SA rugby in trouble

[TRF_Ezequiel]

Introducing rugby at primary schools is pointless if there is not sufficent facilities, and coaching and follow on... kids play all sorts of sports as infants and unless they are encourage all the way through to their teens you will get little come through on many of them.

What these children need is proper outreach programs based around the sport, the chance to see people from their own demographic make it in the sport, be represented through the age grades (on merit).

that doens't mean change the Bokkes, but it does mean that a hell of a lot more can be done at the lowest levels of the countries population and that better pathways and structures can be put into place to encourage the less fortunate through.

If rugby is seen as aviable option to extract a family form poverty you can bet those kids will be taking.

No sufficient facilities? The black kids are in the same environment, same school and have the same facilities.

There are enough black kids who have the option to play rugby but they simply decide to go and play football. Have you not read my entire post? This has nothing to do with the part of the population living in shacks. Those kids don't make it to professional football either. This is about the kids who are in school. Those kids have the same resources and facilities to make something of their lives. You make it sound like the entire black community still lives in poverty. Have you ever been to South Africa?

75% of the population is black yet 29 % of the World Cup squad is black - you can see why there are questions.

Oh man. I love you! You remind me of my ex wife. You blame others for taking your words out of context, but now you pick apart my post where I explain WHY a small amount of black kids prefer rugby and decide to use this to support your own words. Bravo. You have passed your exam to become a politician.

 

[Mcfadden]

Oh man. I love you! You remind me of my ex wife. You blame others for taking your words out of context, but now you pick apart my post where I explain WHY a small amount of black kids prefer rugby and decide to use this to support your own words. Bravo. You have passed your exam to become a politician.

lmao!

Now c'mon mods, if that's not name calling I don't know what is

 

[goodNumber10]

lmao!

Now c'mon mods, if that's not name calling i don't know what is

bwahahahaha!

 

[Shaggy]

It quoted his post mate, it's abundantly clear it's in reference to his inflammatory closing gambit, "get it through your head" etc...



Even if i was, is calling someone stupid really a terrible personal attack? Is it really comparable with calling someone a c*nt as SC has done on many an occasion, or insulting someones wife as nickdnz has done? Is it really something worth threatening someone with a ban over when others have been merely told off for the above?

If i is then i expect to see a lot more bans dished out int he forthcoming weeks.

Well, none of the above (the name calling stuff) really sits well with me. I don't think I've ever attacked someone personally on here, although I've had some pretty vigorous differences of opinion with some, and made some pretty sarcastic comments that I've been less than proud off later . I've even appologised a few times, but in answer to your question, we all profess to be adults, so we ALL should be able to post without personal attacks.

Im obviously not a mod, but I think you also have to take into consideration what thread your posting in, when you're judging the seriousness of a personal attack, and a threatened punishment; we are posting in a thread that has racial undertones, which is an emotive area anyway, so perhaps the mods are trying to dampen down/stop any ***** fights before they start? ... A threat of a ban is merely a warning/telling off anyway, isn't it?

 

[ZeroTwo]

Of course there is good work done in these movements today. But not nearly as much as there was done in older times. I think part of the problem is that we now have social media, and key messages get around like chinese whispers. It starts off as one thing, then gets filtered through blogs and re-blogs, and people putting their personal twist on a key message which changes it into something completely different and then the wrong type of messages spread like wildfire. And I guess that's how we get such diverse pockets of feminism, or whatever movement it is.

If you honestly think that the misguided people who propose wayward policy to fix imbalances are just a couple of people here and there then you are wrong. I live in the first country to give woman the right to vote, and not that long ago it was proposed by the opposition party (second largest party) that 50% of their caucus be women. For no reason other than they're women; not based on skill, knowledge, experience, anything. That kind of solution, or proposing that one CEO who happens to be a woman gets paid as much as another CEO (who might be doing something different or have a different level of expertise) is completely wrong.

I'm not talking about Black Lives Matter. I'm talking about the copious amounts of social media outlets where people who purport to be part of these movements spew their disgusting nonsense. Where they openly say "good, now you know how we felt after many years." Their big solution is demonize a group in society, because apparently two wrongs make a right, and it's more tempting to do than to find constructive solutions. And I say again, it's more than 'one or two' people here and there.

Anyway, going a bit off topic here so I'll give you the last say.

Most of what you've said is fair, even if I don't agree with it.

