By Andrew Logan
October 16th 2008 @ 3:38am
Super 14 tipping now live for sign-ups. Join now and invite your mates..
---------------
Reflections on the Springbok
The recent controversy over the Springbok emblem has dragged South African rugby back into the ever-present political mire.
Despite the success of the Springboks in winning two World Cups, breaking their duck in New Zealand, and achieving a record score against the Wallabies, it appears that on-field triumph is not enough turn eyes away from the race-based divisions which always seem to haunt them.
As an outsider, it is difficult to understand the true depth of feeling which the Springbok emblem engenders across South African society.
So to get a sense of what the feeling is like on the ground right now, I called up a Springbok who played several years of Test rugby in the 1990s.
His view?
“It’s not just about rugby now, it’s starting to become an issue across many sectors of society. The Springbok emblem has affected many people in different ways and all of a sudden it is becoming quite personal between some of them.”
So personal in fact that he preferred not to be named for this column, because (as he put it) “a lot of ex-players and current players are extremely nervous to get involved in an issue like this because whatever view they take will probably be frowned upon: either keeping the emblem, or not keeping the emblem.”
“It’s in the news, of course, but you don’t see any players or ex-players saying anything, because it is such a fickle topic for discussion. It’s a hell of a sensitive topic in South Africa at the moment. The guys are very nervous to take any stance. The contracted Springboks and even the ex-Springboks, particularly the black players, feel that they are damned if they do comment, and damned to an extent if they don’t.”
Despite the sensitivity of the topic, his views were clear.
“It’s a rugby emblem, it’s about rugby. There’s a lot of history behind it, but it’s not a symbol of apartheid or anything like that. There are plenty of guys from the previously disadvantaged backgrounds, or from the black communities who would love to play for the Springboks you know? You go to the Eastern Cape and it is one of the biggest breeding grounds for black rugby in South Africa.”
One particular comment had echoes of one of the great Springbok captains from days past.
“There are far more deep-rooted problems in South Africa than the Springbok emblem, let me tell you. And these guys just say, well, let’s get rid of this now and everything will be better. But it won’t.”
The legendary Paul Roos made a similar statement after a Swansea tour match in 1906 as he led the first touring Springboks through the UK.
“There is something much deeper than football beneath this tour, and that is wiping out memories of our divided past,” he said.
Ironically though, the “divided past” to which Roos referred did not exist as a chasm between blacks and whites, but rather as a divide between the white Afrikaaner and the white Englishman following the Boer War, which had concluded in 1902.
Roos apparently addressed his team before they left Africa, stating that, “I can only lead willing men, and I would like to make absolutely clear at the outset that we are not English speaking, or Afrikaans speaking, but a happy band of South Africans.”
This may have been a noble sentiment, but it was undoubtedly a big ask given that several of the players had actually been on opposing sides during the Boer War.
Forward Sommie Morkel had been among four thousand Boer prisoners taken after the Battle Of Pardeburg when General Piet Cronje surrendered to the English General Lord Roberts, whilst two of Morkel’s teammates, loose forward Billy Millar and centre Rajah Martheze, had fought against him in the loyal Cape and Natal Forces who opposed the Boer republics of Transvaal and the Orange Free State.
Indeed, South Africa still comprised four separate governments in 1906, and it would not be until 1910 that they became one country.
Disunity seemed to be a way of life for South Africans, and South African rugby supporters.
Vere Stent, editor of the Pretoria News, may have disagreed when he wrote around this time that “South Africa is disunited about every subject under the sun, but in hearty agreement when supporting our rugby team.”
But for most of last century, this “hearty agreement” only extended so far.
For most of the previous century, rugby was still an overwhelmingly white sport, dominated by the South African Rugby Football Board (later the SARB), which was established in 1889 to cater exclusively for the white section of the population.
Other populations were forced to establish similar organizations (under several differing emblems) to administer their rugby, resulting in the formation of the South African Coloured Rugby Board, the South African Bantu Rugby Board, and the South African Rugby Federation.
