An end to the Meyer era: What went wrong?

Just in case you all thought South African rugby is dead...look at the future of the game..the Blitzbokke. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jOvGnNEcD0Q This is the kind of game, the Boks might learn, if they got a decent coach, and a lost the fear of failure. "Behold the turtle. He makes progress only when he sticks his neck out." - James Bryant Conant

I see your point, OB. Makes sense. We shall see, re Kings. I suspect it will take time and a few horror stories before things get sorted.

Rob It didn't bother me about the pros and cons of SARU heading north to play rugby. If that's what they wanted to do then so be it - at the time, I just didn't want to believe SARU would do that to not only, its closest rugby foes but, the troika itself. And that was it from my viewpoint - how could SARU even think to do that to NZRU and ARU....threaten to leave unless they can get, another franchise. Now that the 6th franchise has been established, SANZAR faces the distinct possibility of legal litigation if, that franchise fails to get started. My concern now is does this potential problem become a concern for SANZAR or just SARU, on its own?? It appears, we have gone from a dummy spit by SARU to a sh*t dummy of a franchise called "The Kings". Funny thing is, I thought an extra franchise just may be a good thing, for SA rugby and SR footy, overall. In hindsight I admit, it could just be "a bridge too far" for SANZAR and that's, my greatest worry - SANZAR's sustainability, now comes into question.....without even considering what's happening, in Japan. So, fingers x-ed mate that this awful mess, gets sorted, quick smart.

Here's the latest from SA. Currie has just extended: - two more months now going from April to Oct (previously Jun - Oct) - team composition, by including Namibia I believe that domestic comp should overlap with the internationals (SR / test) and overtake all domestic cups: http://www.theroar.com.au/2015/02/14/australian-rugby-going-shute/

Gday Suzy, OB. SARU has taken over the Kings franchise, in the same way ARU took over the Tahs and Rebs: - Rebs have recently been sold to a PE firm, after a around couple of years ownership - Tahs are still owned by ARU. They were supposed to have been close be sold by now - There are several interested parties, after around 13 years of ARU ownership. - Tahs CEO, the ex RUPA CEO suddenly quit. So I guess the sale is KIV? dunno SARU has a lot more money than ARU and can probably afford to do a 'Tahs' if need be. I suspect they will do it more like the Rebs. Install a coach and team, the transition / sell to a owner before too long. With the new SR conference format, SA has even more local viewing content. I believe this further increases the value of the SA viewer market (and SANZAARGJ $ share). This should help underwrite EP et al Dunno about joining NH. Firstly its not practical considering the difference in seasons. Secondly how will SA fit within the different tournaments, and tiers. Thirdly, where in the calendar will these new teams fit? Finally, it would be a downgrade for SA. Its like Tiger Woods playing golf with me. Actually its like most people playing golf with me :)

Suzy SARU threatened SANZAR with the possibility of withdrawing from the SR/RC series and heading north, to play their rugby unless, they could get a 6th team entered. As far as I can recall, most NZ roarers suggested SARU should go north for all the good they offered in the SR and RC comps because it will save on costs......but, both NZRU and ARU were caught between a rock and a hard place. The rock being SARU's threat and the hard place being the next TV broadcast deal and the ramifications of a SARU withdrawal. Now that they've retrieved the dummy after that little spit, guess what happens...??? The 6th franchise is facing liquidity problems and the possibility of entering a team in the SR is at extremely long odds, unless something drastic is undertaken, from an administrative viewpoint. But, I hardly think that's the end of this sorry saga. Just think about the legal litigation that could follow if this 6th franchise fails to show-up and also, the impact if the Japanese franchise follows suit.....IMO, there will be some serious legal ramifications from Uncle Rupert and his eagles, because SANZAR failed to provide the service, that they are contracted to provide to News Corp. This ain't over mate till someone sings.....well, you know what I mean and, if you feel extremely worried now, just wait and see if the 6th franchise shows up or not.....cos if not, then all hell will break loose and I suggest, SARU will well and truly, be under the hammer.

Had one right with Atiga but I thought Nacewa was in the same boat...n'er mind, the point is made. Cheers for the chin-wag and Compliments of the Season, to ya.....

Great post Rob C. It’s amazing that it took an Australia to see the positive side of the South African situation. Look I am extremely worried about the South African rugby administration. How can they force SANZAR to get a sixth team in South Africa but they can’t pay the salaries of the Kings players. Totally incompetent administration. Also I am worried about the level of coaching. But your statement… “– Whilst highly controversial, Rugby is pushing boundaries of affirmative action, more than cricket as a benchmark (I think). Have a look at Currie / 1st Div. The numbers growth of blacks in Rugby is tangible. That is why they are starting to complain about SR / SB rep.” Reminds me that there has to be a change in South African rugby .The change that is coming in South Africa will happen from the grass roots up. I looked at the turbulent past South African political history from a different angle. I was reminded that South Africans can actually hold their heads high, in that thru a groundswell and grassroots feeling, there was a revolution. Whilst it was not completely bloodless, I don't think there in an example of any other country in the world, where the revolution was as “bloodless” (I can't think of a better word ) But less filled with revenge and hate, is what I trying to say. Nelson Mandela set an example of forgiveness for others to follow. South Africans themselves were the change agents. They innovated...they changed their own country from the bottom up. The Saffas have done it before and they can do it again.