In terms of the women being 50% quotas, there are good examples of it working (http://theconversation.com/lessons-from-norway-in-getting-women-onto-corporate-boards-38338). Everyone says it is unfair, but I think it's frankly unfair that some races, genders etc are encouraged not to compete in certain businesses, sports or activities from the point they were born. Perhaps quota systems have SOMETHING to be said for them. It's possible to shock the system then get rid of the quota when the cultural prejudice has disappeared.

Saying two CEOs should always get paid the same is ridiculous and pay equality is actually an area where there have been great advances between genders (mostly in Europe).

Now before I'm torn head from torso for supporting the quota system in elite sport, I don't. Politics dictating selection will make a shambles of the team and crush team spirit. I just think that saying that modern movements are full of bigots and that you can't support them is unfair and disrespectful to the majority which are good people (who may have one or two wayward beliefs, but we all do and it isn't the important points).

Completely agree that it should be about raising up everyone to the same level, not being dragged down. This might have to cause those who have it easy to stagnate for a bit while everyone catches up though.

Thank you for the last word. Completely understand where you're coming from and as you say it's gone off topic. If you fancy discussing it further (with sources linked I promise) then feel free to PM me.

 

[nickdnz]

Even if i was, is calling someone stupid really a terrible personal attack? Is it really comparable with calling someone a c*nt as SC has done on many an occasion, or insulting someones wife as nickdnz has done? Is it really something worth threatening someone with a ban over when others have been merely told off for the above?

If i is then i expect to see a lot more bans dished out int he forthcoming weeks.

While I'm being slandered - the post was on how 20% of SBW starts in his first season were in the forwards - in reference to the words exclusive I made the unfortunate analogy of saying being in an exclusive relationship with your wife, would mean not ignoring 20% of post mans visits. When I realized GN10 took it as a direct attack, my following post was this:

Not sure where I've been proved wrong. I don't know your wife or specifically that you are married - I was trying to illustrate that 20% was not a negligible figure and the 'your' was anyone...

Apologies, as I can see how it could have been taken.
.

PM:

no worries mate these things happen, it was a daft argument anyway and for my part i didn't mean for it to kick up such load of rubbish.
take care
Graeme

Rereading it - it comes off differently than I meant it. I meant 'your' as an example of a reason 'anyone' wouldn't let 20% slide, to illustrate its not pedantic. I didn't mean that as a personal attack on you, and I'm sorry that it sounded that way.
Sorry for that comment,

Nick

^^^

To make sure I didn't cause offense I also PM'd him, explaining my mistake. GN10 being the gracious man he clearly is accepted my apology.

For the record: I didn't mean to insult a member of your family. In fact I have the utmost respect for them, because you sure as heck can't be easy to live with.

It is interesting though that you constantly look to excuse your own actions - by trying to find examples of others actions from last Febuary.

 

[SomeOke]

I think the level of racial inequality is very prevalent in this country and at times is being underestimated by a few posters. When we are talking about private/semi-private schools which create 90% of professional rugby players in South Africa, they are still predominantly white. When I matriculated from Grey PE in 2008 there were less than 10 black guys in our grade of 180, when my brother matriculated in 2012, there were 18 black guys in his matric class. Now I realise one example doesn't make for a significant sample size but I've seen no evidence that rich rugby playing schools have transformed to more than about 20% black. Obviously I don't have the stats for other schools but just from what I've observed.

Additionally there are still worse examples of inequality in the general economy. White people still own 70% of the land in SA, and earn 6 times more than the average black person. I'm studying economics at a masters level and we get confronted with data like this all the time. It has lead me to take a serious look at my past prejudices and the only conclusion one can draw from this is that there are still persistent issues with inequality in South Africa that are impossible to separate from racial lines.

I have to agree that saying football is a preference based on cultural lines, would only be an acceptable argument if the country was more or less equal in terms of race which it clearly isn't. It's impossible to pretend that our country has achieved equality when you go to a restaurant, and the entire wait staff is black while the entire clientele are white, when you look at a construction crew and the only white guy present is the supervisor and when 17/20 of the richest people in this country are still white.

Everyone has jumped on the terms "institutional racism", "generational wealth" and "positive racism" but they do have a place in this argument. If you happen to be born white in SA you are far more likely to have parents who can send you to a good school, whereas if you are black there is a very small chance this is possible and considering we have such high levels of unemployment it's not a matter of simply "bettering" yourself. Poor people stay poor unless something drastic changes. Comparing us to Germany post WW2 is extremely unfair as Germany was supplemented heavily by the States as it's western front against communism. Not to mention a host of other economic factors like growth was much easier at that time due to how unsaturated the global markets were.
Things are changing though, don't get me wrong, but inequality along racial lines is far from eliminated.

