Ken Borland

There has been probably more activity in the offices of Loftus Versfeld than out on the field recently as director of rugby and head coach Jake White decides who gets one of the 45 Bulls contracts he is limited to and he admitted that some of the players in the squad named on Monday to play the Pumas in Mbombela on Tuesday have already been told they are going to be released.

So while the Prep Series warm-up match will not give some players the opportunity to sway White’s mind, he did say he still wanted to be fair to them by giving them game time that could get them noticed by other franchises. The former Springbok coach is intent on creating a super-squad at Loftus, full of internationals, to challenge the powerhouses of the North.

“There are some players that I want to see if I should re-sign them or not as we are planning for the Rainbow Cup and there are some juniors I have not seen as much as I’d like. Combinations are on trial too and of course some of these players could start in the Rainbow Cup, where I have to make sure our squad is good enough and our combinations are tried and tested.

“But I’d like to be fair to every player so I don’t wait right to the end before they know they need to make other plans. I’m trying to create a really talented group, a squad that can beat teams in Europe that have Test players on the bench. They don’t have average players filling in places in the squad. So my mind may be made up about someone, but I still want to give them game time so they can prick up the ears of other franchises,” White said on Monday.

One of those unfortunate players who is in the squad to play the Pumas but will be released is utility back Clinton Swart, who White signed in July 2020 and clearly rated very highly after coaching him in Japan. But the inspirational fashion in which Cornal Hendricks has fitted in at inside centre and the promise shown by Chris Smith as the back-up flyhalf have meant Swart’s opportunities have been limited. And with Springboks Johan Goosen and Damian Willemse probably arriving in Pretoria later this year, White said he could see no space for the 27-year-old.

“I know Clinton very well and I have a bit of a soft spot for him because he’s a great, tough guy who trained hard. He added value, but has been unfortunate that other players have developed so much in a short space of time. Cornal was named the best back in the Currie Cup and with Chris going so well, it was impossible to play Clinton and we’re struggling to commit to him long-term.

“So my mind is made up, I’m glad we helped him and I hope he can find something else. It’s no secret we’re looking at Damian and Johan could be coming, so we will have several permutations for an explosive backline. If a player has to leave a champion franchise like the Bulls, I like to think their market value will be much higher because they’re playing in a province where the best are playing,” White said.

Bulls: David Kriel, Madosh Tambwe, Marnus Potgieter, Marco Jansen van Vuren, Stravino Jacobs, Chris Smith, Embrose Papier, WJ Steenkamp, Tim Agaba, Nizaam Carr (C), Janko Swanepoel, Jan Uys, Mornay Smith, Joe van Zyl, Gerhard Steenekamp. Bench – Janco Uys, Jan-Hendrik Wessels, Nolan Pienaar, Reinhardt Ludwig, Werner Gouws, Bernard van der Linde, Clinton Swart, Richard Kriel, Henco Beukes, Willie Potgieter, Dawid Kellerman.

Recently-retired Proteas hero JP Duminy was first chosen for South Africa in 2004 and he says the honour of first representing his national team was spoilt by the “eye-opening” divisions he saw in the squad back then.

“I acknowledge that when I made my first-class debut for Western Province in 2002, the main reason I was selected was not necessarily based on performance, I was 17 years old and seen as a talented youngster with potential. I wasn’t a victim in the cricket structures, I got opportunity based on the colour of my skin, that kickstarted my career and two-and-a-half years later I was representing South Africa.

“My family and I were ecstatic but my experience on that 2004 tour of Sri Lanka was quite an eye-opener, the team was so fragmented, all in different groupings. I needed to find my comfort zone because I was very fortunate in my upbringing that I never really experienced Apartheid, my family shielded me. So I came into the national team all excited and wanting to engage. But the tour did not go well and I was left out for a while.

“We had no idea what it meant to come together and represent something bigger than ourselves, we all just gravitated to our own cultural groups. Outside the game, we were certainly segregated. I wanted to explore new relationships, asking people ‘Can I go out to dinner with you?’ You need your team-mates to be successful and it was only in 2010 that we took cognisance of that,” Duminy told a recent Ahmed Kathrada Foundation webinar on racism in cricket.

Duminy’s graduation to top-class Proteas batsman came on the 2008/9 tour of Australia and although he admits to probably not fulfilling his true potential in Test cricket, he became one of South Africa’s best and most enduring white-ball cricketers. He was there in the thick of things when the Proteas changed their culture to become more inclusive and embrace diversity under the captaincy of Graeme Smith.

