt more at coaching level than at player level...and amongst the players it is probably more of a psychological impact: players do not know whether they are in the team or out of the team because of merit, and so do not play with full confidence. Furthermore, rumours of quotas sow dissent amongst the ranks.
B) Poor administration: Players at all levels are increasingly revealing their unhappiness with how rugby is administrated in SA - I heard that some Sharks players felt that the rugby existed almost as an incidental means of making money for the brand, rather than the brand existing to facilitate the playing of rugby - added to this, several Unions are in financial trouble (Western Province is bankrupt, and the Southern Kings, a Super Rugby team, was unable to pay its players for several months!)
C) Lack of central contracting and central playing style orchestration: players are expected to play one style at their Super Rugby Union, a different style at Currie Cup level, and yet another style for the Boks, no wonder they always look like they're in two minds about every move they make.
D) National obsession with size and power: It seems too many Saffers have believed their own publicity that we are bigger and stronger and tougher than everybody else. Though this may have been true in the past, it is no longer true. In the professional era, we're not any bigger and stronger than others, and in the last decade or two, the middle classes in SA out of which rugby players are drawn are as soft and molly-coddled as those from any other country. For a long time now, we've needed some other strings to our bow, but even at school level, the emphasis is still just 'get bigger and stronger' rather than 'more skillful and more intelligent.'
E) General economic and political uncertainty in SA. The weak Rand, the political instability, the rise of the Black Far Right, the interruptions at Universities, the fears of Quotas, all combine to provide very strong Push Factors, making the prospect of playing rugby overseas very tempting - and the players are leaving in their prime, before they've even had a chance to go through local structures - hence the player pool in SA is diminishing rapidly. Over 300 South African professional rugby players play overseas...

No 7&1/2 wrote:And the vast vast majority of people I know aren't 6 foot 8 monsters...and? There will be a vast number of people in SA being ignored through various means and held back. Not enugh has been done to help obviously as the team is still dominated by the minotrity. Why is that? A host of reasons. Are teh actions brought in moving that along fast enough no, hence the drastic measures taken (and needed).

I'm 6'3" and a rarely meet a black South African who's taller than me, but I quite frequently meet Afrikaners who are taller than me!

Certainly diet may have a lot to do with this, and there is a chronic mal-nutrition problem in SA: about 60% of black children under 15 eat one meal OR LESS per day...but the question here is: Should SARU be tasked with rectifying this?

No 7&1/2 wrote:And the vast vast majority of people I know aren't 6 foot 8 monsters...and? There will be a vast number of people in SA being ignored through various means and held back. Not enugh has been done to help obviously as the team is still dominated by the minotrity. Why is that? A host of reasons. Are teh actions brought in moving that along fast enough no, hence the drastic measures taken (and needed).

and do those people play professional test rugby for England?

What evidence do you have? You have none right. All you do is say... African dominated country, white players dominate springboks... Afircans must be left out of rugby participation right? Thats simply not the case.

Afrikaners even dominate participation over their English South African counterparts. Why is that? English South Africans don't like rugby as much right?

What about basketball in the USA? Do white people not like the game? Have a look at the fans that go to the stadiums, they love the game... the majority of the players are African American.. who make up 13% of the population in the USA.

Mr Fishpaste wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:And the vast vast majority of people I know aren't 6 foot 8 monsters...and? There will be a vast number of people in SA being ignored through various means and held back. Not enugh has been done to help obviously as the team is still dominated by the minotrity. Why is that? A host of reasons. Are teh actions brought in moving that along fast enough no, hence the drastic measures taken (and needed).

I'm 6'3" and a rarely meet a black South African who's taller than me, but I quite frequently meet Afrikaners who are taller than me!

Certainly diet may have a lot to do with this, and there is a chronic mal-nutrition problem in SA: about 60% of back children under 15 eat one meal OR LESS per day...but the question here is: Should SARU be tasked with rectifying this?

even though Africans make up 85% of the population and Afrikaners barely 6%.

Easy excuses. Used too often for too long.

No 7&1/2 wrote:Easy excuses. Used too often for too long.

Petty remarks made by someone who can't even reply to the height issue in England's test team. Please explain why 33 out of 35 are taller than the UK average (which is about 12 cm taller than the overall South African average). Please explain why 30 of the 35 (86%) come from the tallest 25% of adult male population.

surprise us all.

I honestly don't care about general stats. The beauty of rugby is it isn't a game for 1 size fits all. It doesn't matter that you want all white teams for whatever reasson. Why don't you want to see more black players? Properly representing SA?

No 7&1/2 wrote:I honestly don't care about general stats. The beauty of rugby is it isn't a game for 1 size fits all. It doesn't matter that you want all white teams for whatever reasson. Why don't you want to see more black players? Properly representing SA?

At professional level, rugby has not been a 'game for all sizes' for a while now. And no one here said we want an 'all white' rugby team...I don't know where you get that notion from (perhaps you are suffering from some anti-South African prejudice?)