I still think quotas are a bad idea (as people have said top-down policies are futile) and in terms of whose fault it is for the persistent inequality I would still largely blame our government, but I don't agree with the argument that currently black people have just as many opportunities to play rugby as white people.

 

[goodNumber10]

While I'm being slandered - the post was on how 20% of SBW starts in his first season were in the forwards - in reference to the words exclusive I made the unfortunate analogy of saying being in an exclusive relationship with your wife, would mean not ignoring 20% of post mans visits. When I realized GN10 took it as a direct attack, my following post was this:



PM:



^^^

To make sure I didn't cause offense I also PM'd him, explaining my mistake. GN10 being the gracious man he clearly is accepted my apology.

For the record: I didn't mean to insult a member of your family. In fact I have the utmost respect for them, because you sure as heck can't be easy to live with.

It is interesting though that you constantly look to excuse your own actions - by trying to find examples of others actions from last Febuary.

It's not justifying my actions, it's pointing out the hypocrisy of yours.

 

[smartcooky]

Introducing rugby at primary schools is pointless if there is not sufficent facilities, and coaching and follow on... kids play all sorts of sports as infants and unless they are encourage all the way through to their teens you will get little come through on many of them.

Well, there are the facilities at the schools and there is the coaching. The white kids take advantage of them, but many black kids mostly are simply not interested in playing rugby and choose to play football instead

What these children need is proper outreach programs based around the sport, the chance to see people from their own demographic make it in the sport, be represented through the age grades (on merit).

That doesn't mean change the Bokkes, but it does mean that a hell of a lot more can be done at the lowest levels of the countries population and that better pathways and structures can be put into place to encourage the less fortunate through.

There are some very big efforts made to spread the word of the game to kids of all races. There are ex players, both bokke and other nationalities involved in programmes to encourage kids of colour to take up the game. Where do you think all the players of colour who play in the Vodacom Cup, the Currie Cup, Super Rugby, The Blitzbokke and the Springboks come from. Do they simply appear out of thin air? No, they come through the very development and outreach programmes that you call for and don't realise already exist and have existed since the early 2000's

75% of the population is black yet 29 % of the World Cup squad is black - you can see why there are questions.

You see, this is just the sort of simplistic, liberal-minded idealist claptrap that gets people like me píssed off with people like you. You cannot simply multiply out the ratio of races in a population and expect that to be represented at any level in any sport. There are significant cultural and historical factors that must be taken in consideration.

For example, Pacific Islanders make up over 25% of rugby players in New Zealand but are only 7.4% of the population. On the other hand, Asians comprise 11.8% of New Zealand's population but their participation in rugby is almost non existent. Does this mean Asian kids are denied access to the game because they are impoverished and have no access to coaching or facilities. Of course it doesn't. In fact, Asians are among the higher SE groups in NZ. No, its because they generally are not interested in playing the game.

Which winter ball sport do you think is the most popular at Junior level in New Zealand. If you are thinking rugby, you would be wrong. Its Football. There are nearly three times as many under 16 kids playing school or club football in New Zealand as there are playing rugby. Does this mean the kids who play rugby are lacking facilities and development programs. Of course not. It pains the NZFA greatly that they cannot seem to get the follow through of such a large junior base into the adult game.

How many ethnic Fijian Indians have played for the Fijian National rugby team. Answer, two. John Sanday (1987) and Jack Prasad (2004). Two out of nearly 700 players since 1924. That is despite the fact that 38% of Fijians are ethnic Indian. Why is this? Is it because they are impoverished and under-privileged? No. Fijian Indians are generally considered to be economically better off than iTaukei (ethnic Fijians). No, its because Fijian Indians are not interested in rugby.

 

[Jaguares]

Firstly I'd like to say that the political party in questions is fairly insignificant, and I seriously doubt anything will come of this law suit.
That said I do think GoodNumber10 basically has the right of it, and to preface what I am about to say I am a middle class white guy. The fact that after 21 years of "transformation" a 10% minority (i.e. the white population) makes up 70% of the national rugby team is troubling. More pertinent though are the persistent problems of inequality in the country which cannot be separated from racial lines. White families still have the generational wealth that means the majority of white children are sent to good schools, have good nutrition and access to top coaching, whereas the majority of South Africa's very large, and very poor population are still black people literally living in shacks and stuck in a poverty trap that is very difficult to escape.
The relationship between wealth/rugby vs poverty/soccer is pretty prevalent throughout the world (Argentina, SA, even the UK) and until SA's greater issues like mass poverty and unemployment can be fixed the racial divide will probably persist. The slightly good news is that the black middle class is growing, but not as quickly, or by the kind of margins we need.

