Mallett and Botha on transformation......Houston we have a problem

Mallett and Naas Botha have called for clearer thinking around the subject of transformation in SA rugby. In a wide-ranging article, The Guardian takes an in-depth look at the state of the game in South Africa 25 years since the Springboks' return to international rugby. Touching on the subject of SA Rugby's aim to have 50-50 representation in national teams by 2019, Mallett said there was still some way to go before that could be achievable. 'Ideally we would like to just pick the best players, but transformation is part of South Africa and it is possible to get close to that 50% mark even now. But the coaches and selectors haven’t used their brains. 'We even picked a white scrumhalf, Francois Hougaard, on the wing – as Allister Coetzee did last year. It was a poor decision because we have some great black wingers. It was a real slap in the face of any competitive black player. 'And when you look at fullback, we have three players, Dillyn Leyds, Warrick Gelant and Andries Coetzee, who is holding the position down. They are of similar ability. My view is you must give the opportunity to the black player [Gelant or Leyds] because you’re not going to weaken the side. 'If we look at fullback, both wings, outside centre, where Lionel Mapoe is very good, the back four positions could be occupied by really strong and skilful black players. 'We have Elton Jantjies at 10 and Beast Mtawarira is doing a great job up front. Six out of 15 is not a disaster in transformation terms. You’re really only looking for one more player to virtually get the 50% for 2019. But the Hougaard decision was insensitive and shows a lack of understanding of transformation.' Meanwhile, Botha insisted that transformation should not be used as an excuse for the poor performances of teams in South Africa. 'I never had any complaints regarding the way forward. It’s the new South Africa and for rugby to grow you must involve everybody. I just get fed up with people saying the quota system is the problem. Absolute nonsense. 'We are not losing because of quotas. We lose because we’re not playing well. I watched the semi-finals of the Currie Cup and half the guys couldn’t even catch the ball.'

Disturbing.....selecting Gelant or Leyds over equally worthy Coetzee .....is a must according to Mallett. And the positions of wing/fullback and outside centre are reserved for players of colour. In that context the selection of Hougaard on the wing is a ‘slap in the face’ of those players. .. That’s clear thinking according. Mallett. And the only problem Naas sees with transformation is the whining about it. .. We owe players of colour equal training at school and at senior level. There ought to be no barriers to their selection. But to dictate the racial composition of the team is in itself horribly racist, ... I have always supported the Beast, Paulse, Habana and a host of other players like Adi Jacobs who was better than he got credit for. But Mapoe is a long way from being an obvious test choice. And it’s horribly unfair to young white chaps to have positions more or less denied to them. No wonder we see so few white outside backs coming through the system. It's almost foolish for a talented young white wing to ply his trade in South Africa. .. None of this stuff is going to produce additional great black players.....the great ones are already being picked. Pick the best and win with the help of as many players of colour as can add to the cause. And those victories, the example of worthy players of colour will do far more to inspire the game among non white communities than a mediocre team selected to meet political objectives rather than win rugby matches. .. Our rugby legends may not be able to speak freely against legislated transformation, but there is no reason they should gratuitously be speaking in favour of it.

If Naas and Mallett want to keep their jobs as commentators they might not have any choice.  After the allegations made by Cosatu that both should be replaced as they are part of the conspiracy of anti-transformation.
I think the best point Mallet makes is that selections have been poor- with some of the better African players left out for the likes of Rhule. (e.g Mampimpi).
A player like Mapoe is being left out for the non-specialist Jessica Kriel, and Hougaard was on the wing when they're some worthy black talent. Mapoe may not be a world beater- but he has certainly been one of the form centres for SA in Super rugby over the last 2-3 years.
In the context of the political background, choosing players out of position instead of specialist black players is a bit silly. The selection is critical until there are more black players to choose from.A player like Damien Willemse could have been included as a backup fullback/flyhalf given his obvious talent even if he gets no game time at this stage.
Whatever angle this has been spun from- both Naas and Mallett probably had little choice. 

Hard to respect men who are willing to sell the Boks down the river to preserve their own pitiful jobs.

sharkbok

Status: Rugby Legend
Posts: 6810 RE: Mallett and Botha on transformation......Houston we have a problem
November 08, 2017, 23:40:26

If Naas and Mallett want to keep their jobs as commentators they might not have any choice. 

 

And therein lies the brutal truth.......

 "Touching on the subject of SA Rugby's aim to have 50-50 representation in national teams by 2019, Mallett said there was still some way to go before that could be achievable." I have a serious question: Is this 50-50 requirements a figure written down in law? If so, which law? .... or is SARU just slavishly follow the wishes or demands of the minister? As far as I know SA Rugby is an independent organisation not responsible to the government in any way, shape or form.

 Correct Blikkies. I've been saying for quite some time that SA Rugby must tell them to go to hell and pick the best team. Let the chips fall and see what happens.

I think that SARFU has to follow the whims of the ANC. They have no choice. I am convinced that SARU would have fired Coetzee last year- had this been entirely their own choice.
SARU was bankrupted last year and almost went out of business- due to loss of Springbok supporters.
They had investors that would have helped- as long as Coetzee was replaced with an international standard coach.

 Louis Luyt had the balls to take the government to court.  I say get politics out of sport. ATM its a tool for some or other reason and players from both sides of the spectrum siffer for it. In fact, I think the good players suffer even more. It's degrading.  I can't believe the people who fought against oppression is now doing the same thing...sticking labels on people. The road to hell is indeed paved with good intentions.

Black players should be treated the same as white. There should be no difference. Mapoe was tried by 2 coaches and flopped. Kriel has age on his side and is actually highly rated in NZ. Gekant still has to prove himself. He had a horrible super rugby and poor defence in the Currie cup. Most players of colour are great at running the ball but flop the minute they are faces with bigger players. If watch a number of games where Sergel Peterson or Kolbe simply get bounced. Agree that Naas and Mallet are only protecting there jobs. What are they actually doing to develop black players. Are they creating funds to offer bursaries to talented young black players. Coaching the Ini Radabes? It is easy to shoot your mouth off.

Mapoe and Kriel have both flopped- but Kriel has had more chances. Kriel had one good game against Australia, otherwise poor.He was overshadowed by Jan Simpletein.
Other than against France and Argentina, our centres have been useless on attack.
Jan Simpletein is now gone, and we have what appears to be an out of form Delande with and out of position Kriel.
Delande will offer more ball in hand, but can be a revolving door on defence. 

 Of course, SA rugby is a mess.
In 25 years, they have been unable to train one single non white player to fit a slot in the international side. Not a single player.

That quota stuff saved SA and other sides the disgrace of wondering which side stands for SA since other sides might have more non white homegrown players than SA has.

Which is not hard since SA set the bar to zero.

That is what those pundits shy away from saying. They do not want to expose SA.

And then there is Bafana Bafana.....bottom of group D.