Ken Borland

There seems to have been some misinterpretation of Jurie Roux’s comments this week to the extent that the Australian Associated Press news agency claimed that the SA Rugby CEO had made the call for legal action to be taken against New Zealand Rugby for their plans to basically pull out of SuperRugby as we know it.

The truth is likely to turn out to be almost the opposite. While Roux did say “New Zealand have kicked themselves out”, he also added that they had “every right to determine their own future” and that discussions were happening with all Sanzaar partners.

You see, the Covid-19 pandemic would almost certainly qualify as a ‘force majeure’, the trendy new legal term borrowed from the French for what we used to call Acts of God. A ‘force majeure’ is an unforeseen and uncontrollable circumstance that makes it impossible to fulfil a contract.

In terms of rugby, it is clearly impossible for SuperRugby in its usual format to happen in 2021 if international travel is not yet allowed, if there are strenuous quarantine measures still in place or if the paucity of flights makes overseas trips prohibitively expensive.

Roux did say that there are Sanzaar legal agreements in place and that if anyone ignored their commitments to them then they would be liable to legal action, but with that French word coming into play, it would clearly take some pretty soulless leadership to try and sue a union that is just trying to keep themselves afloat in this time of economic catastrophe.

The shoe is on the same foot when it comes to South Africa because even if New Zealand wanted to proceed with SuperRugby as per normal next year, our franchises probably wouldn’t be allowed into the country without quarantining for two weeks and the costs of travel would be unaffordable.

Roux is a shrewd man as well and, although he has never publicly dissed the brand, he would have been well aware that the current SuperRugby format had lost the support of the general rugby-loving public and was busy pushing SA Rugby into poverty. He admitted this week that for more than a year he has been looking at additional options for SA Rugby and said “we are a long way down that road already and some of those options probably suit us better”.
This surely means a move into the lucrative Northern Hemisphere market. The Springboks and our top four franchises have plenty to offer European competitions as well – it is not as if we are the peasants of the game, we are the world champions and one of the biggest broadcast markets for rugby in the world.

But while SuperRugby may well be discarded like the old, worn out pair of boots it is, there is no doubt South Africa want to maintain a good relationship with New Zealand, traditionally their greatest rivals. Roux spoke about how the Rugby Championship is not only a significant revenue-earner for SA Rugby but it also enables them to cross-subsidise so many of their other competitions.

Those Sanzaar legal agreements are going to force New Zealand, Australia and South Africa, and Argentina, to the negotiating table to thrash out whatever win-win-win solution they can come up with. Leverage is always the name of the game when it comes to negotiation and while South Africa have the numbers and therefore the money to bring to the table in a big duffel bag, and New Zealand also have a large bag based on their historical record as having the best teams in southern hemisphere competition and therefore the biggest drawcard, it would seem Australia and Argentina only have sachets to barter with.

Nobody would want Australian rugby to be isolated like their country was before James Cook arrived with his cutlass, but the fact is they are not in a position of strength when it comes to negotiating the future of Sanzaar.

It is not too surprising that New Zealand do not want to accommodate all five Australian franchises, but if allegations that they have been in clandestine contact with a couple of them are true then that would be as offsides as the former SA Rugby president who fired the Springbok coach by fax.

Whatever comes of the negotiations, though, it would seem South African rugby fans can look forward to a stronger Currie Cup-type tournament locally, a refreshed, shorter, crossover event with the other Sanzaar teams and more of our franchises dunking their toes into European competition.

With the British and Irish Lions touring here next year, the stars of the UK game could become the same sort of attractions/nemeses as the likes of Dan Carter, Christian Cullen, Richie McCaw and Stephen Larkham.

And given the time zone, watching our teams playing in Europe will be much easier for those of us who tend to suffer from moderate dysania.

Boeta Dippenaar and Pat Symcox are two former cricketers I have admired and whose company I have enjoyed from time to time, but I hope their faces are as red as tomatoes after their ill-judged reactions to Lungi Ngidi’s comments that the Proteas need to make a stand against racial discrimination.

For the record, Ngidi was asked a direct question about the Black Lives Matter movement and whether the Proteas team would seek to support it as the West Indies and England sides have done in their return to action in the Southampton Test.

Ngidi said: “It’s definitely something we need to discuss in person but we are all well aware of what is going on. It’s something we have to address as a team, as a nation as well because we’ve had racial discrimination in the past. It’s something we need to take very seriously, we need to make a stand like the rest of the world.”

Now saying a stand should be made against racial discrimination is surely not something so divisive that the Proteas would be halved into different camps for and against? Surely Ngidi was standing for something everybody can support, like being against gender-based violence?

So why the furious reaction?

