100% agree JW. Some logic holds true in almost every aspect of life, sport, relationships, business etc.
If the Boks focus on doing well in the areas that they can control then they should easily be a top three team and actually give the ABs a run for their money.
Our main problem as far as transformation goes seems to be that we don't pick the right players of color. And when we do pick them we do as we do with most of our players - try to make them play in a way which was not the style that got them selected to the national squad.
Jantjies is the perfect example of this. The guy set SR on fire with his talent and vision yet looked like a rabbit against teams that were much weaker than many of the SR teams he helped dismantle. You simply do not perform as consistently well in the toughest league competition in the world without being world class.
I don't care what people on this board say. Kolisi is a match winner and a solid international player who gives you a full 80 minutes. Nkosi is another - pure talent and heart. Am? One more. Ox Nche, another dynamic player who could do well on the world stage. Galant?
But instead Coetzee picked De Allende, Rhule, Kasim, Bongi.
People complained about the continual selection of Jessie Kriel. If he were black those complaints would be amplified beyond comprehension.
We have enough quality black players in SA to form an excellent and transformed squad. But when the entire team gets sold short how can we expect the public to back transformation? It follows that people will look for explanations/excuses. Transformation is the obvious and semi-deserving scapegoat at present.
And all of that falls within the remit of "things we can control".
Transformation does suck balls but if carried out by competent coaches and administrators it could be more of a splinter and less of a thorn in our sides.
This is partly why i'm looking forward to Mitchel's progress this year. Some might not rate him but i do, to a degree anyway.
It is not racist, bok fans are passionate and do not tolerate losing or
accepting a loss as a win. We strive to be number one and whether you
lose by 1 point or a 100 points or you win 7 out of 10. The Fans expect
10 out 10. It is simply in our DNA to want to be the best rugby nation in the world.
This is duly noted and stored.
This is the line of reasoning that leads to the termination of rugby in SA. Rugby in SA must exist on merit. It does not, it ceases.
Now, here's another point of view: pretty soon, as SA fails to achieve the goal of winning, losses will be played down relatively to this coach's period in charge. Like it is 0-54 loss, nothing like the 0-57 loss.
And SA will not make the crucial mistake of not selecting a few quota players to explain the losses, or why it does not go as according to the plan.
It is all about the priviledge of losing.
in modern professional sport no coach can afford to ignore the best player regardless of skin colour.
Indeed. SA rugby is a unique cass in modern professional team sport.
There is no other team sport in the world where there is not one single player coming from the main population. And this includes all those squads that were built by providing citizenship to foreign players due to a lack of local talent. No other team sport in the world has achieved what SA rugby has achieved.
Without speaking of the public. Which is also another question.
If the Boks focus on doing well in the areas that they can control
then they should easily be a top three team and actually give the ABs a
run for their money.
And it has already started. It is not about being ranking number one, it is not about giving ABs a run.
It is about winning. No winning, end rugby in SA.
Our main problem as far as transformation goes seems to be that we don't pick the right players of color. And when we do pick them we do as we do with most of our players - try to make them play in a way which was not the style that got them selected to the national squad. Not sure why some posters on this board are still negative on him. You
guys need competition in loose forwards as this is still a weakness
& Kolisi has to be part of the mix.
They are not the only ones who must provide an explanation because an assessment was made about the player, mostly tied to his physical aptitudes, to explain why he could not be SA team material.
As far as it goes, he is for example as small as he is used to be when the assessment was made.
Sure, the termination of rugby in SA will end by hurting NZ rugby. So...