Only the racist ones. It's clear SA need a push in the right direction if there were other initiatives which were working you wouldn't see quotas etc but they don't seem to be working and the defences of well natuarally they're too small etc are dim witted. Reminds me of that old thought of American Football. We can play the black guys as receivers but they ain't got the brains to play quarter back or coach. Until suddenly they get the chance through Rooney rules etc

Mr Fishpaste wrote:There's more than one issue at play here.

1. Quotas in SA rugby: The implementation of Quotas in Rugby in SA has got nothing to do with 'transforming' rugby, or making it more accessible to a wider pool of players - while those are admirable goals, quotas will not achieve them (much harder work is required and at lower levels) - Mbalula played his Quota Card purely for narrow political reasons (and if you're not familiar with the current political crises in SA, then you really should familiarise yourself with them because they are the context through which the calls for a quota must be understood)

2. The drop in standard in SA rugby: This is due to many factors, and Quotas is only one of them.
A) Quotas: the impact of quotas is probably felt more at coaching level than at player level...and amongst the players it is probably more of a psychological impact: players do not know whether they are in the team or out of the team because of merit, and so do not play with full confidence. Furthermore, rumours of quotas sow dissent amongst the ranks.
B) Poor administration: Players at all levels are increasingly revealing their unhappiness with how rugby is administrated in SA - I heard that some Sharks players felt that the rugby existed almost as an incidental means of making money for the brand, rather than the brand existing to facilitate the playing of rugby - added to this, several Unions are in financial trouble (Western Province is bankrupt, and the Southern Kings, a Super Rugby team, was unable to pay its players for several months!)
C) Lack of central contracting and central playing style orchestration: players are expected to play one style at their Super Rugby Union, a different style at Currie Cup level, and yet another style for the Boks, no wonder they always look like they're in two minds about every move they make.
D) National obsession with size and power: It seems too many Saffers have believed their own publicity that we are bigger and stronger and tougher than everybody else. Though this may have been true in the past, it is no longer true. In the professional era, we're not any bigger and stronger than others, and in the last decade or two, the middle classes in SA out of which rugby players are drawn are as soft and molly-coddled as those from any other country. For a long time now, we've needed some other strings to our bow, but even at school level, the emphasis is still just 'get bigger and stronger' rather than 'more skillful and more intelligent.'
E) General economic and political uncertainty in SA. The weak Rand, the political instability, the rise of the Black Far Right, the interruptions at Universities, the fears of Quotas, all combine to provide very strong Push Factors, making the prospect of playing rugby overseas very tempting - and the players are leaving in their prime, before they've even had a chance to go through local structures - hence the player pool in SA is diminishing rapidly. Over 300 South African professional rugby players play overseas...

Very informative post, Fishy.

If the best XV players in SA are African I'd have no problem with that at all. I'm not South African, I have no hang ups about the past, no "white mans" guilt. I couldn't care less and never have.
I have friends across all divides, all bar 1 of my children's godparents for instance are non white but I don't need to justify myself to you.

However I don't put my head in the sand either. I celebrate difference and am comfortable that not everyone is the same. Its not better or worse, just different.

Yet I don't agree with social engineering. I agree with giving everyone the tools to be placed on an even keel. I want Africans to get more focused education... but I still insist they take the same exams as everyone else and literally you're asking for the opposite. It helps no one; be they Africans, Europeans, South Africans.

fa0019 wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:Easy excuses. Used too often for too long.

Petty remarks made by someone who can't even reply to the height issue in England's test team. Please explain why 33 out of 35 are taller than the UK average (which is about 12 cm taller than the overall South African average). Please explain why 30 of the 35 (86%) come from the tallest 25% of adult male population.

surprise us all.

Quite a lot of them are black mind.

Gooseberry wrote:

fa0019 wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:Easy excuses. Used too often for too long.

Petty remarks made by someone who can't even reply to the height issue in England's test team. Please explain why 33 out of 35 are taller than the UK average (which is about 12 cm taller than the overall South African average). Please explain why 30 of the 35 (86%) come from the tallest 25% of adult male population.

surprise us all.

Quite a lot of them are black mind.

Don't think skin colour has a lot to do with the England team these days. We did have a couple of big Nigerians a few years back (victor Ubogo and Steve Ojomoh ) - but then the key word is Nigeria not SA

Mr Fishpaste wrote:There's more than one issue at play here.

1. Quotas in SA rugby: The implementation of Quotas in Rugby in SA has got nothing to do with 'transforming' rugby, or making it more accessible to a wider pool of players - while those are admirable goals, quotas will not achieve them (much harder work is required and at lower levels) - Mbalula played his Quota Card purely for narrow political reasons (and if you're not familiar with the current political crises in SA, then you really should familiarise yourself with them because they are the context through which the calls for a quota must be understood)