It was another former Protea, top-order batsman Rudolf Steyn, who fired the first shot with a social media post that read: “I believe the Proteas should make a stand against racism, but if they stand up for ‘black lives matter’ while ignoring the way white farmers are daily being ‘slaughtered’ like animals, they have lost my vote.”

Firstly, it has to be in very poor taste to start bartering over whether you will support someone else’s right to life depending on them supporting your cause. Yes, All Lives do Matter, but in the world as a whole, the priority has to be to ensure that the importance of Black Lives are upgraded so that we no longer see the shocking, senseless deaths of people like George Floyd and Collins Khosa.

If someone told you that their father had died of a heart attack, would you say “what about all the people who have died of cancer”? If someone asked you to support research into eliminating breast cancer, would you say “only if you support anti-HIV initiatives”?

By responding to a question about Black Lives Matter, it by no means suggests Ngidi is against any other lives mattering. In fact, a furious response to Black Lives Matter suggests an attitude that they don’t matter as much as other lives.

Both Symcox and Dippenaar then replied highlighting the plight of farmers and farm attacks. Also a worthy cause.

Many critics of Black Lives Matter say it has become politicised but this is also true, perhaps even more so, of Farm Attacks. According to AfriForum’s own figures, there were 57 farm murders in 2019 and, while every one of those deaths is a tragic injustice, to somehow extrapolate that into an organised campaign of racial genocide is ridiculous. In fact, 57 murders a year is quite close to the daily figure for all murders in our terribly violent country. The Transvaalse Landbou Unie released a statement this week saying there had been 26 farm murders so far this year.

Or do some lives take priority over others? Which I guess is exactly the point of Black Lives Matter. As West Indian great Michael Holding put it this week, we all know White Lives Matter, that has never been in doubt.

Cricket in general has often been halfhearted in responding to issues of social justice so the efforts of the English and West Indian teams, and even the ICC match officials, have been tremendous to see.

I was also impressed with how Cricket South Africa’s relatively new director of cricket, Graeme Smith, handled the grenade when it was tossed to him at the same press conference as Ngidi’s. He was a huge driver of diversity and inclusivity when he was a Proteas captain, but he has not been a ‘suit’ for that long and has had a couple of mishaps already when it comes to dealing with political issues.

Smith said: “We are all very aware of what is going on around the world and our role as CSA. When the team gets together again we will figure out how to play an effective role in the Black Lives Matter movement. It’s important to have buy-in and for everyone to be invested. I have no doubt that will be the case, but to have the discussion is important. There certainly needs to be something done and we will discuss various ways of handling it in an effective and authentic manner.”

And the Titans, who have won more domestic cups than any other franchise, have also led the way in responding to the cause. The squad unanimously agreed that coach Mandla Mashimbyi should issue the following statement:

“We know only too well how important the Black Lives Matter movement is. We bat vehemently against discrimination of any kind, and we will always strive to provide opportunities within our Titans family for all the colours and cultures of our rainbow nation. We also want to lend our voice to those shouting for the scourge of violence against our mothers, sisters and daughters to stop.

“The only way we can stand against evil is by showing acts of love to people no matter their race, religion or gender. We should see love as the foundation that helps us find solutions, find refuge and hope because love is the foundation of life. If we can begin to view things through the perspective of love before race, religion or gender we will move forward as a society,” Mashimbyi said.

Bulls coach John Mitchell’s comments this week about how he is going to set about changing the entire model of how the franchise recruits and develops players reinforces the belief that South African rugby as a whole needs to take ownership of the fact that we are extremely wasteful when it comes to our talent.

The fact that we have so much rugby talent in this country is both a blessing and a curse. The downside of being so well-endowed with athletes is that very little attention is paid to putting systems in place that will get the best out of young players.

One gets the feeling that the current approach of our franchises’ recruitment officers is to just try and buy up as much talent as possible at Craven Week, let nature run its course and hope one or two of them turn into stars.

Contrast this with a country like Australia where rugby union has a small portion of the talent ‘pie’ and whatever players they have, they have to fully invest in them and maximise their potential. Jake White used to joke that if prop Bill Young, who played 46 times for Australia, had to pitch up at Stellenbosch University they would have sent him to the third XV straight away. But the point was that Young was ‘made’ into a solid Test front-ranker, whereas in South Africa he probably would have just disappeared.

By focusing on quantity and not quality, and by just worrying about who is going to play in the provincial U19 and U21 sides rather than developing the actual skills of the players, South Africa have come to the point where their SuperRugby squads are made up of many players who are not good enough to play in the competition, according to Mitchell, a former All Blacks coach.

Rugby in this country needs to stop being so insular and needs to be open to world trends, including those in other sports.

