Schalk Brits

After being loaned out by Saracens and selected to play for the Stormers off the bench this weekend as cover for 6&8 (he's played 8 before for the Stormers) Rugby Dump have put up an interesting blog on Brits which is well worth a read...

http://www.rugbydump.blogspot.com/

It also includes a 4 min video of highlights from the Aviva Prem final, conversely if Brits is successful (big if) with the Stormers then he could become the first player to win a SH comp and Nh comp in one season. Either way I think it'll be interesting to see how he gets on back home and out of his favourite position, and now that he is back in SA could we see a strong performance get the hooker come backrow come centre called up to the SA world cup squad? I hope so.

"We wanted a player with the X-factor and Brits brings that to the team," said Stormers coach Allister Coetzee. "Sanzar has given him permission to play as a loose forward and not as a hooker. He won't have a problem playing that role because he's been playing like a loose forward, even though he's been throwing in the ball at the line-outs and competed in the scrums for Saracens," he added.

"Schalk Brits was just phenomenal, a man possessed," said Leicester and England scrumhalf Ben Youngs after Brits helped Saracens beat them in the Final. "If anything, he was probably the difference between the two sides," Youngs added.

I personally think the WC would be better for having him playing in it, and if he does miss out, along with guys like Nacewa, we'll all be the poorer for it. Rugby's biggest event needs its biggest stars playing.

As I've said before, for a neutral, he's fantastic to watch, but I just would not like to have in my own team.

Is it not a bit rich to parachute in a player at the final stages of a competition?

What would people's reactions be if a Parisse - Servat - BOD - Wilkinson was dropped into a team for a semi final or final as 'cover'?

thebandwagonsociety wrote:Is it not a bit rich to parachute in a player at the final stages of a competition?

What would people's reactions be if a Parisse - Servat - BOD - Wilkinson was dropped into a team for a semi final or final as 'cover'?

That would be quite amusing as long as it didn't happen to my teams opposition. But as the article states, SANZA gave them special dispensation, so NZ, Aus and SA all agreed on it and he is a former player of theirs not just a random superstar they decided they'd get for this game.

Yappy,

The umbrella organisation agreed to it but how do the other 3 teams left in the competition feel about it.....

I agree, it would be really good if Brits and Nacewa went to the World Cup as they are two amazing players. However, there might be a few Welsh fans who would disagree with you!

There's an interesting blog here too, talking about why he'll be good as a reserve loose forward for the Stormers, and why he shouldn't (in the author's opinion) go to the RWC.

yappysnap wrote:

thebandwagonsociety wrote:Is it not a bit rich to parachute in a player at the final stages of a competition?

What would people's reactions be if a Parisse - Servat - BOD - Wilkinson was dropped into a team for a semi final or final as 'cover'?

That would be quite amusing as long as it didn't happen to my teams opposition. But as the article states, SANZA gave them special dispensation, so NZ, Aus and SA all agreed on it and he is a former player of theirs not just a random superstar they decided they'd get for this game.

Hes also been dual registered anyway hasnt he?
Several saracens players are still also paid in South Africa through dual registration, absolutley not a way round the salary cap *cough* Severla Premiership teams have done this with championship players too.


Its not quite parachuting him in, but its still a bit cheeky. Most comeptitons have rules about "cup tied" players and short term loans, but if a guys registered as a plyer with the club then its surely hard to object. Was Brits though?
Ultimatly however the S15 is supposse to be run to give the 3 boards an eleite comeptition in which to place their best players and get them up to grade for international rugby. Just like the NZRU picks and chooses when and who its players play for there is a case that teh Saffers should be abel to give a potential world cup player a run out even if it does damage the integrity of that competition. This is what happens when club rugby because entirely subserviant to the international game.

Does anyone know why. SANZAR has made it a condition that Schalk Brits as a bench player can only 'Cover the flankers"??????

I think that you have to designate your front row cover on the bench, and you only get the 2 spots? Having a maximum as well as a minimum number is a bit weird.

Personally I think it's a shame that he won't be part of the WC. Although South Africa have at least one better hooker in du Plessis, and probably Smit as well, if anyone genuinely believes that Ralepele is better than Brits, they need their head checked.