Of these, only the white SARB was affiliated with the International Rugby Board. The rest were denied affiliation with the SARB and, as a consequence, any affiliation with the IRB.
The administrative boards used a variety of symbols.
The SA Coloured Rugby Board displayed the king protea as the dominant feature of their emblem. The South African Bantu Rugby Board’s emblem comprised the continent of Africa with a standing springbok imposed over it, and the colours were predominantly black trimmed with gold.
The South African Rugby Federation (a Western Province breakaway union) emblem was a cluster of three proteas in natural colours. And they became known as the Proteas.
Only the all white, IRB affiliated, SARB team took to the field with the leaping springbok, the green and gold colours, and called themselves the Springboks.
As a result, the emblem could easily have been seen as a symbol of white exclusivity.
As Archbishop Desmond Tutu once said, “for a very long time, the Springbok emblem represented exclusion to the vast majority of people in South Africa. For so many, it was a hated symbol that epitomized the racial policies of injustice and oppression that characterized the system of apartheid.”
But he went on to say, “as a contribution to the process of reconcilitation in our country, we should not rub people’s noses in the dust. We should take very seriously what they regarded as their symbols and badges, in the spirit of nation building.”
Tutu’s sentiments were echoed by my Springbok contact.
“It’s easy to target the Springbok symbol and say that it’s a symbol of the apartheid era and we need to get rid of it, and then say that rugby has changed forever and it’s the new South Africa and the new rugby. But it’s not like that. Instead of taking down a symbol, why not invest more money and effort in the grassroots and focus there. Then you will change rugby in South Africa.”
“These guys are asking for these changes, saying that South Africa will never move on from the past if they don’t change the emblem and that’s the argument that has to be changed. There was a day and age when black rugby players weren’t allowed, but those days are gone. Springbok rugby over the last 20 years, or since Mandela’s release, has been part of that whole changing process. And it’s been a massive success. There are more kids playing rugby now than ever before, especially in the black communities. It is almost a fully representative side these days. We’ve won two World Cups under the new government.”
The healing of relationships was a common theme for both men in the idea of retaining the Springbok as the emblem of South African rugby.
Our Springbok said, “for me, if it goes, it will be sad to see it go. I do understand that we are in a changing country, a changing environment, and if the majority of the country says that the emblem should go, then who am I to say any different? But I do believe that there is merit in keeping the Springbok emblem and that it has a major role to play in the future of South Africa both on and off the field, particularly in terms of reforming damaged relationships from the past.”
Tutu made a similar point in 2006.
“We have got to say that something extraordinary happened when we won the World Cup in 1995. The fact that the victory was celebrated in Soweto was an extraordinary thing, and testifies to how incredibly sport can help heal a broken nation.”
So despite the divisive influences, there appears to be hope for the future.
My phone conversation to South Africa ended thus: “For the future, I think it is important that some sort of tradition and history is respected and kept within our country and Springbok rugby is one of them. I’m a firm believer that it’s not about the old days. The Springbok teams that I played in were all about opportunity and all about everyone having the chance to play for the Springboks. I only ever saw the Springbok emblem in one way, and that was as a symbol for the country.”
“It will be a continued challenge to keep it. The one thing about the Springbok though, it has survived through times of turmoil and through the good times as well, and hopefully it will continue to do so.”
For the sake of our shared rugby history, the good and the bad, let’s hope that it endures.
Super 14 tipping now live for sign-ups. Join now and invite your mates.
Free Email updates:
Our daily emails are only sent if there is content for the sport or that author. You can subscribe to multiple daily emails; or get the daily Roar email with all our content in it. We value privacy. More...
(32)
Loading ...