It's not an easily solvable problem as you'd basically need to fix an entire countries problems before our rugby was fixed, it doesn't help that our Government are corrupt and pretty useless (as seen through history, often revolutionaries struggle to lead successful governments). Anyway I'm still young and hopeful enough that I do think things will change, but it will probably take another 50 years and a few regime changes to get there.
For what it's worth here's an imagine with all black rugby players vs all white soccer players since 1992:

Where's Chester Williams in that pic??? Mmm someone is lying about the statistics in favour of blacks

 

[TRF_Ezequiel]

Where's Chester Williams in that pic??? Mmm someone is lying about the statistics in favour of blacks

There's a difference between black players (Ndungane, Kolisi, Mohoje, Nyakane) and coloured players (Habana, Williams, Pietersen, Steenkamp, De Allende, de Jongh, Aplon).

 

[ratsapprentice]

Coloured = mixed-race?

 

[Horacito]

It really is a shame this thread was made after the awards: totally a candidate.

Somebody starts a racial terms dictionary right now please.

 

[smartcooky]

Coloured = mixed-race?

Pretty much

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coloured

 

[j'nuh]

Race quotas are a tricky one.

What makes SARU unique from other organisations is that SARU is both the producer and end user of rugby personnel. (Unlike, say, an accountancy firm, where the producer is the education system and the end user is the firm.) If SARU are not able to meet race quotas, then they are in a good position to affect change so that they are able to meet the quota. The problem is the generational gap. If SARU start working on meeting the quota, then it will be a generation before their changed practices will reap rewards.

So I think race quotas could be a good incentive to affect change, but I think unions need to be given the time to implement the quotas.

 

[Mcfadden]

Why have a quota at all? I know what it's trying to achieve, but it fails miserably.

Equal opportunity, yes. THAT's fighting racism by providing an opportunity that everybody has access to, and personally I've given my ideas on how that could be made to happen. Equal outcomes? No.

A quota also ignores that some sports are more popular among certain cultures. It's like saying that 15% of the All Blacks should be Indians because Auckland has such an overwhelming large Indian population. If it's not popular, it's not popular. I hate the idea of shoving numbers at the problem. Affect change? Totally with you on that. But totally against the idea of the end goal being "well, 30 percent of Springboks are black .. job well done." That should not be the point. It's bureaucratic crap.

 

[TRF_Ezequiel]

Why have a quota at all? I know what it's trying to achieve, but it fails miserably.

Equal opportunity, yes. THAT's fighting racism by providing an opportunity that everybody has access to, and personally I've given my ideas on how that could be made to happen. Equal outcomes? No.

A quota also ignores that some sports are more popular among certain cultures. It's like saying that 15% of the All Blacks should be Indians because Auckland has such an overwhelming large Indian population. If it's not popular, it's not popular. I hate the idea of shoving numbers at the problem. Affect change? Totally with you on that. But totally against the idea of the end goal being "well, 30 percent of Springboks are black .. job well done." That should not be the point. It's bureaucratic crap.

The problem here is some SA **** causing issues because the black players make up 29% of the team, not 30%. That's just ridiculous.

 

[User1245]

Woah, I popped onto the forum to see what people thought about the Bok team and saw this ripper of a thread.

From a SA perspective I think Ezequiel's comments ring true for current day South Africa. And I'm surprised it hasn't been mentioned yet but there are quotas at grassroots level. I know for a fact that it's been around since the late 90's because I was subjected to it in Primary school.
First time was at regional trials when I was 11. I was captain of the team, and my replacement was picked ahead of me. They needed a certain number of black players and I was the only white flank, so I got the chop. The worst was when I was 13, vice-captain of the team and the guy that was behind me in the school team was selected for the provincial team! Now I was never good enough to make the provincial team but I know I was better than him evidence being that he couldn't make the school first team!

I think the quota system falls apart when it comes to high school bursaries, and then professional contracts. Basically when preference and merit starts to really count. I'll expand on this below.