Brits' weakness and also his strength is his lack of conformity and inability to work to a rigid game plan. For a highly regimented outfit like the Boks that doesn't work in their eyes. Personally, I think he'd do them the power of good, and would certainly add something to the squad as an impact player. He gives an unpredictability to any side he plays in that's hard for the opposition to plan for. I think it would give the Boks squad an additional dimension.

funnyExiledScot wrote:Personally I think it's a shame that he won't be part of the WC. Although South Africa have at least one better hooker in du Plessis, and probably Smit as well, if anyone genuinely believes that Ralepele is better than Brits, they need their head checked.

Brits' weakness and also his strength is his lack of conformity and inability to work to a rigid game plan. For a highly regimented outfit like the Boks that doesn't work in their eyes. Personally, I think he'd do them the power of good, and would certainly add something to the squad as an impact player. He gives an unpredictability to any side he plays in that's hard for the opposition to plan for. I think it would give the Boks squad an additional dimension.

funnyexiledscot, many South Africans don't believe Ralapele is that good, but then Brits decided to leave and that was his decision. The problem is not only with Brits, there are at least 6 very decent hookers in SA.

Tiaan Liebenberg
Bismarck du Plessis
Adriaan Strauss
Gary Botha
John Smit
Deon Fourie
Ralapele

So if Brits is not playing in SA, how do they measure him against his peers.

Biltongbek - don't get me wrong, I do understand the rationale for picking from the domestic game, as you say, it makes the judgment call easier when comparing the options, and also strengthens the domestic game by preventing exports. However, it's not impossible to judge a player playing abroad, it is after all the same game (albeit played slightly differently). England, Scotland and Wales have to do it all the time - pick players who don't play in their own league. I also think that even PDV can pick up a video of the Premiership final and see that Brits (who has performed well enough in SA rugby to be capped before) is in fine form.

As for the SA rugby versus the English league, well put it this way, I don't think the forward play and scrummaging is any harder in the Super 15 than it is in a Sarries jersey, and clearly whilst Brits has been able to cope with it at Sarries (which to me suggests he'd be able to do it in the Super 15), his strengths are in loose play.

I don't think he'd start for SA, du Plessis is probably the best hooker in the world, and clearly Smit will be around the squad. My view is simply that as a 3rd hooker, I think he offers something different, that the others don't bring, and I don't think the mere fact that he plays his rugby elsewhere makes that judgement impossible. The political reason I fully understand, but I don't think it's a judgement based on rugby ability, which I think can still be made.

It's a really poor decision to let him play. The Tahds played with a part-time security guard on the bench last week. They should have just recruited Stephen Moore.

biltongbek wrote:

funnyExiledScot wrote:Personally I think it's a shame that he won't be part of the WC. Although South Africa have at least one better hooker in du Plessis, and probably Smit as well, if anyone genuinely believes that Ralepele is better than Brits, they need their head checked.

Brits' weakness and also his strength is his lack of conformity and inability to work to a rigid game plan. For a highly regimented outfit like the Boks that doesn't work in their eyes. Personally, I think he'd do them the power of good, and would certainly add something to the squad as an impact player. He gives an unpredictability to any side he plays in that's hard for the opposition to plan for. I think it would give the Boks squad an additional dimension.

funnyexiledscot, many South Africans don't believe Ralapele is that good, but then Brits decided to leave and that was his decision. The problem is not only with Brits, there are at least 6 very decent hookers in SA.

Tiaan Liebenberg
Bismarck du Plessis
Adriaan Strauss
Gary Botha
John Smit
Deon Fourie
Ralapele

So if Brits is not playing in SA, how do they measure him against his peers.

Recently, many South Africans rate Ralapele as better than John Smit, I do as well but he is still only the second choice for the Bulls. I am a Stormers fan, but I don't think Deon Fourie is up there with the rest.

Crusaders maybe putting in a complaint according to planet rugby.

MBTGOG wrote:As I've said before, for a neutral, he's fantastic to watch, but I just would not like to have in my own team.

Precisely and exactly mirrors my own sentiments.

Why wouldn't you want him at Leicester Portney, is Chuter such a massively better option?