Even I, who usually uses watching football as a sleeping pill, have been impressed by many aspects of the Soccer World Cup and have been thinking how these could translate into the world of rugby union.

By staging a brilliant counter-attack to beat Japan at the death, Belgium produced a magnificent passage of play that was reminiscent of some of the superb tries scored by the All Blacks in recent years.

Any sports lover would have been impressed by Romelu Lukaku’s brilliant running off the ball and his dummy that set up Belgium’s winner; the lesson for rugby players was that often you can have more impact through what you do without the ball than with it.

And the image of football fans as being hooligans has been challenged by the splendid Japanese and Senegalese fans, who embody all that is good about sport, and they even cleaned up afterwards!

I have also been watching hockey this week and their new interpretations surrounding the use of the aerial ball or overhead might provide some help to rugby lawmakers currently grappling with the ball-in-the-air issues that are bedevilling their game.

Hockey have simplified the whole issue by basically saying whoever is under the ball has all the rights and cannot be played until they have the ball under control. Perhaps if the defender under the ball in rugby had similar protection it would limit kicks to being into space only and would eliminate all the aerial contests that are proving so difficult to control.

https://www.pressreader.com/south-africa/the-citizen-kzn/20180707/282282436055423

Judging by AB de Villiers’ comments after the Champions Trophy fiasco, South Africa could go speeding towards the 2019 World Cup having still not addressed the elephant in the dressingroom which is their continued, inexplicable failure to perform at their best in ICC knockout matches.

The Proteas are scheduled to play just 36 more ODIs before the June 2019 World Cup in England; they have played 36 ODIs since midway through their series in India in October 2015, just to give some perspective as to how quickly time will fly before the next showpiece ICC tournament starts.

And yet De Villiers maintained after the horrible showing against India last weekend that there was no lack of composure and the run outs and batting failures were not due to a mental problem. Given the skill levels of the players involved, it’s difficult to know what else could be the explanation.

It is probably a good thing, though, that the Champions Trophy disaster is still fresh in the minds as CSA begin the process to decide on who will be the Proteas coach that will guide yet another attempt at the elusive holy grail for South African cricket.

Two former Proteas coaches – who were both involved in coaching capacities during India’s memorable 2011 World Cup triumph – in Gary Kirsten and Eric Simons will sit on the five-man committee that will evaluate the applications and both have been outspoken about the problems South African players have in handling the pressures of ICC knockout matches.

It is one of the unwritten laws of sport that the most successful teams are able to shift pressure on to their opposition; sadly for the Proteas, they seem to crush themselves by piling pressure on to their own shoulders. In between ICC events, they are able to play freely and express themselves, at world cups they play totally differently – tentative and fearful cricket. Reading De Villiers’ autobiography, it is clear he has a Moby Dick sized obsession with winning the World Cup, an unhealthy obsession that probably does more harm than good.

The big difference between De Villiers and Virat Kohli is how the Indian captain invariably makes big runs when they are most needed; his 96 not out in the Champions Trophy semi-final was yet another example of that.

Whoever the Proteas coach will be, he needs to be able to free up the players when it comes to the high-pressure situations. The players need to pledge to each other that they will not change their games in knockout matches and it is the captain and coach who have to drive that.

No team plays with a greater burden of expectation than India, and yet Kirsten and Simons were able to get them winning and expressing themselves when they won the World Cup on home soil under immense pressure.

Simons raised some interesting points in the aftermath of the Champions Trophy loss, both in the SuperSport studio and in a subsequent conversation I had with him.

He pointed out that the Proteas never tried to shift the pressure India exerted on them with an excellent display in the field, India were never asked to try anything different.

When I asked him why India are consistently able to handle the pressure and expectation at ICC knockout events, he said he felt it was because their international players had come through a system featuring millions of cricketers so they have spent their entire lives ensuring they are on top of their game, they are always playing under intense scrutiny and, in a developing nation still wracked by poverty, it’s do or die for many of them. Natural selection and survival of the fittest in many ways.

“It’s not just these 11 Proteas players who have had the problem. CSA need to sit down and decide what to do, what do our teams lack? Somehow the players have got to be freed up … we saw them play differently against India. There needs to be a broader conversation about why? The world is asking the question, it’s time we did too,” Simons said.

I have no doubt Simons will bring the same questions to the panel that will decide the coaching situation moving forward.

But the first step in sorting out a problem is admitting you have a problem. As Paddy Upton, who was the mental coach when India, Kirsten and Simons won the 2011 World Cup, has pointed out, it’s part of the South African macho man psyche to never admit our vulnerabilities.

That has to change.

https://www.pressreader.com/south-africa/the-citizen-kzn/20170617/282269550387810