Having had a look at the new look Super 15 schedule for 2011 and reviewing the results of this year’s Tri-Nations and going back all the way to the End Of Year Tour last November it is becoming increasingly clear that our top rugby players are playing way too much rugby. Injuries have also taken it’ s toll on a number of Springboks and a few had to take care of long standing injuries such as Fourie Du Preez with his shoulder.
I cannot think of many Springboks who have not been affected by injuries during the last three years.
Obviously rugby is a contact sport and therefor injuries will occur naturally.
Problem is the number of matches the players are involved in these days cause some bodies to simply break down and there is simply less and less time for recovery.
Well respected Professor Tim Noakes warned SARU in Jan 2005 that after the exhaustive 2004 players were overplayed and this would show in their performances the next year. During 2004 Marius Joubert played 37 matches and Bakkies Botha 36, the following year was proof when they were widely criticised for taking a dip in form.
Professor Tim Noakes has also warned SARU that the tough matches the springboks played during 2009 would catch up and that John Smit in particular needed a three month break away from rugby.
He advised SARU not to play a number of Springboks during the Wales, French and two Italy Tests this year and rather give these players a much needed rest.
According to him, some of these players were close to burnout status and their form could suffer a severe dip and only go downhill from there.
Now it is understandable that as long as money is involved and a player still has the ability to drag himself out of bed without the help of a caretaker, he would put on the jersey and get ready for the battle ahead.
This brings me to the real question. What are the priorities of the respective role players in SA rugby and what do we as the rugby public expect these priorities to be?
Franchises invest vast amounts of money in these players and therefor rightfully expect their pound of flesh in return. During the year the Bulls expect their players to be available for the competitions they are involved in, they want to select their best 30 players to contest the Super trophy, which they have won 3 times in the last 4 years, and would expect the same in the Super 15 next year.
In an ideal world they would also expect to retain their best players for the Currie Cup competition as the earnings for any Super Franchise is dependant on the gate money recieved on match day, their share of television broadcasting rights, merchandising and then of course in the interest of their sponsors.
It is clear that this income is dependant on success on the field, and as can be seen currently with the Lions, their poor performances for the past number of years have resulted in dwindling spectators, less income and therefor struggling to hold on to star players.
The Springboks on the other hand play roughly 14 Tests per year and it is important for the SA rugby supporter that we do well and achieve at least the respectable success rate of winning 2 out of three tests.
There are currently many discussions regarding how the new season can be structured to accommodate the priorities of the Provinces/Franchises, Springbok success and ultimately satisfying the need to win trophies.
The way I see it there is no middle ground or a balancing act that can satisfy the priorities of both provincial and national success.
It seems that we as supporters do not want to accept mediocrity from the Springboks or the Provinces we have been supporting from young age.
My worry is this, if Professor Tim Noakes and sport scientists in general advocate that a player should not play past 1800 minutes or 23 matches per year, how is it possible that we demand these players to over exert their capacities in service of their Provinces and Country.
The Super 15 has 16 pool matches, and even on a rotation basis your top players will be required to win matches and will therefor most likely play 12-16 matches, excluding any finals.
As a springbok supporter you expect your best to once again deliver the goods and compete in every Test match possible of which there are 14 matches per year.
This alone and by managing top players will see them run on the field at least 26 – 30 per year barring any injury lay offs.
They have then not yet played a single game of Currie Cup, and playing at the business end of the Currie Cup, they will play 2-4 matches.
Looking at it in that manner we could argue that a maximum of 34 matches does not stretch it into the realm of impossibility, but what we forget is the timing and scheduling of these tournaments.
Professor Tim Noakes believes there must be a break of up to six weeks to recover from one tournament to the next, any recovery period shorter than this does not allow full recovery and only expedites injures and/or loss of form.
I have listened to all the opinions and ideas about how it is at all possible to schedule these players and still manage them in a manner that will prevent over exposure, loss of form and injuries. The only answer I can come up with it this.
We need to decide as to what should our priorities be.
Top priority Springbok Rugby – this is not even negotiable, our best players must play these matches as this is the way we will establish dominance and a mental edge over opponents, having half baked teams travel to overseas only to lose matches not only has a negative affect on our win loss ratios against these nations, but also gives them confidence. Yes it makes sense that new talent will be introduced during the year, and this will allow the odd game or two where a top player will sit out.
Our next priority must be the Currie Cup, the only way we can keep our foundation competition high in quality is to have our best players play as much as possible during this tournament.
Super Rugby is there as a money spinner, it is the duck that lays the golden eggs, and I am sure the only reason we are still in it is first and foremost for the money, thereafter being competitive comes into play.
So my solution is every SA Super Rugby team plays 4 away matches in succession, during this time our Springboks simply do not tour, they take a month break and only take part in reconditioning, no contact.
The compromise lies in the Super 15, this is where I believe we can rest players, it is a long tournament and a limit of 8-10 matches with extended periods of rest should be planned.
In summary for me the Tests and Currie Cup competition remains our highest priority, here we must not compromise, the Super 15 is a sideshow that brings in the money, but is not critical in developing OUR rugby, so if a conditioning period is vital for the players, this is where we should do it.
This way we can reduce the number of matches played by the Springboks to a maximum of 26, and have sufficient recovery times worked into their programs.
After all, we may all stand behind the Springboks, but provincialism is alive and well and as long as it remians healthy it will be the driving force that sustains our development.