2. The drop in standard in SA rugby: This is due to many factors, and Quotas is only one of them.
A) Quotas: the impact of quotas is probably felt more at coaching level than at player level...and amongst the players it is probably more of a psychological impact: players do not know whether they are in the team or out of the team because of merit, and so do not play with full confidence. Furthermore, rumours of quotas sow dissent amongst the ranks.
B) Poor administration: Players at all levels are increasingly revealing their unhappiness with how rugby is administrated in SA - I heard that some Sharks players felt that the rugby existed almost as an incidental means of making money for the brand, rather than the brand existing to facilitate the playing of rugby - added to this, several Unions are in financial trouble (Western Province is bankrupt, and the Southern Kings, a Super Rugby team, was unable to pay its players for several months!)
C) Lack of central contracting and central playing style orchestration: players are expected to play one style at their Super Rugby Union, a different style at Currie Cup level, and yet another style for the Boks, no wonder they always look like they're in two minds about every move they make.
D) National obsession with size and power: It seems too many Saffers have believed their own publicity that we are bigger and stronger and tougher than everybody else. Though this may have been true in the past, it is no longer true. In the professional era, we're not any bigger and stronger than others, and in the last decade or two, the middle classes in SA out of which rugby players are drawn are as soft and molly-coddled as those from any other country. For a long time now, we've needed some other strings to our bow, but even at school level, the emphasis is still just 'get bigger and stronger' rather than 'more skillful and more intelligent.'
E) General economic and political uncertainty in SA. The weak Rand, the political instability, the rise of the Black Far Right, the interruptions at Universities, the fears of Quotas, all combine to provide very strong Push Factors, making the prospect of playing rugby overseas very tempting - and the players are leaving in their prime, before they've even had a chance to go through local structures - hence the player pool in SA is diminishing rapidly. Over 300 South African professional rugby players play overseas...

I agree, its more than just quotas but things like economic activity are only minor IMO and the political climate enforcing quotas is the driving force of it all. Players in SA get paid pretty much the same as they do in NZ so why do players stay in NZ but not SA? Why will guys like Dane Coles happily leave his wife in NZ when giving birth whilst guys like Jannie Du Plessis and Duane Vermeulen say that as their wife is pregnant they can't play for the boks this year?

Why is the loyalty less? The springboks have just as much historical prestige as the ABs have. The one thing I see is how the people are being turned against each other and the country.

People in NZ know NZ will still be there when they get back. Most South Africans of all colour actually want to leave and said they would if they had the option. South Africans feel they need to take up options such as playing abroad.

Kiwis also know that if they play well they will be considered for test selection. Look at Rory Kockott. Was probably the standout scrumhalf in 2009 after FDP... totally ignored and now tearing it up for France. It wasn't just colour but it certainly was a factor. Heini Adams got springbok colours over Kockott... he left SA to play division 2 rugby in France. Compare him to Kockott, one is a springbok, the other is not.

But its not just about money. If the country told the youth of today... I won't make you rich but you will all be welcome and we need you all to build SA to become a great nation then only the minority would leave. But the policies create an atmosphere where people don't feel they owe the country anything.

In 2009 the policies were bad too but the talent was so high that they were able to keep momentum from the 2007 rugby world cup, it is true that the current rop aren't quite good enough... but part of that I feel is due to the strength and reliance of players such as Matfield, Burger, Du Preez etc. The B players 5 years ago got tired of waiting and moved to Europe/Japan. Naturally they would would step up now but they are no longer part of the set up. That happens to all sides.

lostinwales wrote:

Gooseberry wrote:

fa0019 wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:Easy excuses. Used too often for too long.

Petty remarks made by someone who can't even reply to the height issue in England's test team. Please explain why 33 out of 35 are taller than the UK average (which is about 12 cm taller than the overall South African average). Please explain why 30 of the 35 (86%) come from the tallest 25% of adult male population.

surprise us all.

Quite a lot of them are black mind.

Don't think skin colour has a lot to do with the England team these days. We did have a couple of big Nigerians a few years back (victor Ubogo and Steve Ojomoh ) - but then the key word is Nigeria not SA

Sort of my point. Its not skin colour, its size and power. Nigerians are very big and athletic people, they are west African. South Africans Africans are alligned to east african people, they came down from the great lakes in the 1400s (the actual indigenous South Africans are the san people similar to those you see in Namibia).

People see West Africans and say they are fast, big and strong and so all Africans are the same. Its completely false. Africa is the most diverse continent out there. The people are so different.

And the beauty of rugby is it's a game for everyone.

Gooseberry wrote:

fa0019 wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:Easy excuses. Used too often for too long.

Petty remarks made by someone who can't even reply to the height issue in England's test team. Please explain why 33 out of 35 are taller than the UK average (which is about 12 cm taller than the overall South African average). Please explain why 30 of the 35 (86%) come from the tallest 25% of adult male population.

surprise us all.

Quite a lot of them are black mind.

and that is the epitome of ignorance amongst Europeans. I'm not having a go but you automatically think all people of African origin are the same.

Fact - If you are white European you have more genetic ancestry and common ancestors to Chinese, Indians, Native Americans, Melanesian's etc as West Africans do to East Africans.

How many of those players of African origin who have played for England are East African people or have primarily East African ancestry?

fa0019 wrote:

and that is the epitome of ignorance amongst Europeans. I'm not having a go but you automatically think all people of African origin are the same.

Fact - If you are white European you have more genetic ancestry and common ancestors to Chinese, Indians, Native Americans, Melanesian's etc as West Africans do to East Africans.