Benjamin said | October 16th 2008 @ 5:02am | Report comment
Andrew, the emblem is part of a political scenario. If it weren’t then you wouldn’t have Oregon Hoskins stating that PDV had been chosen due to historical politics. The embem is part of a larger political machine. I don’t agree that rugby should ever have been used as an expression of social transformation because I believe that a country like SA has many, many pressing matters to address. However Sarfu was founded on the basis of making rugby inclusive therefore it is important to ask if the black majority feel that the emblem is significant to them? I noted that somebody in a different thread felt that black people should align themselves to the Springbok emblem, a notion that is bizarre given the history of the Springboks. How could a group of people feel that way when even in 1995 Habana’s father was banned - for life - from his black rugby club for supporting the SA team? Surely the logical step is that a badge so cynically manipulated by political agendas over the years should be removed and replaced by another emblem. Would that not reflect an inclusive and pro-active approach to millions of young black children?
sheek said | October 16th 2008 @ 6:17am | Report comment
As a 14 year old in 1970, I followed the Aussie cricketers via radio & papers, as they were massacred by South Africa 4-0 in tests.
Barry Richards’ career started & ended with these 4 tests at age 24; Mike Procter 7 tests at age 23; Graeme Pollock 23 tests at age 25. It frustrated me that I was never able to follow these 3 greats again in test cricket.
As a 15 year old in 1971, I witnessed the awesome power of the South African Springboks rugby team first hand in Australia, along with the protesters, smoke bombs, barbed wire, police riot squads, etc. But I was blown away by the skill of forwards such as legendary Frik du Preez, captain Hannais Marais, tough Piet Greyling, the great Jan Ellis & a youngster named Morne du Plessis.
As an impressionable teenager, seeing my heroes slaughtered by Saffies in 2 favourite sports, I thought these guys were truly awesome.
As I got older I realised there are more important things rhan sport. Regrettably, apartheid is a tragedy of human spirit, of the most unkind type. There is an argument that the in the mid 1970s, South Africa had their best ever cricket team, & in the mid 1980s, it’s best ever rugby team.
Maybe it was meant to be this way, so the pain could be felt by everyone, albeit differently. It will be sad to see the sprinbgok emblem disappear from the South African rugby jersey, but it does appear inevitable. Us whites can never know the pain suffered by so many generations of non-whites in SA.
I guess the question is, what else will replace the springbok emblem in the rugby team?
OldManEmu said | October 16th 2008 @ 7:19am | Report comment
Great article Loges. I dont have any idea about the situation having never been there nor ever having any close relationship with any Sth African people. The use of an ex Springbok player to gain an insight is a massive help to those who are ignorant about the issues.
Andrew Logan said | October 16th 2008 @ 7:40am | Report comment
Sheek,
Piet Grayling was one of my early rugby heroes, despite my never having seen him play. When I was a kid, I was given a book simply entitled “Rugby” which had instruction on how to play each position from a group of international rugby players. What a list of players it was - front row, Bill Beaumont; No 8, Mervyn Davies; centre, Andre Boniface; halfback, Ken Catchpole; fullback, JPR Williams. The breakaway (or wing-forward) assignment was undertaken by Piet Grayling. He had several gems, which included his ideal backrow (a flyer such as himself, a big heavy skilful 8 like Davies and a tough 6 like Guerassimof), as well as some interesting training tips (falling down from a standing position and getting up again 50 or a hundred times to build up the legs; packing down against a tree or a pole and taking off from it to build up speed).
Unfortunately I didn’t apply his advice as diligently as I might have, but it still makes for fascinating reading. He was a man ahead of his time.
Robbie said | October 16th 2008 @ 8:09am | Report comment
Loges, wasn’t Bill Beaumont a second rower…sorry….lock…
and where is my return phone call???
Gordo said | October 16th 2008 @ 8:39am | Report comment
Many of the South African rugby supporters I know (all white) would certainly not like the changing of the symbol they love and support. I suspect though that they would all continue to support rugby and would support their national team whatever symbol it played under. If there are currently South Africans not supporting the team because of the symbol, its probably worth changing it. History is important, but mainly so we can learn from our mistakes.
From a business point of view - not to be discounted is the financial gain the SARU would no doubt make from a new emblem.. also, with the soccer world cup being held in South Africa soon, is now a good time to change the Springbok emblem?
