Time for radical change
It is time for radical change. South African rugby is in danger of losing appeal. No one likes watching a losing team. And if results speak for themselves, then we have to be brutally honest and say that is what our teams have become - losers.
It may be unkind to refer to our Boks this way, given their global ranking and their Tri-Nations results, but. Let's keep this to the facts - they lost games they should have won last year, and it takes a brave man to bet on consistent winning performances against all comers.
But the Super Rugby is where our house of cards is creaking. Administrators have ignored results for years, protecting their interests on the back of loyal paying support and TV revenues. As angry supporters turn their backs on struggling teams, and advertisers ponder the wisdom of spending their millions of sponsorship rands, one of two outcomes is likely - rugby becomes / remains a minority sport or a radical change is sparked.
Before we consider how such a change might be sparked, let's diagnose the problem. There is a lot of diagnosing going on.
Dan Retief believes our club rugby needs an overhaul.
Joel Stransky and Naas Botha believe our coaching needs a new structure.
Nico le Roux, a South African ex-pat who has been living in New Zealand for the past five years where he has been involved as a skills coach and technical advisor to Waikato and North Harbour (NPC), the Chiefs (Super 12), the Junior All Blacks and All Blacks, believes that our players skills and reading of the game are below par, and our gameplans have been slow to evolve.
Kandas believes that our competition structure needs to change.
PissAnt believes that the answer lies in commercialising the unions and better player pay management.
Rasputin believes our players need to be stronger and better conditioned.
Gavin Rich believes our players need to think a little harder and Dan Retief wondered if our players had the brains to do that.
And there are a vitriolic bunch of forum commentators such as Tackler that scream quotas in their bitter voices.
Our rugby has many other issues, such as violence and poor facilities, but if we have only limited resources and need to pull some big levers to change things, which ones should we choose?
Competition structure
I believe we're stuck with the bloated Super 14. I think the way of dealing with this might be indirect. Let's limit the Currie Cup A-section to 6 teams playing one another on a round robin basis, with a final and semi-finals, bringing in the Spears. The top 5 teams go through to the Super 14 the following year. This would ensure that there are no protracted arguments about promotion relegation as the promoted team and relegated team would have played one another during the round-robin.
The B-section is a bit of a headache and is where the scope for radical action lies. Can we afford a B-section provincial set-up and to strengthen our club rugby? I doubt it. Of course, not having a B-team for the A-section teams makes succession planning and talent spotting difficult.
Perhaps the way to go is to have the provincial B teams playing in a localised club competition during the Super 14. This allows the exposure of clubs to senior level rugby and should see the provincial B team emerge as the winner. But the kicker is that the winner goes into a national championships taking place during the Currie Cup and held as curtain raisers to the big 6. This does offer a carrot to clubs to perform.
Perhaps the top two B-teams / clubs could represent us in a global competition.
I am not sure we can afford a major intercontinental club championships. I also think our clubs need to bridge a divide between age-group rugby and provincial rugby - not themselves be elevated to super status.
I think the solution to this one is complex, but I do believe it involves holding our Super 14 teams accountable for performance (through relegation), making our Currie Cup more focused and raising the visibility of our clubs.
Restructure the pay pool
Again difficult to do, because unions will argue that how they structure their pay pool is up to them. SA Rugby might argue that they deserve a say due to the allocations they dole out.
I think the essence of a solution is to treat the pay pool on a portfolio basis. A portion should be allocated to contracted Springboks, a portion to contracted provincial players, a portion for promising players, and a portion for performance.
That last portion is the big deal. Making it meaningful means impacting the other portions. There are only two ways of doing this - reduce the number of contracted players or reduce the amount you pay them. I would argue for the former. We have to make contracts lucrative to keep our players in South Africa. Now imagine if a player can become wealthy through being contracted and competition winnings. More to play for for everyone.
I understand SA Rugby operates on a similar basis to this at the moment, but I doubt the performance based portion is big enough. And, vice versa, I think too many players are too secure in their contracts.
A sidenote to this is that I think a portion of the Springbok budget must include money to buy Springboks out of Super 14 and provincial games. This together with the right to do so, would give our coach more say about the amount of rugby our players play.
Situate a national academy at the promoted Super 14 province
This should be for the entire year (Super 14 and Currie Cup) and players in the national academy should be available to the promoted team in both competitions.
Other unions should be required to name a squad of a certain size for their season and players outside of this should be eligible to train with the academy (I believe our Super 12 teams operate like this - hence the use of Grant Esterhuisen and Willem Stolz by the Stormers).
Should a more sophisticated draft system be used, I believe it might target 1 top player from each province. Targeting development players will not work - it removes the incentive for a province to invest in development - a complaint we are already hearing.
Jake White should direct the academy (perhaps not being available full time).
Coaching
Jake White does not want a director of rugby for South Africa. Given his success, he has perhaps earned the right to call some shots.
Clearly though, SA skills and perhaps coaching are not up to scratch. Perhaps something can be done to make provincial coaches accountable to White for players skill levels and fitness. The most practical way to doe this is to give White a say on their pay review meetings. If coaches were aware that White had a say in their bonus, they might be more cooperative.
This cannot be one way traffic. White must be required to give coaches monthly feedback and scoring during the year.
Governance
The most difficult yet crucial issue of all.