How many of those players of African origin who have played for England are East African people or have primarily East African ancestry?

But fa, we've been through all this before.  

Approx. 55 million people.  

Already that's more than enough of a base to have a continuously pretty good rugby side year by year if you have historically the training expertise and infrastructure - South Africa does.

So already, South Africa is in the league of France and England in terms of the abundant base population to create an effective rugby nation.  And that's before the population is divided up into the different 'races'.

From wiki: Blacks are 80% of that 55 million people and Whites are around 8.5%.  So Whites are about 4.5M of the 55M.  

Now, my theory is that whilst genetics DO inform things like bulk and height (to a degree) it's certainly not an exacting condition.  Not all Afrikaners are 6'10" 17 stoners  So a percentage of the 4.5M Whites would come in below any White average in bulk and height - and a percentage would come in quite a sizeable bit below that average bulk and height.
The same of course would be true for the Black population.  Not all of them would fit your profile of the average bulk and height of Blacks in that South African region.  A percentage will be a lot heavier and lot taller.  It's just a fact.  It's like suggesting that Japanese people are all tiny and bony. It isn't true. Nature doesn't allow it to be true.

So if we take it that the Blacks form 80% of the overall SA population, that breakaway percentage of tall and bulky Blacks would I'm sure fill one Team or 11 or 12 of them.  And from there, what possible argument could be proposed that would argue against putting them in an International side if they were trained up and skilled enough?

That try Tipuric scored against South Africa was lovely, wasn't it?!

SecretFly wrote:

fa0019 wrote:

and that is the epitome of ignorance amongst Europeans. I'm not having a go but you automatically think all people of African origin are the same.

Fact - If you are white European you have more genetic ancestry and common ancestors to Chinese, Indians, Native Americans, Melanesian's etc as West Africans do to East Africans.

How many of those players of African origin who have played for England are East African people or have primarily East African ancestry?

But fa, we've been through all this before.  

Approx. 55 million people.  

Already that's more than enough of a base to have a continuously pretty good rugby side year by year if you have historically the training expertise and infrastructure - South Africa does.

So already, South Africa is in the league of France and England in terms of the abundant base population to create an effective rugby nation.  And that's before the population is divided up into the different 'races'.

From wiki: Blacks are 80% of that 55 million people and Whites are around 8.5%.  So Whites are about 4.5M of the 55M.  

Now, my theory is that whilst genetics DO inform things like bulk and height (to a degree) it's certainly not an exacting condition.  Not all Afrikaners are 6'10" 17 stoners  So a percentage of the 4.5M Whites would come in below any White average in bulk and height - and a percentage would come in quite a sizeable bit below that average bulk and height.
The same of course would be true for the Black population.  Not all of them would fit your profile of the average bulk and height of Blacks in that South African region.  A percentage will be a lot heavier and lot taller.  It's just a fact.  It's like suggesting that Japanese people are all tiny and bony. It isn't true.  Nature doesn't allow it to be true.

So if we take it that the Blacks form 80% of the overall SA population, that breakaway percentage of tall and bulky Blacks would I'm sure fill one Team or 11 or 12 of them.  And from there, what possible argument could be proposed that would argue against putting them in an International side if they were trained up and skilled enough?

Actually fly the assumption is not quite right

https://tall.life/height-percentile-calculator-age-country/

Lets say you need to find the number of persons who will be say 190cm i.e. big enough to be a test forward. I think that's fair right?

Ok well a few bits of data you need.

SA population 55 million. Africans make up 79%, Whites 9%. Average height of Africans is 167cm. Average height of European South Africans is 5'11 or about 181cm.

https://businesstech.co.za/news/general/131750/the-world-is-getting-taller-but-not-so-much-in-south-africa/

Ok so if you plug in the above data for Africans you find that out of the 21.78 million African males in SA (est.) with an average height of 167cm, those taller than 190cm will be in the 99.855 percentile. Thats only 31,000 individuals.

Then plug in the data for Europeans. The average height is 5'11 or about 181cm. With 2.45 million European males in SA, those taller than 190cm will be in the 88.7 percentile. Thats 277,000 individuals nearly 9 times the number.

Even if you lower the average height of Europeans to 5'9, those above 190cm still are in the 96 percentile which for Europeans would be 98,000 individuals. Yet I'm a good 5'11 myself and to be frank I am probably on the shy side of average amongst White South Africans. Afrikaners themselves are big people.

Its simple maths off a bell curve.

We'll have to do a head count, fa - on those Black South Africans. Let's check each one of them and see if the maths tally with the truth. Let's name the 31,000 black people capable of playing SA rugby (men or women)

I think I'd bet that you'd find more. But anyway, even if you didn't - you still have to factor in things like genetics. That is to say, you still have to admit that not all tall people make great athletes and not all tall people make great rugby players. Selectively programming yourself to believe 'Tall' is the definition of a Great rugby player is a very limiting concept.

I'd prefer the idea that high end training and then natural skill levels is much more preferable on average. Of course there is a need for height in certain positions but overall, skill and training.

