The "South African Quota" catch-all thread

[pagliaccio_euforico]

Demonstrated skills, intellectual play, initiative to create opportunities, discipline, unforced errors .......

It's qualitative not quantitative.

wow okay then

you do realize that those aren't standards right?

like you can have standards for each one of those measures but they themselves are not standards

 

[Ospervat]

wow okay then

you do realize that those aren't standards right?

like you can have standards for each one of those measures but they themselves are not standards

Do you really not understand the game?

Kicking the ball out on the full from a restart - not acceptable & below standard for an international player.

Unforced errors - knocking the ball on - acceptable levels may be one or a two p/ match, more than that unacceptable & below standard

Losing possession from your own set piece / not acceptable & below standard.

Missing multiple critical tackles not acceptable and below standard.

Discipline & Penalties - 6 or so p/match is generally acceptable - more than that unacceptable and below standard particularly when those penalties are within kicking range.

Missing relatively easy shots at goal - unacceptable and below standard.

The greater the number of these incidents in a match the more below standard.

I could go on but I'm bored now.

 

[pagliaccio_euforico]

Do you really not understand the game?

Kicking the ball out on the full from a restart - not acceptable & below standard for an international player.

Unforced errors - knocking the ball on - acceptable levels may be one or a two p/ match, more than that unacceptable & below standard

Losing possession from your own set piece / not acceptable & below standard.

Missing multiple critical tackles not acceptable and below standard.

Discipline & Penalties - 6 or so p/match is generally acceptable - more than that unacceptable and below standard particularly when those penalties are within kicking range.

Missing relatively easy shots at goal - unacceptable and below standard.

The greater the number of these incidents in a match the more below standard.

I could go on but I'm bored now.

all i have to say to the quoted post is "no ****"

so what level of "demonstrated skills" and "initiative to create opportunities" do you expect?

what I'm getting at is that I feel that maybe south africa is as good as it can be and that quotas (while wrong) don't really have an affect.

demonstrated skills can just be an arbitrary bar that you can say the team hasn't met just because you say it doesn't

 

[Peat]

underachieving compared to what though? all i want to know is what standard this team is being held to

The standard the Springboks should be aspiring to should be rivalling, if not surpassing, NZ for being the best team in the world. Anything else is underperforming for them.

 

[pagliaccio_euforico]

The standard the Springboks should be aspiring to should be rivalling, if not surpassing, NZ for being the best team in the world. Anything else is underperforming for them.

fair enough, but new zealand is playing out of their mind right now and no one can keep up with them

and it seems to me that the new zealand has had prolonged dominance

 

[Peat]

fair enough, but new zealand is playing out of their mind right now and no one can keep up with them

and it seems to me that the new zealand has had prolonged dominance

That's a fair comment but there should still be clear daylight between them and most of the rest of us. Right now, there isn't. Losing to Argentina and Ireland at home, losing to Japan in the WC, getting whitewashed in last year's RC, last year's dismal tour results and performance... maybe the picture will look rosier after 2 home RC games and the Autumn tour, but they don't look all that at the moment.

 

[TheOvalBall]

The standard that has been set in Springbok rugby is to always be no.1

 

[Ospervat]

all i have to say to the quoted post is "no ****"

so what level of "demonstrated skills" and "initiative to create opportunities" do you expect?

what I'm getting at is that I feel that maybe south africa is as good as it can be and that quotas (while wrong) don't really have an affect.

demonstrated skills can just be an arbitrary bar that you can say the team hasn't met just because you say it doesn't

So basically you're saying it can't be proven that quotas are responsible for the poor performance levels of the Springboks and that it is coincidental that quotas and poor performance have come about at the same time.

Yes?

 

[Peat]

I'm not sure The Mole would agree that SA are performing poorly (although I might be reading his words wrong there).

But I do not know what South Africa he's watching if he thinks that this team is as good as it can be.

 

[Cruz_del_Sur]

I'm not sure The Mole would agree that SA are performing poorly (although I might be reading his words wrong there).

That's not how i read his posts. What i understood was that maybe the problem is not entirely how they are performing but at least partially the benchmarks they are being measured against.