“We had a culture camp in which Ahmed Kathrada himself shared his experiences. Those were the kind of stories we needed to hear to understand where we came from. Even now, people have probably still not healed and we can’t move on until we acknowledge that people have been hurt. How Lungi Ngidi was treated speaks volumes for what still happens in this country.

“I played 326 games for my country so I had my opportunity. People obviously saw a lot of ability and you can ask ‘Did I fulfil my talent?’ Probably not in Test cricket, but the white-ball numbers are there. I have seen things happen, just not necessarily to me. But I have been on the field when others have been emotionally abused in how they were spoken to.

“An example was batting with Ashwell Prince in a provincial game and he received harsh words, including the K-word. But the type of character he is, it just fuelled him to show them what he can do. Why I did not speak up is an important reflection for me and it’s probably because I was in a fortunate position, I was benefiting. I need to take responsibility for that,” Duminy said.

The elegant left-hander now wants to nurture grassroots talent through his JP21 Foundation and he says transformation needs to move away from merely ticking boxes.

“Transformation has become a humungous topic but do we really understand what it means? A tick-box scenario means the game is not going to transform, that’s an external focus and it needs to be internal, hearts need to transform. Transformation represents opportunity, not just a name on a sheet of paper, which unfortunately has been the government approach.

“The foundation used to have a bursary scheme but I’ve come to realise that is not the way to go because it takes those kids out of their comfort zone. We need to plough back into their own communities, ensure they have better facilities and coaching. There is not enough focus on grassroots and we are trying to revive the game in local communities. There are millions spent on transformation and these funds need to be used properly,” Duminy said.

SA Rugby CEO Jurie Roux said recently that every union whether provincial or international is going to join up with private equity partners either sooner or later. Rugby has been one of the slowest sports to embrace professionalism though and I can hear many fans wailing that private equity is going to ruin the game.

“Private equity in rugby will have a massive influence, it will probably control rugby. And yes, SA Rugby is in discussions with private firms, but I don’t think there’s a union that’s not talking to someone. We all live in a post-Covid world that is now a much smaller pond and there is the opportunity now for investors to buy things at much cheaper prices. Private equity is here to stay, you’ll either join early or late, but join you will,” Roux said in an online press conference earlier this month.

There is perhaps going to be understandable anxiety that rugby is going to end up in the same sort of mess as the Premier Soccer League has with the controversial sale of the famous BidVest Wits club to a little-known National First Division club, Tshakhuma Tsha Madzivhandila, based in Limpopo. Thanks to BidVest cynically pulling the plug based purely on financial considerations, 99 years of history is down the drain, a club that has won nine top-flight trophies and produced players such as Gary Bailey, Peter Gordon, Richard Gough, Sam Magalefa, Thulani Hlatshwayo and Benson Mhlongo for all intents and purposes no longer exists.

Never mind Western Province leaving Newlands, can you imagine the outrage if it was announced that the Bulls were moving to Polokwane and would henceforth be known as the Buffaloes?

But let me allay your fears by pointing out that rugby has mechanisms in place to prevent such stupid things from happening.

Before going to market, a union will split its assets between a commercial/professional arm, which will largely deal with corporate matters like sponsorships, advertising, marketing and broadcast deals, and an amateur arm which will hold assets like the stadium (whether they own it or have a rental deal) and ‘intellectual property’ like the team name.

Stakeholders can then buy shares in the commercial/professional arm. A private company can buy 25% of those shares and the union gets the cash, while the equity partner takes dividends while also hopefully driving up the commercial value of those properties.

Even though SA Rugby’s constitution now allows for private companies to own up to 74% of a union’s professional arm, as long as the ‘amateur’ administrators have done their paperwork correctly then properties like the team name or where they play should be totally protected even if the union is now a minority shareholder.

The Bulls have been amongst the first unions to really make private equity work for them, with Patrice Motsepe’s African Rainbow Capital Investments and Johann Rupert’s Remgro each owning 37% of the Blue Bulls Company. First prize to them because the influx of cash has allowed the Bulls to hire big-name coaches in John Mitchell and now Jake White, who is totally revamping the team with a host of quality additions to the player roster.

Perhaps the first thing for a union to ensure is that there is synergy between themselves and their private equity partners, so that they can work together to run a successful team.