SecretFly wrote:We'll have to do a head count, fa - on those Black South Africans.  Let's check each one of them and see if the maths tally with the truth.  Let's name the 31,000 black people capable of playing SA rugby (men or women)

I think I'd bet that you'd find more.  But anyway, even if you didn't - you still have to factor in things like genetics.  That is to say, you still have to admit that not all tall people make great athletes and not all tall people make great rugby players.  Selectively programming yourself to believe 'Tall' is the definition of a Great rugby player is a very limiting concept.  

I'd prefer the idea that high end training and then natural skill levels is much more preferable on average.  Of course there is a need for height in certain positions but overall, skill and training.

Its not absolute, 100% right.... but the correlation is good. 30 of 35 players in England's AI team is taller than 184cm (75th percentile).... 86% of players from 25% of the pool so to speak.

SecretFly wrote:

fa0019 wrote:

and that is the epitome of ignorance amongst Europeans. I'm not having a go but you automatically think all people of African origin are the same.

Fact - If you are white European you have more genetic ancestry and common ancestors to Chinese, Indians, Native Americans, Melanesian's etc as West Africans do to East Africans.

How many of those players of African origin who have played for England are East African people or have primarily East African ancestry?

But fa, we've been through all this before.  

Approx. 55 million people.  

Already that's more than enough of a base to have a continuously pretty good rugby side year by year if you have historically the training expertise and infrastructure - South Africa does.

So already, South Africa is in the league of France and England in terms of the abundant base population to create an effective rugby nation.  And that's before the population is divided up into the different 'races'.

From wiki: Blacks are 80% of that 55 million people and Whites are around 8.5%.  So Whites are about 4.5M of the 55M.  

Now, my theory is that whilst genetics DO inform things like bulk and height (to a degree) it's certainly not an exacting condition.  Not all Afrikaners are 6'10" 17 stoners  So a percentage of the 4.5M Whites would come in below any White average in bulk and height - and a percentage would come in quite a sizeable bit below that average bulk and height.
The same of course would be true for the Black population.  Not all of them would fit your profile of the average bulk and height of Blacks in that South African region.  A percentage will be a lot heavier and lot taller.  It's just a fact.  It's like suggesting that Japanese people are all tiny and bony. It isn't true.  Nature doesn't allow it to be true.

So if we take it that the Blacks form 80% of the overall SA population, that breakaway percentage of tall and bulky Blacks would I'm sure fill one Team or 11 or 12 of them.  And from there, what possible argument could be proposed that would argue against putting them in an International side if they were trained up and skilled enough?

Sounds good but then we go back to the Japanese example. They have - what 127m people? They are 98.5% Japanese. This is a very healthy country. There are some big guys (just look at Sumo) but these are a tiny proportion, and most of those don't play rugby, aren't healthy for other reasons, too old, too young, never exposed to it, not athletic enough, no skills etc (Maybe they don't like it!) The actual pool of guys who are big enough for 2nd row (say) and can/want to play and are any good is actually really really tiny. Hence all the imports.

It is a stats game, and we don't have all the numbers to hand, but its not hard to see why Afrikaners traditionally make up a big proportion of the bok teams.

It is an issue if we want it to be, and it is certainly something that can do with some help, but you cannot suddenly magic up a horde of Zulu 'orcs' to fill out the SA pack and expect them to be world beaters. It takes time, and the politicians always want instant results.

There are lots of analogies to this situation. You could for instance look at Rugby League in the UK. Most people are exposed to it, many could play to some level if they really wanted to, but it only actively thrives in a small part of the country, and I'd guess that almost all pro players come from that same small part.

lostinwales wrote:

SecretFly wrote:

fa0019 wrote:

and that is the epitome of ignorance amongst Europeans. I'm not having a go but you automatically think all people of African origin are the same.

Fact - If you are white European you have more genetic ancestry and common ancestors to Chinese, Indians, Native Americans, Melanesian's etc as West Africans do to East Africans.

How many of those players of African origin who have played for England are East African people or have primarily East African ancestry?

But fa, we've been through all this before.  

Approx. 55 million people.  

Already that's more than enough of a base to have a continuously pretty good rugby side year by year if you have historically the training expertise and infrastructure - South Africa does.

So already, South Africa is in the league of France and England in terms of the abundant base population to create an effective rugby nation.  And that's before the population is divided up into the different 'races'.

From wiki: Blacks are 80% of that 55 million people and Whites are around 8.5%.  So Whites are about 4.5M of the 55M.  

Now, my theory is that whilst genetics DO inform things like bulk and height (to a degree) it's certainly not an exacting condition.  Not all Afrikaners are 6'10" 17 stoners  So a percentage of the 4.5M Whites would come in below any White average in bulk and height - and a percentage would come in quite a sizeable bit below that average bulk and height.
The same of course would be true for the Black population.  Not all of them would fit your profile of the average bulk and height of Blacks in that South African region.  A percentage will be a lot heavier and lot taller.  It's just a fact.  It's like suggesting that Japanese people are all tiny and bony. It isn't true.  Nature doesn't allow it to be true.

