Ken Borland

It seems over the last couple of weeks that myself and my rugby writing colleagues have been speaking about transformation in rugby as much as we have been speculating over Heyneke Meyer’s final World Cup selection.

A common theme in these discussions has been that transformation is not so much about writing the wrongs of the past, but more about ensuring that Springbok rugby grows stronger and stronger; at the moment it is a minority sport in South Africa (however passionately it is supported) and it’s just common sense that taking the game to more communities will increase the talent base and therefore improve the standard of play.

There are about 500 000 rugby players in South Africa and, although the majority of those are undoubtedly White and Coloured, there are strong areas of Black representation. The Eastern Cape is a hotbed of rugby and anyone who says the sport isn’t part of Black culture should go and pay a visit to that province, where the passion for the oval ball outweighs that for football in many areas.

Transformation is about providing equal opportunities to these communities, who are undoubtedly lagging behind socio-economically due to the injustices of the past. I’ve heard many South Africans complain about the All Blacks and the Wallabies and their use of players from the Pacific islands, but we have a vast reservoir of talent that is lying untapped – we should be worried about our house and getting that in order. I am sure the Springboks will be even stronger once we maximise the talent from the Eastern Cape.

One of the other gripes I hear all the time is “So when will transformation end?”

I am indebted to supersport.com rugby editor Johan Coetzee for giving the best answer to this question: When a rugby player born in Mdantsane has the same chance of making it as one born in Waterkloof.

And for those who accuse Bafana Bafana of not being fully representative: more whites have played for the national soccer team than Blacks for the Springboks.

For the majority of young Black rugby players, their challenges to success on the field are far greater – they often come from poor backgrounds where things White prospects can take for granted like nutrition, transport, decent facilities and familial support are conspicuously absent.

Even if they do make it to a professional level, their chances of gaining selection are smaller than their White counterparts, according to a thesis by Jacques du Toit of the University of Cape Town, who found that between 2007 and 2012, playing times for Whites at all levels from Vodacom Cup actually increased while that of Blacks decreased.

Through my friendship with several Black rugby writers and broadcasters, I have heard a common refrain that it is still not a level playing field at professional level, never mind the vast disparities that exist at grassroots, and the statistics seem to back that up.

The first thing that the South African Rugby Union need to do is improve access to rugby in schools across the land. Cricket South Africa have asked for the assistance of government in taking their sport into schools and earlier this week they signed an operational agreement with the departments of basic education and sports and recreation which will improve opportunities at disadvantaged schools.

Rugby needs to do the same; government has to come to the party if transformation is going to happen.

Secondly, Saru have to ensure that there is more opportunity in professional rugby for Black players to shine. That is their area of jurisdiction and, whether by quotas or some other mechanism, we cannot have a situation where levels of representation have not improved since the 2007 World Cup.

Again, they could take a leaf out of cricket’s book.

Omphile Ramela was a journeyman batsman who had never averaged over 35 in a South African domestic season, until 2014/15 when CSA’s increased targets forced the Cape Cobras to play him in just about all their games. Suddenly, given decent opportunity ie a run of games, he blossomed, averaging 48 for the Cape Cobras as they won the four-day title, and earning him a place in the SA A squad.

This week he scored a century against India A as SA A enjoyed their best day of what had been a dismal tour up till then.

Now that’s what you call transformation.

There is an old saying in sport that “the closer you get, the harder it is”, so we probably shouldn’t be surprised that the Springboks have had a serious wobble shortly before the World Cup and that coach Heyneke Meyer seems to be feeling the pressure more than ever.

So we might be going into the World Cup on the back of five successive losses for the first time since 2006, or the Springboks might win today in Buenos Aires and end that streak; either way it won’t really matter much come the World Cup because the concerns will still be there.

There have been encouraging performances against Australia and New Zealand, but we still haven’t won, and then last weekend was one of the lowest points in Springbok history, so we actually don’t know whether Meyer has the team on the right track or not.

Which brings me to one of the topics making big news this week, the allegation that Meyer has already signed a renewal to his contract. My understanding is that the report is false; the South African Rugby Union have been in talks with the coach about a possible extension of his term, nothing more. It would beggar belief if they have actually given Meyer the job for the next four years already, given that we have no idea how the Springboks are going to perform in the World Cup; a quarterfinal exit now suddenly looks possible based on the ugly showing in Durban last weekend.

Continuity is an attractive prospect and many people point to how Graham Henry was kept in the role of All Blacks coach despite failing at the 2007 World Cup, and of course ended up winning the title in 2011.

But Henry had won the Tri-Nations for three years in a row prior to the 2007 World Cup, so he was clearly on the right track but just lost a single game in the knockout stage. While Henry had plenty of silverware to show for his CV, sadly Meyer does not.

While I firmly believe Meyer has achieved a lot, keeping us in touch with the All Blacks as they raised their dominance of world rugby to new levels and inculcating a more high-tempo, fluid style of play in the Springboks, he has to be judged on the end goal, which is the World Cup, simply because it is his last chance to actually win something. Even the rankings aren’t on his side, with our drop from second to fifth duplicating what Peter de Villiers (how unsavoury his bitter comments have been) managed to do.

I’m also a firm believer in coaches having a shelf-life with a particular team and South African rugby has always been set up around the four-year cycle of World Cups, no coach has been in the job longer than that.

I think it’s unfair on a lot of players if there is one Springbok coach for eight years, unless he’s won the World Cup, because that’s basically the career-span of the average player these days and a really good talent could be wasted by never getting a chance at international rugby simply because he’s not the type of player the coach wants. There are several stars in the Western Cape who fit that bill and Jaco Kriel of the Lions is also a prime example.

At the moment, it looks as if the old guard of Fourie du Preez, Willem Alberts, Duane Vermeulen, Victor Matfield and Jean de Villiers are going to have to rescue the Springboks’ World Cup campaign and Meyer’s hopes of continuing in the job, but we have no idea whether their superman capes still fit them.