It is perfectly fine to have as an aim being the best, all the time. It is simply unrealistic to expect to actually achieve that.

 

[TRF_heineken]

I'm not sure The Mole would agree that SA are performing poorly (although I might be reading his words wrong there).

But I do not know what South Africa he's watching if he thinks that this team is as good as it can be.

Yeah, I think his trolling technique is blinding the issue my fellow Saffas are trying to get into his skull.

But perhaps, what he's meaning is to compare the current team to a team of the past, and I guess we'll have to use the 1995 and 2007 World Cup Winning teams as examples. Not that I think you can ever compare teams from different years, never mind different eras.

But what is worrying is the ignorance in the questions. Perhaps it would be wise to watch a few matches from 2005 to now, and see how we played against the top teams and how our traditional brand of rugby, which was one of our strengths, overpowered the opposition, and even resulted in us being one of the teams to beat the All Blacks at a consistent basis, unlike now...

 

[saulan]

From my understanding, he is saying, we aren't playing that badly, if you compare this decades performances to the 1960's it's about on par.

The problem with that is, you had to go back 50 years to find a time we played this badly. And that is also missing the point. It isn't about the past six years, a lot can change in that period. We are concerned with our performances in the last two years, which reflects our current style of play, confidence and game plan. In this time period, we have lost to Argentina twice, Japan, and Ireland. Before this time period, we had never lost to Argentina's official national side, had never lost to Ireland at home and were expected to put 40 to 50 on Japan at all times. Adding to that, it looks like this may be a year where we don't have at least a 50% win ratio and I can't remember the last time that happened. Even our wins this year have been extremely unconvincing last 10-20 minutes scraping wins where in some cases we probably didn't deserve the win.

That's the reason why people are saying South Africa is underperforming.

 

[TRF_heineken]

From my understanding, he is saying, we aren't playing that badly, if you compare this decades performances to the 1960's it's about on par.

The problem with that is, you had to go back 50 years to find a time we played this badly. And that is also missing the point. It isn't about the past six years, a lot can change in that period. We are concerned with our performances in the last two years, which reflects our current style of play, confidence and game plan. In this time period, we have lost to Argentina twice, Japan, and Ireland. Before this time period, we had never lost to Argentina's official national side, had never lost to Ireland at home and were expected to put 40 to 50 on Japan at all times. Adding to that, it looks like this may be a year where we don't have at least a 50% win ratio and I can't remember the last time that happened. Even our wins this year have been extremely unconvincing last 10-20 minutes scraping wins where in some cases we probably didn't deserve the win.

That's the reason why people are saying South Africa is underperforming.

But using the 1960's as an example is just stupid! Rugby wasn't even a professional sport back then.

In the last 2 years we lost to Argentina twice, Lost to Ireland in South Africa and lost to Japan. In over a hundred years, that has never happened. Our traditions are in jeopardy and our records are being demolished.

Add to that, we have an identity crisis and it's not only showing on the field, but it's echoing everywhere else. Hell not even the big name sponsors wants to have anything to do with the Springboks.

And all of this is due to political interference and the quota system.

If anyone disagrees with that, then I suggest you come to SA and just stay for a week and see for yourself...

 

[Cruz_del_Sur]

Yeah, I think his trolling technique is blinding the issue my fellow Saffas are trying to get into his skull.

You serious? I disagree with most of what he is saying, but calling anyone who disagrees with you a troll, ignorant or dumb is condescending beyond belief.

If you sincerely believe he is trolling, put your money where your mouth is and do something about. You are a mod, aren't you?
For the record, i am 100% sure he is not trolling, and i'm pretty sure you know that too.

But what is worrying is the ignorance in the questions.

Cheap shots like this one tend to backfire.

We can discuss ideas without attacking the posters. To be honest, i'm getting a bit tired the aggressiveness a LOT of posters are displaying in their posts. Everyone is dumb, a troll, and idiot, ignorant, anti-kiwi, anti-french, anti-INSERT NATION HERE, conspiracy theories all over the place. I am sometimes guilty of that myself and should work on it too, granted.
Let's at least pretend we are all grown ups and discuss ideas.
Cheers

 

[TRF_heineken]

You serious? I disagree with most of what he is saying, but calling anyone who disagrees with you a troll, ignorant or dumb is condescending beyond belief.