So if we take it that the Blacks form 80% of the overall SA population, that breakaway percentage of tall and bulky Blacks would I'm sure fill one Team or 11 or 12 of them.  And from there, what possible argument could be proposed that would argue against putting them in an International side if they were trained up and skilled enough?

Sounds good but then we go back to the Japanese example. They have - what 127m people? They are 98.5% Japanese. This is a very healthy country. There are some big guys (just look at Sumo) but these are a tiny proportion, and most of those don't play rugby, aren't healthy for other reasons, too old, too young, never exposed to it, not athletic enough, no skills etc (Maybe they don't like it!) The actual pool of guys who are big enough for 2nd row (say) and can/want to play and are any good is actually really really tiny. Hence all the imports.

It is a stats game, and we don't have all the numbers to hand, but its not hard to see why Afrikaners traditionally make up a big proportion of the bok teams.

It is an issue if we want it to be, and it is certainly something that can do with some help, but you cannot suddenly magic up a horde of Zulu 'orcs' to fill out the SA pack and expect them to be world beaters. It takes time, and the politicians always want instant results.

There are lots of analogies to this situation. You could for instance look at Rugby League in the UK. Most people are exposed to it, many could play to some level if they really wanted to, but it only actively thrives in a small part of the country, and I'd guess that almost all pro players come from that same small part.

Considering 190cm standard for test calibre forwards.....

If you plug in the figures, those above 190cm will be the 99.236 percentile in Japan.. or about 485,000 potential males to choose from.
That means I guess if every man played rugby and played the sport as a first choice then they could compete.

Yet the difference therefore lies with amongst white south africans (who we estimate has 277,000 potential males) and when persons pick up the sport compared. Rugby is the 1st choice sport in SA amongst Europeans. How popular is rugby in Japan? That for them is the key to competing... getting enough people with potential into the sport rather into fields.

lostinwales wrote:

It is an issue if we want it to be, and it is certainly something that can do with some help, but you cannot suddenly magic up a horde of Zulu 'orcs' to fill out the SA pack and expect them to be world beaters. It takes time, and the politicians always want instant results.

I'd still go back to percentages of percentages.  A tiny percentage of a big number is still a sizeable number against a bigger percentage of a smaller number.

So how many actual White SAs are actively involved in rugby?  Terrible way to itemise it even as I say it but because it's SA with the particular history and because we're debating the very point - does anyone actually have the current number of White players actively playing at adult level - and a number for Black people playing at adult level?

Given that rugby has traditionally been a White person activity - any such number that would come up for present participation would be close to being the 'normal/habitual' level of White Participation from that base of 4.5M population or so.
With the Blacks, given it hasn't been a traditional Black sport, the numbers currently involved from that 'race' will undoubtedly NOT yet be at 'normal/habitual' levels.  That will take years to reach a point of saturation and levelling out.

But the point is - such numbers of Actual Black and White involvement in Rugby right now would inform what percentage of (viable body type) Black people the very Top of the Game (International) can accommodate.

SecretFly wrote:

lostinwales wrote:

It is an issue if we want it to be, and it is certainly something that can do with some help, but you cannot suddenly magic up a horde of Zulu 'orcs' to fill out the SA pack and expect them to be world beaters. It takes time, and the politicians always want instant results.

I'd still go back to percentages of percentages.  A tiny percentage of a big number is still a sizeable number against a bigger percentage of a smaller number.

So how many actual White SAs are actively involved in rugby?  Terrible way to itemise it even as I say it but because it's SA with the particular history and because we're debating the very point - does anyone actually have the current number of White players actively playing at adult level - and a number for Black people playing at adult level?

Given that rugby has traditionally been a White person activity - any such number that would come up for present participation would be close to being the 'normal/habitual' level of White Participation from that base of 4.5M population or so.
With the Blacks, given it hasn't been a traditional Black sport, the numbers currently involved from that 'race' will undoubtedly NOT yet be at 'normal/habitual' levels.  That will take years to reach a point of saturation and levelling out.

But the point is - such numbers of Actual Black and White involvement in Rugby right now would inform what percentage of (viable body type) Black people the very Top of the Game (International) can accommodate.

Fly, yet its based upon what? A hunch? An assumption?

Use the figures, look into your standard bell curve and move the mean around. Then you have literally all those on here from SA (and not all white) saying the same thing... they've rarely met a African South African taller than 6ft as testimony.

Its not all genetics, its diet, disease, poverty sure. But that doesn't take away the point that the sheer numbers do not support the idea that just because they are the majority and even the overwhelming majority that they will have great numbers.. Even if we were to knock down European height to well below the mean (175cm) they were 3 times as greater in number... and then you have to factor in access, schools, those with opportunity to the best coaches and equipment etc. Those who can play sport instead of having to work in spare time.

fa0019 wrote:

SecretFly wrote:

lostinwales wrote:

It is an issue if we want it to be, and it is certainly something that can do with some help, but you cannot suddenly magic up a horde of Zulu 'orcs' to fill out the SA pack and expect them to be world beaters. It takes time, and the politicians always want instant results.

