gn100 says...

@kybone - I understand the challenge for NH clubs, but the coordination across all forms of the game is required - The Super 15 is shorter than NH competitions, due to internationals - the SH countries have ensured the windows exist. The ITM cup and club rugby does now get comprimised in NZ, but the approach is that everyone wants their players in the international match, even if it compromises their local team. As for NZ clubs, they do unfortunately go years sometimes without seeing their international players. Overall both the administrators and fans seem more in unison in SH countries in trying to reach an appropriate compromise

Posted 21:51 10th May 2012

kybone says...

Stellenbosched2 i don't think you need have any such worries about the club v country debate in England. At the moment international rugby takes complete presedence over the club game to the point where its possible that some seasons an international player will play as many if not more games for England than they will for their club. IMO there are too many international fixtures at the moment i.e. i think that both France and wales will have played 20 times between the start of the World Cup and the end of the autumn internationals (22/23 if you include world cup warm up games). Thats far too many!

gn100 i get your point but a point that i would make is that apart from the summer tours, all our international fixtures in the NH are played during the height of the domestic season meaning all the best clubs are without their best players for large chunks of the season. Someone correct me if im wrong but i believe that the SH international callender is arranged so that it doesn't disrupt the 15. So of course they're going to be glad when they get call ups because it doesn't affect them in an adverse way.

Posted 05:03 10th May 2012

Stellenbosched2 says...

Hi BokAvenger

Well done on a move away from the bitchy post. At first I suspected that the Catt got your tongue.

Hi JayStarr

I agree with your posts about the Cats reforming and the player drain. What concerns me to a degree is what I see as English rugby following in the steps of English football. Perhaps in ten years time we will have the situation where English club rugby is paramount and the national team is an irritating drain on club resources. Any comment from our Pom friends?

Posted 06:20 09th May 2012

kybone says...

tha_mai Iv just had a look at a map and i can completey see what you're saying. Argentina is miles away from NZ and Oz (i thought it was a fair bit closer than it was to Europe). Ideally they'd obviously play in some kind of south American Championship, but they've got no competition. The point that im coming from is if you're going to have Argentina in a southern hemisphere competition at international level then surely it stands to reason that their club sides play in the equivelant club competition. If Argentina don't get a team or two into Super Rugby at some point then basically WHATS THE POINT!! Theres no point in having the national team playing in a high level competition if theres no clubs in Argentina to create and develope the players. They're always going to struggle in terms of player quality and the logistics of getting the squad together and will almost inevitably get kicked back out of the Tri nations at some point.

StunTheMullet what are you going on about. Of course Argentina joining the 6N wasn't a good fit for several reasons- It would have created a 7 team tournement which would take a minimum of 7 weeks to complete (with no weeks off other tha your bye week), almost the entire tournement would be played on the other side of the world ( there is obviously a fair amont of travel involved in the Trinations, The last point is that the long term aim for Argentina is surely to get the majority of their players playing domestically and to generate the public interest to grow the game there.

Posted 16:34 08th May 2012

melkdave says...

@Jaysatarr

Your suggestion of the Lions and Cheetahs reforming into the Cats has alot of merit and advantages,it would certinally produce a better team and one less uncompetative team in the championship.As well as saving SARUs blushes.I hope this idea is being seriously discussed as the championship really needs as many teams able to challange for honours as possibly ,thus raising the championships whole standard of rugby .Which i feel has slipped im the last couple of years .I do point out though this is due mainly to new teams not yet being competative even those from the S12 expansion

Posted 14:16 08th May 2012

Sasquatch says...

@Bok Avenger:

Ja, very true. The traditional Afrikaner mentality is centered around the old bash 'em up smash 'em up, and then kick the ball through the poles approach. I d think that it's begining to change though, we're seeing far more dynamic rugby from SA teams (though the Stormers don't score enough tries and the Cheetahs concede too many).

The 1 000 000 figure is both registered and unregistered. The figure was an estimate that I read about in an interview with Regan Hoskins a few years ago.

Posted 13:39 08th May 2012

BokAvenger says...