To a large extent I agree, Bek…. BUT
What I’d rather see is one global world-wide season (not seperate Northern Hemisphere and Southern Hemisphere seasons respectively) and subsequently either doing away with the June Test window OR the End of Year Tours by the Southern Hemisphere nations…. replacing it with 1 international window, apart from the Tri-Nations or Four-Nations (Southern Hemisphere) and the Six Nations (Northern Hemisphere).
… or replacing the global Test window in total with traditional longer International tours, something the purists have been advocating for a while.
Whilst my idea of a global season might be the right direction to take, I can see great difficulty in convincing the world and IRB that this is the way forward.
To be honest, I’d much rather see a Super Rugby series win, by my Franchise, than a Currie Cup win, so I cannot fully agree that the Currie Cup is more important in a SA perspective.
@ grootblousmile:
GBS, which ever way you prefer it. a decision must be taken as to where our priorities lie. After reading the comments and your and Morne’s threads on how to deal with the structures for next year, it seemed that it was a priority for most that the Springboks must be available to play currie Cup.
One has to give.
ONe thing I know is that we cannot and should never compromise the Springboks, otherwise what’s the point.
So either we compromise the super series or we compromise the currie cup, either way it has to be done.
GBS
I cannot see a “global season” evolving simply becasue of the weather.
What about this idea – instead of having a June & a November “inernational test” windows, have just one & alternate the years. One year SH team go North, next year NH teams come South.
It will give senior players all aroudn the world a defined “rest period”.
What do you think … Too Simple ?
@ Rugby_Princess:
We’ll see very little test rugby that way.
However the global season has been banded around many times, and if you ask me there is a definite possibility for that.
In the South we play from February al the way to Oct.
Int he North they play from mid august to mid April.
So logic tells me there are two windows for internationals
February to april and August to October.
@ biltongbek:
You will see even less test rugby if all the players are broken down like horses on their way to a dog food factory 🙄
Personally I think February is too early to be playing rugby in the SH – way too hot & that must be really bad for he players never mind the quality of the performances. In Melbourne it can still hit 40+ degrees easily in February – last year it hit 50 degrees !
In your schedule where do you see the opportunity for tests ? When we each are not playing each other in our own hemispheres ? Somehow that sounded kinda smutty 😆
3@ Rugby_Princess:
Rugby is a winter sport, globally, and generally the Southern Hemisphere winters are milder than the Northern Hemisphere rugby weather.
In fact, most of the UK, Canada, USA, some parts of France… their summers compare favourably weather wise to the South African and Australian winters…
So, in essense what I’m saying is that in the Northern Hemisphere they could and should switch to summer rugby, might even be better for spectator numbers, no snowed under pitches, easier training conditions ect… and it would allow both Hemisphere’s players to spend off-time and family time during the most important holiday season of the year… December and the Christmas season.
The problem I have with 2 distinctly differing seasons is that when Southern Hemisphere players are fresh, the North are fatigued and at the end of their season and when the North are fresh the Southern Hemisphere is fatigued and at the end of their season…. so playing each other in any Test window, there is a disadvantage to one Hemisphere.
Sorry I don’t like it.
Noakes’ idea of resting key players in local derbies makes a lot more sense given we will see these teams go hammer and tongs against each other up to 6 times a year now.
Super rugby’s biggest drawcard for me is to gauge our best guys agains the best in NZ and Oz on a provincial level.
As for priorities, I go back to what I have been saying for a long time now.
SA Rugby needs to sell off each franchise (6 in total including the Kings) to private, or even semi-private entities to manage.
Micromanagement.
It is sold off under conditions which includes subscribing to all SA Rugby constitutions and rules in place.
These regional franchises then takes charge of each of the 14 unions in its regions or allocated to it. They form agreements with these unions as to contracting of players, venues to be used etc. They re-invest back into every union, at all levels (school, club, age-group and senior levels) because effectively, they base is going to come from these unions and so, their success is directly based on the success of each union.
SA Rugby in turn takes charge only of teams on a national level, again across all levels, schools, age-group, A teams and senior teams. They contract these guys and as per current IRB regulations, have access to them during test windows where franchises are compensated for players’ unavailability.
Include a draft system within the franchise environment for re-distribution of surplus players again where a compensation clause accompanies any player moving out of his main contracted union or franchise at the time.
Unions solely concentrate on domestic development of players and developing and playing in competitions and structures such as our current domestic structures, Club Champs, Varsity Cup, VC Cup and Currie Cup.
Franchises is only involved in Super rugby competitions and takes the best of the union players and contract them, similarly to what SA Rugby would contract Boks and compensates relevant union for time and unavailibility of their player.
SA Rugby as mentioned is only involved directly from a player perspective at a national level, Bok rugby, and contracts the cream emerging from the two feeding structures – unions and franchises.
The biggest positive for me in a scenario like this is that the actual professional and money spinning side of rugby is taken care of by profit driven (meaning developing and producing a successful product i.e. in rugby and the rugby they play) by business people who understands the importance of management of capital and resources to produce a top quality product (player and effectively rugby). Success for them is non-negotiable. They have to re-invest in unions structures (unions and players across all levels) to ensure this happens which in turn will make rugby at grass-roots to senior level healthy.
Unions takes care of what they take care of best, producing top quality local players and top quality local competitions.
SA Rugby simply manages the processes and only looks after Bok players and sits back and sees a truly professional machine in action.
Users Online
Total 28 users including 0 member, 28 guests, 0 bot online
Most users ever online were 3735, on 31 August 2022 @ 6:23 pm
No Counter as from 31 October 2009: 39,407,284 Page Impressions
_