South African rugby is staring down the barrel. They are undergoing a transitional period that threatens the very core of Springbok Rugby.
After the 2011 Rugby World Cup a number of South African stars decided to move abroad for lucrative contracts while others have retired.
This has brought about an experimental 2012, where Heyneke Meyer and his selection committee selected as many as 20 forwards during the Test season in order to determine who could make the step up to the international stage.
There was little tinkering with the backline, even though at stages injuries did create havoc in this area as well.
We are now on the cusp of another international season and as Springbok supporters we would expect Meyer to work on his backline and focus on the fundamentals of retaining possession, building phases and creating a varied attack which can be executed in the next World Cup.
Sadly, it is never that straightforward.
Since the 2011 Rugby World Cup we have seen the exodus of players either retiring or going for a Hail Mary pay day overseas, something we have come to expect after every World Cup here in the Southern Hemisphere.
What you don’t expect is that first choice international players at the height of their careers would leave for the almighty dollar.
Just after the 2011 Rugby World Cup Jaque Fourie (28 at the time) and Fourie du Preez (also 28), decided to leave. Both were at the top of their game and were first choice selections for the Springboks.
Now, in between two World Cups, Andries Bekker (29) JP Pietersen (25), Bryan Habana (29), Juandre Kruger (27), Zane Kirchner (28) and Morne Steyn (28) have all decided to take contracts abroad.
This is worth having a discussion about. Firstly, why are so many active Springboks leaving?
You can understand when Bakkies Botha, Danie Rossouw and the like decide to go for a healthy payday. They are all at the end of their illustrious careers and seeking for a nice gratuity before joining the land of the average Joe.
But why would Jaque Fourie, Fourie du Preez, Andries Bekker, JP Pietersen, Habana, Juandre Kruger, Zane Kirchner and Morne Steyn all leave when they are first choice players and in the prime of their careers?
The only possible answers I can come up with is the most obvious one, money. But then I read a report that Bryan Habana is earning in the region of R6 million a year.
Nick Mallett has suggested South African Rugby Union is not paying Springboks their fair share. According to him most professional teams pay their players in the region of 50% of their revenue, however SARU only pays 35% of their revenue to players.
Mallett further expands on the sustainability of the Vodacom Cup and the smaller unions involved in that competition, arguing that the handout from the SARU to unions who can’t sustain themselves financially should not be happening, and they should instead find corporate sponsors.
What I believe he is not taking into consideration is that these smaller unions have been pushed down the totem pole of importance and do not have the opportunity to secure corporate sponsorship.
This is due to the fact that it has lost ground on the Currie Cup and therefore has been reduced to fewer teams. This does not bode well for the smaller unions.
The reality is if the Currie Cup gains prominence and more teams are taking part in the premier division it stands to reason corporate sponsorship would come their way and people will flood stadiums.
So the cause and effect is that SARU is spending a higher proportion of their revenue to sustain smaller unions because they have neglected to provide them with a high profile competition.
Thus spending revenue on sustaining smaller unions, rather than paying higher wages to professional players in South Africa, has become a necessity.
It is also well known that player fatigue and injuries that can prematurely end careers are a threat to players. They therfore decide to play in the Japanese League, which means less games, less risk of injury and fatigue, and ultimately more money.
But if that was a justifiable reason, why do players such as Bryan Habana and the like choose to go to Europe? There the reality is that they play more games than their Southern Hemisphere clubs.
It is also possible that Heyeneke Meyer’s propensity to select overseas players has now opened the floodgates for Springboks to have their bread buttered on both sides.
If this is the case, then SARU have to act quickly and decisively to issue a directive which bans the use of overseas players for international duty.
It is not possible to serve two gods; it is either money or glory.
There is, of course, another possibility that has not been considered. What is going on in the Springbok camp? Are players not enthused or happy with the coaching staff? Do they not have faith in Meyer’s game plans or the manner in which he coaches?
These are all issues that need to be addressed, a simple declaration by Jurie Roux that we cannot compete with the almighty dollar is not good enough.
The root of the problem lies deeper than just money, it starts with the domestic structure.