I'd still go back to percentages of percentages.  A tiny percentage of a big number is still a sizeable number against a bigger percentage of a smaller number.

So how many actual White SAs are actively involved in rugby?  Terrible way to itemise it even as I say it but because it's SA with the particular history and because we're debating the very point - does anyone actually have the current number of White players actively playing at adult level - and a number for Black people playing at adult level?

Given that rugby has traditionally been a White person activity - any such number that would come up for present participation would be close to being the 'normal/habitual' level of White Participation from that base of 4.5M population or so.
With the Blacks, given it hasn't been a traditional Black sport, the numbers currently involved from that 'race' will undoubtedly NOT yet be at 'normal/habitual' levels.  That will take years to reach a point of saturation and levelling out.

But the point is - such numbers of Actual Black and White involvement in Rugby right now would inform what percentage of (viable body type) Black people the very Top of the Game (International) can accommodate.

Fly, yet its based upon what? A hunch? An assumption?

Use the figures, look into your standard bell curve and move the mean around. Then you have literally all those on here from SA (and not all white) saying the same thing... they've rarely met a African South African taller than 6ft as testimony.

Its not all genetics, its diet, disease, poverty sure. But that doesn't take away the point that the sheer numbers do not support the idea that just because they are the majority and even the overwhelming majority that they will have great numbers.. Even if we were to knock down European height to well below the mean (175cm) they were 3 times as greater in number... and then you have to factor in access, schools, those with opportunity to the best coaches and equipment etc. Those who can play sport instead of having to work in spare time.

You like bell curves - I like instincts, fa.  Different methods of coming to reasoned conclusions.  
Rather like polling.  Some bow to Polling as a God-like tool to inform the greater public what the Nation/people are thinking on any given topic: "Well the polls say you're wrong"  
Of course, the truth is that as a mathematical truth science of sorts, polling has been lobotomised in recent years.  It's a sham and is informed more by political/social bias than by anything else.  The graph morphs into what the exponents of a particular view want it to look like.  Same with that famous global warming curve that lied

Anyway, I'd still look for the actual numbers of White and Black adult players in the country and take my instincts and hunches from there.

Griff wrote:That try Tipuric scored against South Africa was lovely, wasn't it?!

Hey don't try to sidetrack this thread by talking about the Wales vs Boks....

Mr Fishpaste wrote:

Griff wrote:That try Tipuric scored against South Africa was lovely, wasn't it?!

Hey don't try to sidetrack this thread by talking about the Wales vs Boks....

SecretFly wrote:

fa0019 wrote:

SecretFly wrote:

lostinwales wrote:

It is an issue if we want it to be, and it is certainly something that can do with some help, but you cannot suddenly magic up a horde of Zulu 'orcs' to fill out the SA pack and expect them to be world beaters. It takes time, and the politicians always want instant results.

I'd still go back to percentages of percentages.  A tiny percentage of a big number is still a sizeable number against a bigger percentage of a smaller number.

So how many actual White SAs are actively involved in rugby?  Terrible way to itemise it even as I say it but because it's SA with the particular history and because we're debating the very point - does anyone actually have the current number of White players actively playing at adult level - and a number for Black people playing at adult level?

Given that rugby has traditionally been a White person activity - any such number that would come up for present participation would be close to being the 'normal/habitual' level of White Participation from that base of 4.5M population or so.
With the Blacks, given it hasn't been a traditional Black sport, the numbers currently involved from that 'race' will undoubtedly NOT yet be at 'normal/habitual' levels.  That will take years to reach a point of saturation and levelling out.

But the point is - such numbers of Actual Black and White involvement in Rugby right now would inform what percentage of (viable body type) Black people the very Top of the Game (International) can accommodate.

Fly, yet its based upon what? A hunch? An assumption?

Use the figures, look into your standard bell curve and move the mean around. Then you have literally all those on here from SA (and not all white) saying the same thing... they've rarely met a African South African taller than 6ft as testimony.

Its not all genetics, its diet, disease, poverty sure. But that doesn't take away the point that the sheer numbers do not support the idea that just because they are the majority and even the overwhelming majority that they will have great numbers.. Even if we were to knock down European height to well below the mean (175cm) they were 3 times as greater in number... and then you have to factor in access, schools, those with opportunity to the best coaches and equipment etc. Those who can play sport instead of having to work in spare time.

You like bell curves - I like instincts, fa.  Different methods of coming to reasoned conclusions.  
Rather like polling.  Some bow to Polling as a God-like tool to inform the greater public what the Nation/people are thinking on any given topic: "Well the polls say you're wrong"  
Of course, the truth is that as a mathematical truth science of sorts, polling has been lobotomised in recent years.  It's a sham and is informed more by political/social bias than by anything else.  The graph morphs into what the exponents of a particular view want it to look like.  Same with that famous global warming curve that lied

Anyway, I'd still look for the actual numbers of White and Black adult players in the country and take my instincts and hunches from there.

Reminds me of a former UK secretary of state for education claiming we have had enough of experts....