If you sincerely believe he is trolling, put your money where your mouth is and do something about. You are a mod, aren't you?
For the record, i am 100% sure he is not trolling, and i'm pretty sure you know that too.


Cheap shots like this one tend to backfire.

We can discuss ideas without attacking the posters. To be honest, i'm getting a bit tired the aggressiveness a LOT of posters are displaying in their posts. Everyone is dumb, a troll, and idiot, ignorant, anti-kiwi, anti-french, anti-INSERT NATION HERE, conspiracy theories all over the place. I am sometimes guilty of that myself and should work on it too, granted.
Let's at least pretend we are all grown ups and discuss ideas.
Cheers

Are you done?

Everyone is frustrated. It's that time of the year again where everyone gets on everyone's backs.

We have a right to suspect someone of trolling when they ignore the answers provided, or not accept the general consensus from poster who know what is going on.

I didn't outright call him a troll, and neither did anyone else use a scathing remark towards him.

The ignorance in the questions is that it has been asked and answered, yet he keeps on asking the same questions, expecting different answers.

Relax man, it's the weekend and there's rugby on tv.

 

[Cruz_del_Sur]

Thanks for joining me on toning things down, much appreciated...

Following the tone at the end of my previous post, i will let your post slide.
Next time i will reply in kind.

 

[Ospervat]

I've had a re-read of my exchange with themole25 with new eyes today and have concluded:-

His point that team performance may not be directly attributable to quota selection policies is valid in as far as it cannot be accurately measured quantitatively if the criteria for the assessment are qualitative and therefore open to subjective interpretation of the individual irrespective of the sample size within the population.

His perspective is purely academic and largely esoteric however the nature of his responses are deliberately abstruse and captious.

The arguments he puts forward are fundamentally sound in the world of theory but sadly this doesn't apply in the real world.

I don't mind dissentient opinion providing it is backed up with some extensive knowledge on the topic but not if it is contrary purely for the sake of being contentious.

 

[pagliaccio_euforico]

I've had a re-read of my exchange with themole25 with new eyes today and have concluded:-

His point that team performance may not be directly attributable to quota selection policies is valid in as far as it cannot be accurately measured quantitatively if the criteria for the assessment are qualitative and therefore open to subjective interpretation of the individual irrespective of the sample size within the population.

His perspective is purely academic and largely esoteric however the nature of his responses are deliberately abstruse and captious.

The arguments he puts forward are fundamentally sound in the world of theory but sadly this doesn't apply in the real world.

I don't mind dissentient opinion providing it is backed up with some extensive knowledge on the topic but not if it is contrary purely for the sake of being contentious.

sorry if i came across as a dick

you're right about the academic, theory, abstruse, and captious remarks

I just found that being abstruse and captious is usually the best ways to get answers to questions you have and the quota system is South Africa is something that fascinates me

 

[smartcooky]

Quotas, targets, or whatever you want to call them, will not achieve anything in the top tiers of the game. They cannot, because this type of approach is always doomed to failure, firstly by disaffecting more highly talented players who will just leave the country for work, and secondly by chucking sub-standard players in at the deep end. I can think of a least a few players in the current Springbok squad who are quite simply, not only not good enough for Springbok duty, but whom would not even merit selection for any Mitre10 cup side - Trevor Nykane, Bongi Mbonambi, Rudy Paige and Teboho Mohoje.