The Currie Cup, that once had 14 teams competing in a single competition, has been reduced to six. There are now two divisions, and the Vodacom Cup is nothing more than a third tier development tool. If that is the only competition the smaller unions have as a marketing tool then it’s no wonder they aren’t financially sustainable.
The SARU needs to get their house in order. They need to look at restructuring their domestic season. The smaller unions must gain more prominence which would allow them to attract corporate sponsorship and higher gate earnings, otherwise the revenue from the SARU will never be utilised in a more constructive manner and it will result in a mass migration of South African talent.
chris
Guest
Nick Its true that players aren't all the same and some will flourish in a different environment and that it is unfair to compare the development of 30yos to that of 23yos, but as a general rule I don't hold French club rugby in high regard. The one factor being the product I see on television. I have tried watching top14 games, I really have, but most of the games are really rubbish. Yes my opinion is completely subjective etc, etc. The other factor that is hard to ignore is the lack of success of the French national side. Yes they have made the world cup final, but they have also lost to Tonga, lost to Australia by fifty and came last in the 6N. Frans Steyn might be an exceptional example, but I was lead to believe that he did pretty well in France. Another example is Maruis Joubert who left for france in his prime, but returned old, slow and out of shape. Yet another example is Sivivatu, lauded for his club form, but clearly overweight. You mention Joe van Niekerk as an example of player who has done well in France. Truth is he was under-rated in South Africa before he left and (given the limited sample I've seen) his forms since has been a little overstated.
ohtani's jacket
Guest
Fourie was one of the outstanding players of last season and voted onto the team of the season along with George Smith and Male Sa'u. Tusi Pisi was another foreign player who took home an award (best player of the knock out stages.)
Ben.S
Roar Guru
But I think there's a significant distinction: what happened with Mourtiz Botha can't really be helped, however, what is an issue is poaching like Ireland have done with CJ Stander and Jake Heenan, and likewise what Scotland are doing, albeit slightly differently, with Josh Strauss and WP Nel. However, that aside it's basically only the French and Japanese markets that can afford big name Super players, and I don't see how you can fight that? I still think this year is no worse than previous years in terms of player loss, and South Africans (from personal experience) like to travel, so there'll always be player movement. I don't see a realistic solution, but I also don't think it's a problem if a player moving overseas is professional. Fran Steyn is a fat joke ATM, but look how well Frans Louw played last season.
Ben that is exactly the attitude Jurie Roux of SARU has, it is what it is and we can do nothing about it. It is a defeatist attitude and can only become more of a problem. We already have representatives who played for Australia, England, France, Ireland and Italy, pretty soon Scotland will join the fray. And all because our CEO said there is nothing we can do about it. At least try to curb the migration, you might not stop it completely, but without trying you resign yourself to the inevitable.
Ben.S
Roar Guru
I don't think it's any more of an issue now than it has been previously. Habana is near the end of his career, Bekker is injury prone and maybe Kruger just didn't want to work with Meyer? Could be a number of reasons. The real issue IMO is Japan, with players popping over there for short-term contracts. They'll always be SA players moving to France because of the time zone and tourism.
Well Jaque Fourie scored 11 tries in 12 outings during 2011 season, doesn't seem to be that hard.
nickoldschool
Roar Guru
Chris, just saw your comment mate. i think it's debatable although true for franz Steyn. It depends on the position, the club they join, what level they had when they left etc. Habana isn't going to get any better there at 30yo. But is he getting any better in SA now anyway? Dunno. Steyn didn't put the effort in. If he had been as lazy in SA, he would have regressed too. When it comes to the level inherent in both countries, I would like to believe that France has good coaches, good facilities etc and in many aspects is at the same level than SA. Then there are many factors which come into account. If we generalise, I would say backs wont probably learn much there. young forwards? Probably. I reckon Van Niekerk is a better player now after a few years there than he was when he left. Botha, Steenkamp? Probably not due to their age mostly but I would argue we in France know a couple of things about scrummaging and forwards play too.
ohtani's jacket
Guest
Just a word on Japanese rugby. It's not the cake walk people make it out to be. The players train hard for longer hours and while the contact isn't as hard as Super Rugby injuries do happen. It's rare that a foreign international succeeds in Japan. They certainly don't take the composition by storm. Aside from the Tony Browns and George Smiths, it's the tier down who are generally more successful like David Hill and Stephen Bates at Toshiba.
