ExSupersport - brendon Nel
Amid the normal howls of despair that accompany any Springbok team announcement, it is hard to fathom the argument of some that the Bok coach simply shouldn’t pick his best available squad.
The tendency to think that because a team is lower down on the IRB World Rankings, they simply won’t be a match for the Boks is both arrogant and nonsensical.
Test rugby is about inches. A slight off-day on your side against a motivated opposition, compounded by some questionable calls by the referee could see what should be a walk in the park turn into a nightmare.
When it comes to Springbok rugby, there are a few things to consider.
One, the Bok coach gets the team for a limited period of time. He can make suggestions, chat to players and tell them to bolster a part of their game, and hope that injuries don’t strike.
Other than that, unless they are in the Bok camp for the 12 weeks a year, he can do nothing. They belong to the franchises.
When you are judged on 12 tests a year, you have a very simplistic outlook on what you need to do.
You need to win. Plain and simple.
A Springbok coach is judged on results. Not IRB rankings, not progress, but results.
It has always been that way and always will be that way.
So when the cries of outrage come that players are overplayed, fatigued and need a rest, you have to ask yourself where they should have been rotated.
Springbok rugby is not the place to rest players. Here you need to pick your best available team.(Very fatigues palyers are NOT your best players oak)
It is certainly not the place to experiment. How many times have we seen that before.
The Springbok coach needs to use his few weeks a year to blend a team into a formidable unit, to give players who see each other only for a few weeks opportunity to play together as much as possible, while juggling the hopes of a nation against the injury list that grows with every year in Super Rugby.
Yes, the Bok coach could always be bolder, but when you’re making 10 changes to a 23 man squad already, you want to be assured of a bit of experience to take the guys through the game if things do go pear-shaped.
And as in the transformation debate, you have to point the finger back at the provinces.
It is understandable that most of them want to win and couldn’t give a codswallop for what happens in the Green and Gold. It is true that they are held to account for their results as well.
It is also true that the sides that normally win Super Rugby have a blend of youth and experience, a squad system where players are rotated and where game time is never an issue.
The situation becomes even more stark when you have a chat to any Springbok based overseas.
They tell stories – as in Fourie du Preez’ case – of expert conditioning, of player fatigue never being a factor as rest programmes are in play.
They are happy – as their form often shows – and are earning a decent living. Clubs like Saracens make it a pre-requisite that young players choose something to study, while for the married couples there are crèches to look after their children.
More than that, the clubs look after their players. A senior Springbok told me the other day how he is told at the beginning of the season which games the club want him to be at his best, and along with their fitness personnel, they design a programme to get the best out of him.
It meant the said Springbok didn’t play all the games, but he did when necessary and he was fresh and keen when he got to the Bok camp.
Then contrast that to Super Rugby franchises, who have played players into the ground, who have sometimes little plan for them other than to pile on the game minutes with little thought to the consequences (As noted by Beeno years ago!). Take a look at this year’s teams and ask yourself, is there any franchise in South Africa that is using the squad system properly? Which franchise has rested their Boks properly, not for national duty, but to get the best out of them?
The contrast is just as stark when you compare to Australia and their lack of a domestic competition, and to New Zealand and their central contracting system.
In Europe and in the Antipodes, the majority of top players are given time and space to become the best. They are rotated well and a national agenda goes along with their conditioning, not against it as in some South African Super Rugby franchises.
Is it any wonder that the injuries we see nowdays in Super Rugby are long-term ones – six months or longer? The Boks currently have 18 players out, and if you include the seven EuroBoks heading back to their clubs that makes 25.
Take 25 players out of most national systems and see how they function.
Can you blame the Bok coach for holding onto the few experienced players he still has to ensure his team achieve what the country wants – a winning team?
The franchises in South Africa have a tough job, but they don’t make it easier for themselves. They fail to regulate the workload of their top stars, they turn a blind eye to transformation (Dont talk to me about race based selections - that is nonsense!!!!) and in a lot of cases they fail to see a bigger picture.
The Bok management could be bolder. But there are limited tests before a World Cup, and when you lose 18 frontline players, and those you get have not been managed well by their franchises, what would you do?
At the moment the overseas-based Boks are fresh, happy and probably better conditioned than the locally-based players.(Please note ou maaaikie!!)
We should be happy the players are overseas, earning a decent living and being true professionals. They arrive fresh and focused, excited to be back in South Africa and ready to make a difference.
Think about that next time the club vs country debate comes up.
Lot of good points but he gets all politically correct re race based racist selections.