Andrew Logan said | October 16th 2008 @ 9:24am | Report comment
Gordo - interesting point about the financial side of things. A point I didn’t include in my article from my Bok contact was the following:
“I just hope someone takes an educated view on this, and takes all of the parties interests and all the knowledge into account. For instance, there is obviously a huge commercial value to the emblem from sponsors through to gate takings. I mean, if you go and sell a game overseas in Australia and say the…whatever, the Blossoms…are coming over there to play, well no-one knows what you’re talking about. Whereas if you say the Springboks are coming, well there’s a commercial value to that, which eventually underpins the growth of rugby in this country.”
The point was that if you change the emblem, you may well undercut the financial strength of the brand, which then has a knock on effect on the money available to develop rugby in South Africa.
I don’t really have a view - but it does seem that from a commercial standpoint, it might be a little like calling Coca-Cola something else and wondering why sales have dropped. People do identify heavily with brands.
TembaVJ said | October 16th 2008 @ 9:26am | Report comment
In South Africa there are many symbols of the apartheid era around, most of them have been embraced and have become symbols of change. The union buildings and houses of parliament, were designed and build at the height of apartheid at a time when the rand was on par to the pound. These are magnificent buildings and have now housed 3 black presidents and 14 years of democratic freedom. Rugby was a political weapon, should the sport not be banned? The houses of parliament should be destroyed and new buildings created. In fact, a lot of the countries infrastructure was build in the apartheid era, perhaps we should level, half of all the city’s?
No we do not have to, we can embrace these symbols and make them symbols of change. Who ever this mystery player is, he is right the game is changing, 13 years ago, the first black player run onto the field, today the minister of sport, the president of SARU, the national coach and 8 player in the starting lineup are all black. This all changed under the same emblem. The cannot remove it not after all the change the Springbok has seen, it has already become a symbol of change and this is why the ANC voted to keep it.
van der Merwe said | October 16th 2008 @ 9:37am | Report comment
What people like Benjamin don’t understand is the overwhelming majority of blacks don’t care about rugby. It is irrelevant to them because it is not their sport. It has been well over a decade since the black man gained power, yet out of the 40 million you would think there would me more registered black rugby players. I’ll reiterate, the overwhelming majority does not care about rugby. What we are seeing here is a small, elite group of demented anti-white racists led by Cheeky and his worthless son trying to scrap the legendary Springbok emblem because it is the ultimate way to get revenge on all those dastardly dutchmen. This isn’t an inclusive and pro-active approach, it’s about payback.
TembaVJ said | October 16th 2008 @ 9:45am | Report comment
The answer lies in not destroying something, something that so many have fought to make a symbol of change including Nelson Mandela. Perhaps keep the name, keep the colors, keep the jumping springbok but add to the emblem. Make the emblem background a picture that shows both eras and the Springbok jumping into the positive times of today hence forcing it to be a symbol of change and the victory over oppression whilst keeping the tradition and history of the sport in South Africa.
This would be expectable for all if the intent behind change is not driven by hate and revenge.
van der Merwe said | October 16th 2008 @ 10:31am | Report comment
I would be genuinely surprised if they scrap the emblem since it generates a hell of a lot of revenue. No sponsors, no big contracts and an overall decrease in interest means Mr Komphela cannot drive around in his new Mercedes-Benz.
Dave said | October 16th 2008 @ 11:17am | Report comment
Great reason not to change a symbol…because it may cost a few sponsorship dollars??
History is to be learned from…Apartheid era had as their no 1 sporting team the Springboks. All white teams in a country dominated by blacks portraying themselves as the real South African sporting icons when in truth they were part of this whole Apartheid set up and the maintenance of it for decades.
You wonder why the vast majority of the population have no interest in Rugby? They and their families suffered under Apartheid…why would they want to support anything to do with that symbol which was displayed so prominantly during that era?
Is the real fear that the black majority may become interested in Rugby and thus take away the grand white tradition and dominance of it?