Cheers Nick, good chat.
nickoldschool
Roar Guru
Yep that's very true mate, the risk factor is definitely bigger. Thats why in the case of rugby, I think I would naturally be conservative and not select the majority of players who are overseas as SR remains the benchmark. But this decision would be based on what as a coach/ selector I think, not based on a rule a bunch of blokes with ties at the federation has voted a few years back. An overseas player would have to be outstandingly better than a player in the country. This will be at the coach discretion, not the federation. In all honesty, how many kiwis, saffas and Aussies based abroad would get the nod based on perf only? I would say max ten altogether, maybe even less. deans would not select Giteau, Lyons and the others too. burgess? Maybe maybe not if he had stayed there. I would not: he lost his starting XV spot to a young french guy, spent the year on the bench. Sorry mate, you're not in. This would not change things drastically IMO. Anyway, good discussion and always good to see another point of view.
chris
Guest
Nickoldschool The point I was making was that selecting a national side isn't about selecting the best individuals it is about selecting the players that will best help you win. Frans might or might nor be one of the most talented players eligible for selection, but playing in France hasn't made him a better player and he has been overtaken and outperformed by players that stayed local. I would suggest, and I believe the evidence supports this, when it comes to international rugby players in the South African system perform better than those playing France regardless of the marginal difference in individual talent.
Ok, we are part agreeing, it still however remains difficult to assess a player from afar. Lets take Johan Louw as an example for last year, he was the one Bok that really performed, he came from the UK and made and impact, but was it mere luck or coincidence that he performed, the others didn't. So whenever you assess a player from overseas based on only a sample of what he has done on video tape it doesn't give you the full impact on what he did or didn't do. Meyer can go to a rugby match and assess Brussow as an example, or a Ruan Pienaar, there he can see the total match situation with every kick, something a video recording doesn't do, you are dependant on the producer. Compare that to Ruan Pienaar playing in SA. That makes it a risky decision to select a player based overseas. My question is, is it worth that risk? So you are risking something you can't fully assess compared to a loyal player you can.
Yes, a balance is important, but unless we have full details of revenue, expenses etc it is only speculation on our part. The point remains though, we are not running at optimal capacity, whether it is 8 pro teams, 10 pro teams or whatever.
Jerry
Guest
I'm saying that while they don't care much about it and while public interest has suffered due to this, it's nothing compared to how much public interest would suffer if the mass exodus that would inevitably happen if they allowed selection from overseas leagues.
chris
Guest
A balance needs to be found between quantity and quality. I don't think getting really small unions playing with the big boys will grow the pie enough to balance out the extra cost involved in having that many fully pro teams and that the disparity between the haves and have-nots will only devalue the overall product.
nickoldschool
Roar Guru
i actually agree with this point. And my answer would be simple: dont select the bloke. To be selected, i do agree that the guy has to perform at the same level or a higher level. I agree 100% that a bloke who would choose say Japan, Hong Kong or whatever below par championship, would not be taken into account in my selection. So you see, in this case i would probably not have selected a Nonu for example. I am talking about guys who play at a similar or better level (if possible). Which means the 3 european leagues (Eng, Fr and Celt + Ital). On top of that, these players woul have to play imo in some of the top teams, not a bottom of the ladder franchise. Botha, Van Niekerk and co at Toulon, yes, they should be assessed. Thats my point! the level and level only should be taken into consideration, not the location. Michalak at the Sharks: good level, he has to be taken into consideration. Michalak in japan or in club rugby (our sydney comp): no, he shouldnt even be considered. Thats what happens in all sports and thats what Sailosi and I meant with our examples! the French guys who make the national squad play for Bayern, Man U etc, teams which are better than french clubs. Players like Anlelka or Henry (you might have heard of them dunno) who chose the dollars of the USA or UE are not considered as they are playing in weaker leagues. And to go back to Franz Steyn example when he was in Paris: he was unfit, underperforming= sure he shouldnt be selected, based on his performance not his location. On the other hand, Kockott for ex or any players who is having a gereat season should be considered, based on their on field perf.