While I don't entirely disagree with FA's observations (and stats) I do think that size is a bit of a red herring when it comes to why there are disproportionately few blacks in the boks. Far more important factors are economics and education. Firstly, while it is true that black people make up 80% of SA's population (about 40 million) nearly 20 million of those live in grinding poverty...we're talking living in a mud hut or tin shack, limited sanitation and access to water; malnourished; exposed to all kinds of opportunistic diseases; probably owning one or two sets of clothing; living in child-headed homes...these are not the conditions for developing professional rugby where nutrition and access to health-care are essential basic requirements (and lets be honest: rugby is a middle-class sport the world over)

Secondly, rugby's professional structures in SA feed off schoolboy rugby almost exclusively: virtually all players come through schoolboy age-group rugby (Ashwin Willemse may be the only player that I can think of that came through non-school club rugby structures). The vast majority of South African schools are shockingly bad (there's no other way of putting it): they can't even manage the basics of general education (in fact many can't manage the basics of having the teachers at school or getting textbooks to every learner). Virtually no sport takes place at these schools - let alone rugby. Probably about 80% of black kids go to such schools.

Clearly then there is significant inequity in SA on many levels, and all of it contributes to the under-representation of blacks in the boks...but the question must be asked: how much of this social and economic inequity is it fair to expect SARU to remedy?

Mr Fishpaste wrote:While I don't entirely disagree with FA's observations (and stats) I do think that size is a bit of a red herring when it comes to why there are disproportionately few blacks in the boks. Far more important factors are economics and education. Firstly, while it is true that black people make up 80% of SA's population (about 40 million) nearly 20 million of those live in grinding poverty...we're talking living in a mud hut or tin shack, limited sanitation and access to water; malnourished; exposed to all kinds of opportunistic diseases; probably owning one or two sets of clothing; living in child-headed homes...these are not the conditions for developing professional rugby where nutrition and access to health-care are essential basic requirements (and lets be honest: rugby is a middle-class sport the world over)

Secondly, rugby's professional structures in SA feed off schoolboy rugby almost exclusively: virtually all players come through schoolboy age-group rugby (Ashwin Willemse may be the only player that I can think of that came through non-school club rugby structures). The vast majority of South African schools are shockingly bad (there's no other way of putting it): they can't even manage the basics of general education (in fact many can't manage the basics of having the teachers at school or getting textbooks to every learner). Virtually no sport takes place at these schools - let alone rugby. Probably about 80% of black kids go to such schools.

Clearly then there is significant inequity in SA on many levels, and all of it contributes to the under-representation of blacks in the boks...but the question must be asked: how much of this social and economic inequity is it fair to expect SARU to remedy?

You are right in that poverty is a major factor. Take growth for instance. How important is size in schoolboy rugby.. I mean its literally massive, the be all and end all. From U12 to U16 if you have a couple of speedsters and overgrown lumps in your team you're halfway to becoming a legendary team that wins 50-0 most of the time and literally don't need to do anything bar distribute to such players and feed off their gains.
What does poverty do... it stunts growth for the young so for those who are poor its not quite possible to throw them kit and then expect them to compete with middle class kids. Who is going to look more impressive and can those kids catch up? I'm not sure on it but I expect never fully (to their own maximum size and development that is).

However... that's not to say their is no African middle class, latest stats have now shown the non white middle class to out number the white middle class by 4 times.

A number of players are now sponsoring youth players and its actually a new directive of SARU having business personally sponsor academy kids (currently going round the houses). It will make a difference although I do wonder if SARU will simply cream off the top and say... business is now sponsoring the 50 kids, we don't have to... instead of sponsoring 50 more kids then they would have done.... and yes, African kids is specifically highlighted (crass as it may be).

However craven week is still for me the world's best youth rugby tournament and schools, hell they just want to win. Many private schools bring in top players now and if you show promise, you'll get tagged.

Griff wrote:That try Tipuric scored against South Africa was lovely, wasn't it?!

Tipurical Welsh flare, mun. Or just simple stuff as in spotting a gap in a knackered and boered defence, then running at it.

Cardiff Dave wrote:

Griff wrote:That try Tipuric scored against South Africa was lovely, wasn't it?!

Tipurical Welsh flare, mun. Or just simple stuff as in spotting a gap in a knackered and boered defence, then running at it.

I was just fishing for a bite with the non-Welsh posters and their racially supremacy chat. Was hoping to derail their thread

I see what you did there, btw!

I'm sure this will be of interest

https://www.606v2.com/t64610-6-nations-to-introduce-bonus-points-in-2017#3478015

Griff wrote:

Cardiff Dave wrote:

Griff wrote:That try Tipuric scored against South Africa was lovely, wasn't it?!

Tipurical Welsh flare, mun. Or just simple stuff as in spotting a gap in a knackered and boered defence, then running at it.

I was just fishing for a bite with the non-Welsh posters and their racially supremacy chat.  Was hoping to derail their thread

I see what you did there, btw!

I gathered that and it worked mun. Good job as it was evolving into a right bore war.

I don't know why everyone is arguing over skin color. From what I can see the White guys in the South African team are the crap ones and the ones making mistakes. So blaming quotas is not the issue.