Unfortunately there have been two unions in the news lately for getting it all wrong – the Eastern Province Rugby Football Union and the Western Province Rugby Football Union. Both those beleaguered unions seem to be suffering from a bunch of rank amateurs trying to run multimillion rand businesses.

After years of wrangling seemed to be coming to an end with the signing of heads of agreement to sell Newlands to Investec, WPRFU president Zelt Marais has unilaterally decided not to sign off on the rest of the deal, despite already taking an advance of more than R50 million from Investec. Interestingly, the WPRFU also owe Remgro R58 million for a loan. These are powerful enemies to have and one fears that the once proud union could be heading the same way as Eastern Province.

The embattled Port Elizabeth franchise just seems to lurch from one crisis to the next and fresh problems are now springing up between the company that holds the majority shareholding in the Southern Kings and the EPRFU.

Roux was not specifically talking about the Southern Kings or Western Province, but his message certainly applies to them when he said political interference tends to surface when administrators try to run their franchises as an amateur entity.

But to borrow from Saturday Citizen deputy editor Brendan Seery’s excellent Column, for every couple of Onions that have to be dished out to unions, there will be more Orchids given out to those who make private equity work.

Simply put, rugby is unable to survive this post-Covid world without them so, like the Wallabies and scrums, every union just has to find a way of making these partnerships work.

As we have seen so often in rugby, making changes to long-standing rules of the game almost invariably brings unexpected consequences and there has been a lot of talk recently about doing away with one of cricket’s most famous traditions, a move which I believe will boomerang badly on the sport.

South African captain Faf du Plessis was the latest to bring up doing away with the toss, although his beliefs lost some credibility because they came straight after the Proteas had been mauled in their two Tests in Sri Lanka.

Various high-profile Australians have also backed the ending of the toss, but again, these comments were mostly made after they had lost the Ashes in England.

Proponents of the eradication of the toss propose that the visiting team just gets to choose whether they want to bat or bowl, thereby supposedly removing home advantage, which the anti-toss advocates say has become a major problem in world cricket.

Happily, a couple of months ago the ICC Cricket Committee discussed doing away with the toss and decided that it was an integral part of the game and should be spared.

No doubt they had a better grasp of the actual facts surrounding the issue. Home ground advantage has always played a role in cricket, as it does in just about every sport, but winning or losing the toss actually does not have a major effect.

In this decade, the team winning the toss still only wins 43.78% of Test matches, so it is not a massive advantage. There is a slight benefit because only 35.13% of teams that lose the toss go on to win the match. Historically, Australia are the only side that wins more than 50% of the Tests in which they have won the toss, and even then it’s just 50.49%, only slightly higher than their overall success rate of 47.16%.

I believe giving the visiting team total control over what they do first would have a major bearing on the game, which is where the unintended consequences come in, especially in countries like India or New Zealand.

It’s fair to say the weather is out of the control of the people who prepare the pitches in those countries and they can only do so much to negate the effect of overhead conditions. Doing away with the toss would grossly undermine teams like India and New Zealand – in the heat of the sub-continent, dry, dusty, deteriorating pitches are almost inevitable and India would be batting second every time; conversely, New Zealand is usually pretty damp and overcast and the Black Caps would find themselves sent in to bat every time.

It would happen often in England as well that the home team would automatically have to bat at the most difficult time and it could also affect the Proteas at home.

What it boils down to is the ICC actually using the mechanisms they already have in place to ensure fair conditions – they already have rules in the playing conditions when it comes to unfair pitches and they just need to enforce them more diligently, especially when it comes to the sub-continent and even some South African green mambas.

The perception that away teams are struggling does have some basis in fact. In this decade, the visiting team has lost 51.75% of Tests, up from 46.40% in the 2000s. It is interesting, though, that the away team has been winning Tests in the last 20 years at pretty much the same rate as they have been doing through the history of the game.

It is, of course, the number of away draws that has dropped significantly in recent times; down from 47.31% of Tests in the 1960s to just 20.76% in this decade. That is obviously a positive but it also points to the rise of T20 cricket and batsmen being able to hit the ball but not defend against the turning, seaming or swinging delivery.

The problem is not the toss, it’s modern-day batsmen being ill-prepared for foreign conditions, and sometimes the ICC allows the home union to get away with cheap shots in terms of pitch preparation.