Hugh Dillon said | October 16th 2008 @ 11:36am | Report comment
Sth Africa and its rugby/political culure has fascinated me since 1969 and a group of honourable & courageous Wallaby players came back saying that they would not play against Sth Africa while apartheid remained. With respect to Van Der Merwe, Cheeky Watson and people like that are not “demented anti-white racists” but are enemies of a culture which remains strongly racist. Most societies in the world are xenophobic and racist to some extent but very few incorporate racisim into their official cultures to the extent Sth Africa did before 1994. People like Schalk Burger appear to be non-racist, at least on the rugby field, but the notion that rugby is the white sport, the Afrikaaners’ sport, entrenched from 1890 or so, is precisely why the remaining 40 million Sth Africans don’t pay much attention. Dave is right. People like Van Der Merwe ought be thinking about how to make it the national sport, not a minority sport — imagine how awesome the Boks (or whatever their new name would be) if that happened. And, whether VDM et al are nostalgic or not, the Springbok symbolises apartheid for many, maybe most, Sth Africans, just as a swastika symbolises anti-semitism. No wonder Luke Watson feels like vomiting…
TembaVJ said | October 16th 2008 @ 11:45am | Report comment
Dave the symbol which was displayed so prominently during that era was rugby the sport, springbok was merely the name of the team. The Springbok is an African animal after all.
“Is the real fear that the black majority may become interested in Rugby and thus take away the grand white tradition and dominance of it?”
If this is the case its gone already, as I said before everyone to do with the sports administration except fro half the match 22 is black. The dominance is only in the viewing population and to be honest the more people back the team the better I say, so if the black majority want to get behind the team it can only be a good thing.
Its growing among the black people, hearing a entire stadium of people shout “BEAST” every time he grabs the ball is something that excites many even if he is from Zimbabwe, he is African.
Name changing is not going to change the fact that at the moment its viewed by majority white, its also to do with choice of football code, I live in Victoria now and I guarantee you changing the name of the Wallabies will not convert the AFL supporters to union or make the game more exciting for them. Black people in Africa who follow soccer might plainly just not like rugby as a spectators sport.
Dave said | October 16th 2008 @ 11:58am | Report comment
Temba VJ
You underestimate the power of symbols if you discount the effect on people who suffered of seeing the team called Springboks play under the Apartheid era. It is an acknowledgement as much as anything that that era is passed we have moved on and now there is nothing to stop you joining support of the (new nickname inserted) Rugby team. You are right that many blacks may not find Rugby interesting to watch but at this time it seems many are still not prepared to give it a go.
Will white SA’s still feel the same when there are 13-14 or even 15 blacks in the starting line up, as there should be given the population mix?
TembaVJ said | October 16th 2008 @ 12:03pm | Report comment
People are now reading far to much into this, the ANC has decided to back the springbok this in its self has to say that transformation is possible with out massive changes. The adoption of the sport at grassroots is growing amongst young black players and that majority everyone talks about are finding them selves looking in the paper for Springbok results or flicking the channel to watch the game.
The game is filled with black heroes and it will only grow but this takes time, Rome was not built in a day. The new generation of Black and White are coming into their own now and by the next all this would be a minor. No one is stopping anyone from watching, playing or being involved with Rugby and it is transforming. Use the negative history see my suggestion above about transforming what the springbok means. I think comparing it to a Nazi symbol is going a bit far, after all Nelson Mandela pulls on his overtime the boks hit the field. I don’t think you will find any Jewish leaders ever wearing a swastika. Its not the same.
I cant convince people to believe in this but I can say that there has been much positive ground made under this symbol, perhaps its adoption will take longer but in the end it will send a far stronger message.
Done.
TembaVJ said | October 16th 2008 @ 12:12pm | Report comment
Dave if the boks are winning with 15 blacks ill still be shouting my lungs out and banging roar posts out in support of my team. 45000 white people shouting “beast” every time he touches the ball should be evidence that most share this point of view and don’t care about the players skin color as long as he is the best at what he does. People like Habanna are cult figures in SA, with Afrikaner bands righting songs about him. I think people that think whites watch rugby to see whites play are very far off the mark.
Dave said | October 16th 2008 @ 12:20pm | Report comment
Temba VJ
It would be nice to think you are a true reflection of those whites who support Rugby in SA. Good luck with it as there will no doubt be some testing times ahead.