The correct, and IMO, only way to increase the number of black players and players of colour at the top of the pyramid, is to increase the number at the bottom. You start by offering the opportunities with funding and coaching clinics at school level, right from early on (5 & 6 yo). However, you can only offer this; players have to decide for themselves if they want to play the game. In NZ we have something called "Rippa rugby" â€" a variation of tag rugby which is played in Australia, Ireland, UK and the USA. Its used as a developmental game for young children, and for primary/grade school tournaments.

http://www.smallblacks.com/rippa-rugby/

Early talent identification is absolutely key, and resources are targeted to players who get noticed. Funding, especially, needs to be conditional on that money being spent on rugby coaching and development, and the simple way to do that, and avoid what Heineken (IIRC) mentioned in another thread about grant money being spent on Soccer, is for the money to be allocated and held by SARU (or whoever they put in charge of youth rugby development). The schools then request what they want to spend it on, and if it is a valid resource, SARU pays for it from that school's allocation. If the school chooses not to spend it, then they get no allocation the following year, and their allocation is distributed to the allocations for other schools.

Take care of the grass roots, and the top end will mostly take care of itself. This is what we do here, and you will struggle to argue that it does not work. But most importantly, this is not a quick fix - there are in fact NO quick fixes. It will take time, and patience.

 

[j'nuh]

Quotas, targets, or whatever you want to call them, will not achieve anything in the top tiers of the game. They cannot, because this type of approach is always doomed to failure, firstly by disaffecting more highly talented players who will just leave the country for work, and secondly by chucking sub-standard players in at the deep end. I can think of a least a few players in the current Springbok squad who are quite simply, not only not good enough for Springbok duty, but whom would not even merit selection for any Mitre10 cup side - Trevor Nykane, Bongi Mbonambi, Rudy Paige and Teboho Mohoje.

The correct, and IMO, only way to increase the number of black players and players of colour at the top of the pyramid, is to increase the number at the bottom. You start by offering the opportunities with funding and coaching clinics at school level, right from early on (5 & 6 yo). However, you can only offer this; players have to decide for themselves if they want to play the game. In NZ we have something called "Rippa rugby" – a variation of tag rugby which is played in Australia, Ireland, UK and the USA. Its used as a developmental game for young children, and for primary/grade school tournaments.

http://www.smallblacks.com/rippa-rugby/

Early talent identification is absolutely key, and resources are targeted to players who get noticed. Funding, especially, needs to be conditional on that money being spent on rugby coaching and development, and the simple way to do that, and avoid what Heineken (IIRC) mentioned in another thread about grant money being spent on Soccer, is for the money to be allocated and held by SARU (or whoever they put in charge of youth rugby development). The schools then request what they want to spend it on, and if it is a valid resource, SARU pays for it from that school's allocation. If the school chooses not to spend it, then they get no allocation the following year, and their allocation is distributed to the allocations for other schools.

Take care of the grass roots, and the top end will mostly take care of itself. This is what we do here, and you will struggle to argue that it does not work. But most importantly, this is not a quick fix - there are in fact NO quick fixes. It will take time, and patience.

I agree a lot with this post: change has to come from the grassroots and youth upwards, otherwise the national team suffers, and everyone gets angry about it.

I disagree that the quota system will not achieve anything though. I think it will, although I also think that the government has gone about things in the wrong way.

Any change in any organisation costs money. It will be expensive for SARU to effectively reinvent their youth system in order to rebalance the opportunities in the sport. They will need to buy land, infrastructure, new staff. They will need to build excellence programs in new schools. They will need to offer more scholarships. Their current setup is the process that they have arrived at after years of development. They may need to stop funding these successful programs to re-divert funds into riskier programs. There is absolutely no interest on SARU's behalf of creating a more egalitarian society: to get the same results that they are already getting, they will need to invest more heavily than they currently are. (I think that the SA government should have helped here.) This is why I cannot believe that SARU will ever, of their own volition, make fundamental changes to their systems. If left alone, I think that they will make token gestures to keep people happy, which is somewhat understandable.

The quota system forces SARU to make these changes, to adapt or suffer. I would be surprised if the quota system hasn't had a profound effect on the inner workings of SARU. It would be sheer incompetence on SARU's part if it hadn't.

However, I think the time scales were completely wrong. SARU needed to be given the time to have had a generation of players go completely through the new system. I'd have given them a 10-15 year grace period before the quotas came in. It would have been reasonable to have expected SARU to have made the necessary changes and seen the benefits of it by that point.