@Sasquatch - what Sasquatch says is absolutely true re: SA's population make up and who plays rugby and which population group's are generally more interested in the game etc. - although I'm not sure where he got the 1million figure from. To me it sounds a bit high. I know a while ago there was a report claiming that most of SA's registered rugby players where black - the media made a meal of it but I personally spoke to a high ranking Saru official (who wasn't white by the way) who told me that it was nonsense and that there was a political slant to the report (ie. govt wanted more non-white representation in rugby).

At any rate, I think Sasquatch's point actually reinforces what I said re: cultural effect in rugby. It's absolutely true that in English-speaking schools in many parts of SA you play soccer at primary school and only start playing rugger at high school. That puts you at a huge disadvantage when suddenly you have to shift sports and play against Afrikaans kids who've been playing since they were 8. When I was a kid rugby was considered an Afrikaner game. I happened to grow up in rural SA and although I went to an English speaking school we still played rugby. However, I had to complete the last 6 months of primary school in Joburg and it was a huge shock to me to suddenly be thrust into an environment where everyone played soccer. People even mocked you for liking rugby as it was considered a "Dutchman" game (considered a slur to Afrikaners in SA). The point of what I'm saying is that culturally SA rugby is dominated by white Afrikaans influence which tends to favour size, aggression and a strong kicking game (eg. the Bulls). The effect is that people with a more open-minded approach are marginalised in SA which puts them off playing. I'm not necessarily talking numbers when I compare SA to NZ - I'm comparing intellectual approach to game.

Posted 10:40 08th May 2012

JayStarr says...

Regarding SH players leaving to ply their trade in the NH:

I really wish the SANZAR countries would start opening their minds regarding this. I can understand why we don't want our players to leave - I've been in this camp for a long time - but then I really thought about it:

Firstly, these rugby players, whose careers are only 10 years short on average, have the right to think of themselves and their families and make as much money as they can in this period...

But more importantly, by keeping them in your country and in their positions, you are preventing young players from coming through. Alternatively, by dropping your international selection policies and allowing your players to go play overseas (and still be elligible), you are creating a situation where you have FAR more players playing top class rugby...

Instead of having young guys sitting on the bench most of the season, you have them playing Super Rugby every week, while the older guys are playing Heineken Cup or Japanese Cup (or whatever their tournament is called...) So when you select your All Black or Springbok side, you'll have, for example, 9 or 10 top class fly-halves to choose from, instead of just 5...

In 50/50 situations preference should still be given to home-based players, but don't cut off your nose to spite your face by not selecting a top player just because he's playing abroad...

SH rugby can only get bigger and stronger by following this approach.

What do you guys think?

Posted 07:48 08th May 2012

ruckingkiwi says...

I agree, South Africa are starting to strike a nice balance of brute force and skill but they very rarely last a whole season with regards to physical and mental fitness, so it will be interesting if they can bring that to the table at some point. This is not a slur against them but looking at results they are bloody brilliant in Super rugby and start to lose it during the 3N and often get knocked over in the end of year tours. With longer and longer seasons it will be interesting to see how they go, possibly their top guys will forgo Currie Cup completely to stay fresh.

pierredelot1, rugby is the one sport in NZ that receives a proper level of funding, coupled with our cultural make-up, attitude, coaching, love for the game etc then the talent will keep on coming. Everyone has a crack at rugby at some point in their life but we still produce a lot of other quality athletes, I believe NZ is like 4th overall in history for Olympic success (per capita), I think it's just down to attitude and the outdoors, people here love to have a go, Aussie are the same.

Posted 07:35 08th May 2012

Stellenbosched2 says...

I think the traditional difference between SA and NZ rugby players has been cultural. From the outside it appears to me that the NZ rugby player is brought up believing that winning is absolutely vital for the nation, and all aspects must be considered. NZ players handle the publis relations far better than SA ones. Traditionally the SA rugby players would go into a mental laager when interacting with a ref or the media, and show a very surly face. It was a by-product of the Apartheid thinking, which was that everybody out there hated us, so don't even try and be nice.

I think the modern SA player is adapting and catching up. However, it appears to me that a New Zealander will always believe in the virtue of the local player, and always believe that the South African is a nasty bully who is always the guilty party.

In closing, I have the utmost respect for New Zealand rugby and what it has given the game we all love. However, as a South African I look upon New Zealand as an equal in rugby terms.

Posted 06:43 08th May 2012