TembaVJ said | October 16th 2008 @ 12:41pm | Report comment
Thanks for the good luck Dave, I am sure the Springbok will pass this next test. 20 years down the line when people are not blinded by color I hope to see the Springbok still take to the field, carrying positive meaning, history and symbolizing change for all of South Africa.
After the RWC07 I posted an article on the Roar about my experience watching the match with about 8 black people who we met by chance at the pub in Melbourne, the 10 of us (wearing Bok gear) were the only Saffa’s amongst a sea of about 200 red and white jerseys. We shared that amazing experience as South Africans.
van der Merwe said | October 16th 2008 @ 12:41pm | Report comment
Ja Dave, money makes the world go round, take a look at the state of Aussie rugby.
South African blacks not having a big interest in rugby is primarily because of their smaller bone structure. South African blacks are naturally smaller people, when you go through Joburg city you are not going to see Shaquille O’Neal size black blokes walking on the side of the road.
Also, many prefer soccer because it happens to be a simpler game that can be played almost anywhere. That is why it is the world game - Brazilians, Mexicans, Africans, no matter how disadvantaged, can pick up a ball and play. This has been going for generations, people who have grown up with the sport are unlikely to take a liking to a new one.
“Cheeky Watson and people like that are not “demented anti-white racists” but are enemies of a culture which remains strongly racist.”
The entire family are demented martyrs with no dignity. What have the Watson family been up to in the last 18 months, lets see: threatening to take away Jake’s job if Luke was not selected, trying to blackmail Snor, disrespecting the legendary Springbok jersey, Threatening to take away a dastardly dutchman’s farm, questioning the integrity of players, undeservedly playing for the Springboks… the list goes on and on.
TembaVJ said | October 16th 2008 @ 1:20pm | Report comment
VDM its a very big sport in SA even if its called bafana-bafana 2 it will still make money. Changing the name will not make any difference in rugby’s target demographic or in the way RUGBY (not the emblem) is perceived by some. This is clearly a politically driven motive, so close to election it has to make you wonder. I think some are merely trying to build up brownie points just before a new leader takes office. The ruling party ANC has voted and decided to keep the emblem but I fear its not the last time we will hear of this.
More and more these days coaches are tapping into the almost untouched “black” talent with massive success. This is good for the business and transformation of rugby as winning means cash… black or white. Unfortunately you are right about the bone structure and size, we wont see Victor Matfield replace by a similar sized black South African. Most of the forwards would be hard to “transform” and this should not be seen a racist merely tactical.
But… if changing the emblem means people outside Africa will stop labeling me a racist for being born white South African and supporting my national team then so be it change it to anything you want, ill still support rugby.
Gordo said | October 16th 2008 @ 1:59pm | Report comment
Andrew - the financial advantage I was referring to was the reason that almost every sporting club in the world, with the Yankees being a noteable exception, regularly update their uniforms, jerseys, etc, in order to raise revenue through their fans purchasing new jerseys, shirts, caps, etc. If there was a big change from the Springbok symbol, and the change was supported by the fans, I would think there would be a lot of revenue to be made in sales of supporter gear.
In regards to ticket sales to games outside SA, I can’t see people in Australia, NZ, or anywhere in the world having less interest in seeing the SA national rugby team if they played under a new symbol. The statistics and the world cups would still stay with the team. I would think if people found out why the change was made they would actually support the team more. Also, if I remember correctly, the games here in Australia are usually marketed as the Wallabies v South Afrika anyway…
Brandy said | October 16th 2008 @ 3:16pm | Report comment
Doc Craven Speaks
Better take a look at
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SGIv54WI6jA
to understand it was and still is about the Whites Only mentality
sheek said | October 16th 2008 @ 3:46pm | Report comment
Just to back up my suggestion SA had its best cricket team in the 1970s, & best rugby team in the 1980s.
For those who know their cricket, this was the original selection of 15 players before the 1971/72 tour to Australia was cancelled.