There is merit in some of what you say OB but I don't have a problem with Atiga's All Black selection, or Nacewa's if he had been selected for the All Blacks - which he wasn't. Both are NZ born, therefore they are New Zealanders. The fact that they could be available for another country has no bearing on the issue at all. They are NZers and Atiga was selected fair and square for NZ. It didn't really stop him from being selected for Samoa because he wasn't actually Samoan, he is a NZer. Nacewa actually did play for Fiji as a sub in one game and later tried to have that annulled so he could be eligible for NZ. Being selected for his national team was probably the highlight of Atiga's career and I doubt he regrets that or wishes he could have played for Samoa instead. It seems that Nacewa playing for Fiji actually ruled him out of what would have been the highlight of his career. What perhaps should happen is that they make the residency rules much tougher so Fijians and Samoans don't end up playing for France or Ireland etc, but are forced to play for their country of origin.

To clarify, generally, speaking I dont just talk about winning SR and test matches. Rather the whole Rugby system with internationals as a litmus. re transformation. I think there are two countries competing as top transformers of their institutions. Aus and SA. I think the nature of SA's policies changes and the maturity of its Rugby community is streets ahead of Aus. But there are one or two things Aus is ahead of SA eg central contracts. re innovation. I think the top three is Eng SA NZ: - Eng focus is on grassroots and is duly rewarded for its focus on this. They are not ignoring their national team, but all their efforts are in engaging, educating and growing the community of Rugby lovers and players. They are the best in the world at this imo - SA are making many many changes both grassroots and national The pace and nature of changes is tremendous. - NZ already are a nation of Rugby lovers and are the peak of the game globally. So their rate of innovation at all levels is not as high. I think they will continue to maintain their top form, but I think (guess) others will catch up over time. re Juggernaut. I did not say they are a juggernaut, but once they click they will. Consider: - they still havent transformed their 23 man game into SR / test - But they still kick ass. - Once the sort out their attack, they will be v hard to beat, anywhere. As an aside, one of my fav contributions (innovations) to World Rugby is by SA from their isolation years: lineout lifting. Aus picked up on this, which gave them an advantage for another five or so years. NZ took over after that.

The intention wasnt to test your credentials, only ask you the extent of your SA Rugby research. btw we are both the product of flower power (born in 60s) Whilst I knew you follow ITM SR and test Rugby closely, I dont know how closely you follow other parts of SA Rugby. In any case, I claim no expertise, only that I am a very keen follower of ongoings of SA (and Eng) Rugby, though not as much as I follow Aus, slightly more than NZ. Because in recent years, SA has been making biggest the most rapid policy changes wrt new pathways, many of which are transformative FOR THEM. As a result there are: - mode 4 (labour) liberalisation: an increasingly healthy mixture of SA players and COACHES across the world, exposing them to new forms of Rugby. This is starting to change SA, with the Lions being the poster child - SA is the only country with a nationwide University competition, Varsity, starting 7 years ago in 2008 - a new cadre of players of '15 man' Rugby players and coaches, due to graduates from Varsity Cup and U20s moving to Currie / SR - Vodacom Cup in 98 which involves 4 nations - Whilst highly controversial, Rugby is pushing boundaries of affirmative action, more than cricket as a benchmark (I think). Have a look at Currie / 1st Div. The numbers growth of blacks in Rugby is tangible. That is why they are starting to complain about SR / SB rep. Impact and influence on other nations: - Vodacom Cup introduced and entrenched Argentina Rugby into SH Rugby - Aus NRCs rules are based on Varsity Cup rules, with out the all important scrum grips. Nor the dual coaches. - Aus, following SA, has opened NH based players as a feeder for the WBs Impact on SA? It will not be so quick after the 2007 Tsunami: where SA won the battle (RWC) but lost the war (global rejection / revulsion against 'forwards oriented footie'). It will be a generational transformation - ie not overnight. Consider NZ. You may recall all the head scratching and self doubt that NZ went through for a good part of 15 years whilst being defeated by Aussies who considers Rugby as a minnow sport, along with defeats to SA who just came out of the 'medieval ages' (isolation). It wasnt until some major changes and generational transition that NZ Rugby righted itself in the early 2000s. For SA, 2015 is the year the: - old guard collided with the new pathways - old guard SR and Currie coaches have been wiped out. All of them at the same time - old guard tried to play an open game. And failed miserably. 2016 is part two of their major changes. I do not expect them to be world beaters overnight. But I can see, the significant and painful changes they are making. Many Sth Africans believe its not enough. This is where I differ, because I think they have unrealistic expectations of the ability of complex institutions to flick a switch and get everyone to throw away 100+ years or tradition and training overnight. But that's another article (in the pipeline)

If it is true Harry, that's potentially a problematical statement. To turn it around the other way what you might be suggesting is there is no obvious and clear career and training path to SA coach -- because the skills required to be SB coach might be skills that do not add much to a Super rugby team. The well worn and traditional method is to reward results.