Nick, the reality is you don't know if they are better. Take Japan as an example, the players play less rugby, less high intensity rugby and if those guys all of a sudden have to run out for the Springboks, they won't be prepared for it. From amateur club rugby to semi professional rugby to international rugby there is a difference of three things, less time, less space and higher physicality. No matter how you skin a cat, a player needs to play at the required intensity all the time to have the ability to adjust that little step up every time. I Jaque Fourie has an easy time in Japan because of the opponents he plays, he will have it so much easier to break through weaker defenders, he will have more time to make decisions and more space to do it in. Then he comes to SA and play the All BLacks which there is no comparison to, no space, no time, physical. How long and how many matches before he compensates for that?
1 - Yes it is true there might not be more viewers, but there will be more matches. Currently the Currie Cup is but 30 matches, you earn revenue per match, if you had more teams you would proportionately earn more money which would mean you can pay more players. 2 - Agree merchandising, gate and sponsorship will make a difference, however by employing a sort of salary cap will help smaller unions, Sponsorship comes with exposure. 3 - Boland or any other smaller union will be able to hold onto more players, because they can pay them, because you have more teams play there will be more talent on show, hence more depth and wider variety of players to select from. 4 -Salary - Salary cap can work on domestic level, SARU can sign an additional contract with the top 3 or 4 players in each position which means those 45-60 players are available at all times. Rather than contracting 10 or 20 Boks, contract 45 on a yearly basis based on the performances of the individuals of the previous years. This means that no matter who you play for , if you are good enough even if you play for Border, SARU will sign you on a retainer. An additional match fee is then earned if you do get a call up. In my view if SARU contracted the top 45 players over and above their salary cap at their franchise, they manage to retain more star players within SA irrespective of which franchise they play for.
nickoldschool
Roar Guru
No worries biltong, I think we wont agree on that and its fine. Tbh your words do make sense and the only answer i would have to your question (why penalise etc) would be "because the other one is better' (in the case where the best player is overseas). I dont see myself as a traitor because i left the country where i was born and i dont see players who head overseas as traitors eithers. Plus the ones who stay here might do so just because they dont have a similar offer? Would they stay in oz, SA etc if they were also offered twice as much elsewhere? maybe, maybe not. It is a tough call and i am just following my heart and soul on that. Chris; well as a french and still very strong supporter of my country yes, I do agree with you that accepting soooo many foreigners has weakened the national team! I believe in quotas tbh, much tougher and stricter than those currently in place with ther JIFF etc. You see, my own philosophy penalises me and my team too. Proof that its not a black and white answer i would say.
chris
Guest
Focusing only on age confuses the issue. Tight forwards and outside backs mature at different stages of their careers. A thirty year winger is practically a pensioner while a tight forward will be coming into his prime. There is also a differences between players in the same position and I think guys like Fourie Du Preez, Bekker and Habana know their bodies are no longer up to it. I don't begrudge these players their send-off and it is up to the youngsters to step up and take their place. International illegibility a whole different issue and the naked poaching performed by some countries should be dealt with by the IRB, but that is a separate issue. There are three problems with a larger domestic competition as I see it. 1- It is true that television revenue make up a large portion of the income of pro teams, but the income a competition can generate is dependent on the number (and disposable income) of their viewers. If there aren't people to watch SWD it doesn't matter if it is at the stadium or on the television that they are not watching them, then the tv deal will simply not be worth that much money. 2- Even if you set the TV money as an equal base, financial success (and ability to contract players) will be determined by the marginal factors such as sponsorship, merchandising and ticket sales. Also success breeds success so the differences will only grow larger over time. One only has to look at the difference between Man U and say Wigan to realise that equal tv money does not translate into equal budgets. 3- Boland wouldn't be able to hold onto the likes of Willie Le Roux for the same reason the Lions couldn't hold onto Joe van Niekerk, Jacques Fourie, Willem Alberts or Schalk Brits. Players want to win championships and have a shot at playing international rugby and the moving to a stronger team is the best way of doing that. And before you mention a salary cap, consider that this conversation started as discussion of how South Africa must keep players playing local, artificially limiting the amount that the Stormers, Bulls and Sharks pay their players is hardly going to help keep talent playing locally.