Ali Bacher(c), Eddie Barlow(vc), Barry Richards, Graeme Pollock, Hylton Ackerman, Lee Irvine(2k), Denis Lindsay(k), Mike Procter, Clive Rice, Dassie Biggs, Peter de Vaal, Peter Pollock, Vincent van der Bijl, Pat Trimborn & Graham Chevalier.
Barlow, Richards & Ackerman were the openers; Bacher, G.Pollock & Irvine the middlers; Lindsay a keeper-batsman; Procter & Rice fast bowling allrounders; Biggs & de Vaal spin bowling allrounders; P.Pollock, van der Bijl & Trimborn fast bowlers & Chevalier the 1st choice spinner.
Barlow was also a batting allround, not quite as good as Kallis in either department, but far more interesting & entertaining! Irvine was a competent backup keeper.
A best XI from the 15 players above would have been (in batting order): Barlow, Richards, Bacher, G.Pollock, Irvine, Lindsay, Procter, Rice, P.Pollock, van der Bijl, Chevalier. Biggs 12th man. Batting depth down to Rice at #8, plus 6 bowlers. very few Proteas teams would equal this one.
The 1986 Boks beat the NZ Cavaliers 3 tests to one. But had the full ABs team toured in 1985, the Bok opposition would have been even stronger. Mordt & Louw decided to defect to league, while du Toit, Oosthuizen, Stofberg & Serfontein retired. Check out this XV:
15-Johan Heunis, 14-Ray Mordt, 13-Danie Gerber, 12-Michael du Plessis, 11-Carel du Plessis, 10-Naas Botha, 9-Divan Serfontein, 8-Jannie Breedt, 7-Gert Smal, 6-Rob Louw, 5-Louis Moolman, 4-Theuns Stofberg, 3-Hempies du Toit, 2-Uli Schmidt, 1-Ossie Oostuizen.
Others available would have included winger Jaco Reinnardt, backrowers Burger Geldenhuys & Wahl Bartmann, lock Shalk Burger (snr) & prop Flippie van der Merwe.
Anyone familiar with SA rugby history would agree this would have been an awesome combination, as good as any in their history. Still all-powerful in the pack, but with a dynamic potent backline as well.
A sporting tragedy for SA sport. But blacks would say their 90 years (& more) of apartheid suffering was far, far greater a tragedy.
TembaVJ said | October 16th 2008 @ 4:07pm | Report comment
Ill add this last bit before leaving this subject once and for all.
The following stadiums build before and at the height of apartheid driven by rugby as a sport, symbolizes all that the Springbok has archived. Loftus Versfeld Stadium and Ellis Park Stadium should be burnt along with the emblem if they are symbols that divide a nation. O I forgot they are using these “symbols of oppression” in the 2010 soccer world cup. So why is it that certain things can remain but other cant and ill answer this question with an interesting idea.
All this emblem nonsense that’s hung around for years like a flat mates fart is a cover up for bigger problems. Questions like, is the National soccer team going to qualify for the world cup currently ranked 86? Why did South Africa come home from the Olympics with only one silver medal? The overall poor state of south African sport and so on. Important questions that the sports comity headed by Kompela (the ones pressing for the death of the little antelope) does not have answers for. So considering its election year and these cats have done nothing to justify why they were put in charge… simply put things have gone backwards under their supervision. Without answers and a lot of money spent with nothing to show for it the obvious, softest and most political target is the Springbok and how its busy dividing and destroying a nation.
Kompela and friends are covering their arses and using the bok as an escape goat for possible the worst years in sport for a long time. The soccer and the Olympics where not discussed at this sports convention… only the death of the Springbok. Sound fishy?
Andrew Logan said | October 16th 2008 @ 4:53pm | Report comment
Robbie,
You are right indeed - my mistake. I went and dug out the book, and the front row expert was actually Fran Cotton. I knew it was an English captain, but got the wrong one.
The experts were front row - Fran Cotton (Eng); second row - Colin Meads (NZ); flanker - Piet Grayling (SA); no 8 - Mervyn Davies (Wal); scrumhalf - Ken Catchpole (Aus); stand-off - Tony Ward (Ire); centre - Andre Boniface (Fra); wing - TGR Davies (Wal); fullback - Andy Irvine (Sco); captaincy - Wilson Whineray (NZ).