I grew up in a town where 90%+ of the population is black and so was the public primary school I went to. My experience throughout school was that blacks preferred not to play rugby. Most grew up with soccer and didn't like the physical nature of the sport. Much like Trevor Noah makes fun of HERE.

Here's a photo of our rugby tour in primary (3 different age group teams):

I'm the first kid on the left in the front row. Hot shot vice-captain right there!
As you can see 90% of the team is not black. I think I counted 18 out of 46 (40%). Small sample group yes but a good one I think. I say this because you may notice the in the 3rd row, the 4th boy from the left is Vincent Koch. His brother, right most boy in the first row, yes that kid, the 12 year old the size of a man! He is also a very good rugby player and played age level provincial rugby. I believe both got sport scholarships in high school.

So right there is a living breathing example that sporting preference and ability made the difference instead of the privilege that is bestowed upon whites. 2 White guys had a good stab at provincial level rugby, and one guy went all the way. This despite of black quotas and the fact that 90% of their school was black. I obviously don't know everybody's situation but my black friends stayed in town, in a normal house not in shacks.
The majority of the Boks simply can't be black if this is the reality of who actually plays the sport.

 

[smartcooky]

Woah, I popped onto the forum to see what people thought about the Bok team and saw this ripper of a thread.

From a SA perspective I think Ezequiel's comments ring true for current day South Africa. And I'm surprised it hasn't been mentioned yet but there are quotas at grassroots level. I know for a fact that it's been around since the late 90's because I was subjected to it in Primary school.
First time was at regional trials when I was 11. I was captain of the team, and my replacement was picked ahead of me. They needed a certain number of black players and I was the only white flank, so I got the chop. The worst was when I was 13, vice-captain of the team and the guy that was behind me in the school team was selected for the provincial team! Now I was never good enough to make the provincial team but I know I was better than him evidence being that he couldn't make the school first team!

I think the quota system falls apart when it comes to high school bursaries, and then professional contracts. Basically when preference and merit starts to really count. I'll expand on this below.

I grew up in a town where 90%+ of the population is black and so was the public primary school I went to. My experience throughout school was that blacks preferred not to play rugby. Most grew up with soccer and didn't like the physical nature of the sport. Much like Trevor Noah makes fun of HERE.

Here's a photo of our rugby tour in primary (3 different age group teams):

I'm the first kid on the left in the front row. Hot shot vice-captain right there!
As you can see 90% of the team is not black. I think I counted 18 out of 46 (40%). Small sample group yes but a good one I think. I say this because you may notice the in the 3rd row, the 4th boy from the left is Vincent Koch. His brother, right most boy in the first row, yes that kid, the 12 year old the size of a man! He is also a very good rugby player and played age level provincial rugby. I believe both got sport scholarships in high school.

So right there is a living breathing example that sporting preference and ability made the difference instead of the privilege that is bestowed upon whites. 2 White guys had a good stab at provincial level rugby, and one guy went all the way. This despite of black quotas and the fact that 90% of their school was black. I obviously don't know everybody's situation but my black friends stayed in town, in a normal house not in shacks.
The majority of the Boks simply can't be black if this is the reality of who actually plays the sport.

Steve-o,

Thank you so very much for posting this. Its a great real world example of what has actually happened in South African schools, and it ought to make some of the others posting in this thread reconsider their positions on this issue.

In this case, I am sure that not only did every one of those 18 black kids have the same opportunity as the white kids in that school, but those opportunities would have been available to all the other kids in that school regardless of their colour. They, of course, have either chosen a different sport, or no sport at all.

I would be interesting to see a photo of the school Football team from the same year.


The 2014 Staff photo from your old school gives some perspective too

 

[RichardRheeder]

The whole process of enforcing quotas is getting ridiculous, I feel sorry for someone like Rudy Paige, whom would've probably made the Bok side on pure merit in the not too distant future, but has been branded as a quota quite heavily on different forums here in South Africa, a stigma he will have to carry for a few years.

It's not just Rugby that gets a rough deal with quotas, I myself lost my place in the Boland Athletics team in 2007 (you make the team and go to SA champs by ending in the top4 of your event) after qualifying, to ensure "proper representation of the racial makeup in the province". What's best is the guy of darker pigmentation who took my place did not even compete in previous events to qualify. In a sport where your individual performances is measurable this was ridiculous. This occurred with a few of us athletes that year, yet when we put in a formal complaint it was quickly dismissed.