And in case my point got lost... If SA was about to be this juggernaut of world rugby, why aren't they already considering the talent and money they have had. Your views on transformation and innovation are more in keeping with hoping for world peace in my humble opinion. There is a lot more water to pass under that bridge, before most people believe that. But maybe as you say, it is due to my lack of understanding.

Lindsay I think until such time as there is a professional rugby outlet throughout the Pacific Islands, then all PI heritage players born outside of their heritage homeland, are firstly available for national selection, in their birth nation. Should they fail to achieve that selection, then they should be entitled to selection for their heritage-based nation. Whichever selection comes first, then dictates which nation, that player can play test rugby for......although, I do have another rant with that scenario also except, it may be too difficult to resolve. Over time, there have been selections of PI heritage players, particularly in NZ, to play for the ABs who have then played anywhere from 5mins-25mins, of total rest rugby time, in the AB jersey. Of course, without any further selection, these players are now prevented from playing for their heritage island, national side. What I'd like to see is a rule that suggests a player must play a full 80min test match to earn a test cap and not a partial test, in their debut test. Once that first test cap is earned, then any non-selections thereafter, will be unfortunate and unlucky. I've always queried why firstly John Mitchell's choice of Ben Atiga back in 2003 and Ted Henry's choice of Isa Nacewa in 2007 (I think??) - when Ben played a massive 20mins in his debut test and Isa played a momentary 2mins, in his debut test. Thereafter, neither player regained AB selection but they were in their prime and unfortunately, both were prevented from playing for their home island, national sides - I think Ben was Samoan and Isa was Fijian - because of those brief times they spent on the paddock, in the black jersey. It's not the norm to decline an AB jersey (unless you happen to be Brad Thorn) but then again, I don't believe that there is a fairness in any such selection if, time spent on the paddock in their debut test, is anything less than a full match which, just happens to exclude those same players, from any further test participation. This is my rant that I'd like WR to seriously consider and allow some flexibility, with any final decision. It's a biggie I know but IMO, I just think it warrants, more consideration.

all those international players in man city seems to be working well for england on the international stage

Are you 10? But yeah Rob I just started following the game last week. Maybe you should state your own expert credentials. If all you have is the ARU is taking some tips from SA rugby, then that is hardly justification for suggesting SA is a leading light in terms of innovation. If you really want to know I've watched Currie cup, SR and tests on TV ever since they have been televised in NZ. I grew up in NZ playing rugby fron 5 to 35 of which my highest achievement was to make it into the Waikato NPC side and I'm 50 years old now. Anf in all the changes and innovations I have witnessed from the days of apartheid through the riots in NZ to the eventual breakdown, reintroduction of SA to the international stage and all the development stuff I have read and seen on taking the game to the black community, I am yet to see them leading the world in terms of innovation and this big juggernaut on the horizon. So enlighten me. What are these amazing innovations that makes SA such a threat to rugby world domination. Don't tell me it is Australian rugby taking a couple of ideas from SA setup. Until SR, Samoa's setup was on par with Australia, with the exception of QLD playing NSW a couple of times a season.

Yes there certainly may need to be a rethink of the rules. BG Williams's son Paul played for Samoa, but Paul's son will only be eligible for NZ. But you have to draw the line somewhere. Remember Christian Cullen had Samoan ancestry. Where do you draw the line and say that you're actually not eligible? Is it based on how Samoan you look, so Cullen wouldn't have been eligible. This would be unfair and hard to police. Or do you just make a blanket rule that says "all NZ born Samoans are eligible for Samoa"? I dunno, but as you say we want to keep Samoan rugby strong, and it is likely to decline in the next ten to twenty years.

How about this Lindsay..... Born in NZ of Samoan heritage and the player goes to NH to play rugby. After 3 yrs residency, the player is entitled to NH national selection subject to where he lived for that duration. If that is the rule aside from G-P recognition, then how can we expect that player to return to Samoa to qualify for the residency rule.....my guess is, we can't because there is no professional rugby, in Samoa. WR will need to be flexible in their entitlement applications otherwise they run the risk of cancelling not just Samoa, but every PI nation that will be struggling to gain heritage-based players, who are not, country residents. And to that end, the only remaining outcome from that scenario, is the PI players who fail to obtain AB or for that matter WB selection, will venture north where the players are paid, to play club rugby and over time, qualify for national selection, through residency. Not a very logical outcome for World Rugby to contemplate is it??? Perhaps, we can only hope that this scenario is being considered to ensure PI participation in global tournaments, will continue.

While I agree with your sentiment OB, it remains to be seen whether sentiment or the rule will be applied. I suggest that World Rugby will operate on the rule, rather than the sentiment.

Gday Chivas, I dont know how familiar you are with SA Rugby other than watching SR tournaments and test Rugby. Have a closer look at SA Rugby. They have started to change, an in cases, break many key traditions in SA Rugby in the pursuit of evolving their game. The final straw in SA is Super Rugby and in its extension - test Rugby Aus Rugby has imitated many of SA Rugby policies, and the results are showing