I’m sure Bill Beaumont stuck in my mind based on the classic line from one of his players when Erica Rowe and her magnificent bosom streaked onto Twickenham during a Test. One of the first players to sight Rowe turned to the corpulent Beaumont and said “Hey Bill - there’s a bird running around here with your bum on her chest!”.
I’ll call you later.
Cheers…
Benjamin said | October 16th 2008 @ 8:32pm | Report comment
van der Merwe, actually I do understand. I have made various points noting that soccer is the game of the masses. That is not the point. Sarfu - who all SA contributors are ignoring - made one of their founding tenets to embrace racial inclusivity into the sport. Thus Sarfu undertook the role, not the black majority.
Andrew, Bill Beaumont did actually play an international test at prop.
B Johnson said | October 16th 2008 @ 8:40pm | Report comment
Good article Andrew
It will take an extraordinary decision from a SARFU board with balls bigger than err rugby balls to change the logo.
Butana Khompela is in the same league politically as a municipal manager, he holds no serious political post and is not a ANC bigwig. Indeed he is almost ignored unless he makes irrelevant or inflamatory statements about the Boks and the media LOVES it. Only THEN do opponents of the boks come out of the woodwork. There has never been a serious political challenge to the Boks from political heavyweights in South Africa. There has, however, been a shift in the ANC with Muleleki George(former SARFU board member) even calling for bans on the Boks if they were not more racially inclusive( his membership of the ANC has been suspended)
So, as many have stated, challenges to the emblem have come and gone but it is a huge symbol of pride to MOST South Africans.
And all this rubbish about a sport representing the demographics of a country. Pull the other one.
Kath said | October 16th 2008 @ 8:42pm | Report comment
Symbols simply represent culture. Changing symbols doesn’t change cultures - cultures change when people change their behaviours. As cultures evolve, so does the meaning of their symbols.
The Springbok is a magnificent symbol that has a wealth of meaning still to offer the rapidly evolving South African culture. But in the end, it’s that nation’s call.
Dave said | October 17th 2008 @ 9:48pm | Report comment
B johnson
Not sure what you’ve been pulling on but if you hadnt noticed for the last 100 years or so the SA Rugby team aka Springboks represnted the white SA’s. The black were too busy trying to stay alive to worry too much. Football is the game of the vast majority, who happen to be black. If thats not particular sports representing specific demographics l’m not sure what is?
The Springbok has represented the whites (4million in number) over the years but hardly the majority of blacks (40m) , who have little or no interest in the game.
Nelson said | October 18th 2008 @ 3:10am | Report comment
“Sarfu - who all SA contributors are ignoring - made one of their founding tenets to embrace racial inclusivity into the sport.”
Dude - d’you really think in the new South Africa, SARFU could have formed on any other basis?
I dont think aanyone would have wanted it to be racially exclusive, hence the forming of the new body, but more importantly , under the new constitution , I dont think a racially exlcusive body would be legal.
If South African’s are as genuinely offended by the springbok emblem as Komphela suggests then obviously it should go. Im not sure that is the case and would be interested to see a poll if anyone knows of one. I may be wrong but I get the feeling it removing the symbol would be needlessy divisive ,doing more to offend whites than to please blacks.
Surely South Africa has more pressing issues than this? The AIDS crisis, violent crime , housing shortages , potential ANC split to name but a few.
Benjamin said | October 18th 2008 @ 3:55am | Report comment
Of course South Africa has problems aside from this, however social/medical and economic issues are irrelevant in this context because they are addressed by the relevant groups and Komphela is sports-based. The point I was making was that there has been no real rugby debate, just prevalent defense-mechanisms. If one forgets the motivation of Komphela the genesis for change is still entirely relevant. Sarfu took a stance in which the adoption of a new logo seems a logical step. It seems rather convenient for nobody to mention the governing body of SA rugby. Naas Botha noted that this should be dealt with once and for all. Frankly it is ridiculous that the matter had never been finalised previously.