What we have does not work. It is biased to the interests of the majority by number and mitigates against the success of the best outcomes.
I believe a modified corporate board structure might work. Rather than partisan regional representatives, perhaps members can be elected representing constituencies. Those that spring to mind are: the players, the sponsors, the coaches and the referees. It is difficult to see how fans / supporters can elect a representative, but perhaps someone, somewhere is aware of somewhere, perhaps in soccer, that this is done. But sponsors should have supporter's interests in mind.
What is clear is that our regional representation does not work and results in sub-optimal decisions.
Conclusion
There are many issues in SA Rugby. Radicalism must be managed with caution. But this may be the last season the watching fans and sponsors maintain their support.
The chance of radical change is limited given South Africa's rugby governance system. The chances of a criminal voting for the death penalty are slight.
Will SA Rugby see the potential of an implosion made of deserting fans and sponsors? I am sure it is coming.
It may be unkind to refer to our Boks this way, given their global ranking and their Tri-Nations results, but. Let's keep this to the facts - they lost games they should have won last year, and it takes a brave man to bet on consistent winning performances against all comers.
But the Super Rugby is where our house of cards is creaking. Administrators have ignored results for years, protecting their interests on the back of loyal paying support and TV revenues. As angry supporters turn their backs on struggling teams, and advertisers ponder the wisdom of spending their millions of sponsorship rands, one of two outcomes is likely - rugby becomes / remains a minority sport or a radical change is sparked.
Before we consider how such a change might be sparked, let's diagnose the problem. There is a lot of diagnosing going on.
Dan Retief believes our club rugby needs an overhaul.
Joel Stransky and Naas Botha believe our coaching needs a new structure.
Nico le Roux, a South African ex-pat who has been living in New Zealand for the past five years where he has been involved as a skills coach and technical advisor to Waikato and North Harbour (NPC), the Chiefs (Super 12), the Junior All Blacks and All Blacks, believes that our players skills and reading of the game are below par, and our gameplans have been slow to evolve.
Kandas believes that our competition structure needs to change.
PissAnt believes that the answer lies in commercialising the unions and better player pay management.
Rasputin believes our players need to be stronger and better conditioned.
Gavin Rich believes our players need to think a little harder and Dan Retief wondered if our players had the brains to do that.
And there are a vitriolic bunch of forum commentators such as Tackler that scream quotas in their bitter voices.
Our rugby has many other issues, such as violence and poor facilities, but if we have only limited resources and need to pull some big levers to change things, which ones should we choose?
Competition structure
I believe we're stuck with the bloated Super 14. I think the way of dealing with this might be indirect. Let's limit the Currie Cup A-section to 6 teams playing one another on a round robin basis, with a final and semi-finals, bringing in the Spears. The top 5 teams go through to the Super 14 the following year. This would ensure that there are no protracted arguments about promotion relegation as the promoted team and relegated team would have played one another during the round-robin.
The B-section is a bit of a headache and is where the scope for radical action lies. Can we afford a B-section provincial set-up and to strengthen our club rugby? I doubt it. Of course, not having a B-team for the A-section teams makes succession planning and talent spotting difficult.
Perhaps the way to go is to have the provincial B teams playing in a localised club competition during the Super 14. This allows the exposure of clubs to senior level rugby and should see the provincial B team emerge as the winner. But the kicker is that the winner goes into a national championships taking place during the Currie Cup and held as curtain raisers to the big 6. This does offer a carrot to clubs to perform.
Perhaps the top two B-teams / clubs could represent us in a global competition.
I am not sure we can afford a major intercontinental club championships. I also think our clubs need to bridge a divide between age-group rugby and provincial rugby - not themselves be elevated to super status.
I think the solution to this one is complex, but I do believe it involves holding our Super 14 teams accountable for performance (through relegation), making our Currie Cup more focused and raising the visibility of our clubs.
Restructure the pay pool
Again difficult to do, because unions will argue that how they structure their pay pool is up to them. SA Rugby might argue that they deserve a say due to the allocations they dole out.
I think the essence of a solution is to treat the pay pool on a portfolio basis. A portion should be allocated to contracted Springboks, a portion to contracted provincial players, a portion for promising players, and a portion for performance.
That last portion is the big deal. Making it meaningful means impacting the other portions. There are only two ways of doing this - reduce the number of contracted players or reduce the amount you pay them. I would argue for the former. We have to make contracts lucrative to keep our players in South Africa. Now imagine if a player can become wealthy through being contracted and competition winnings. More to play for for everyone.
I understand SA Rugby operates on a similar basis to this at the moment, but I doubt the performance based portion is big enough. And, vice versa, I think too many players are too secure in their contracts.
A sidenote to this is that I think a portion of the Springbok budget must include money to buy Springboks out of Super 14 and provincial games. This together with the right to do so, would give our coach more say about the amount of rugby our players play.
Situate a national academy at the promoted Super 14 province
This should be for the entire year (Super 14 and Currie Cup) and players in the national academy should be available to the promoted team in both competitions.
Other unions should be required to name a squad of a certain size for their season and players outside of this should be eligible to train with the academy (I believe our Super 12 teams operate like this - hence the use of Grant Esterhuisen and Willem Stolz by the Stormers).
Should a more sophisticated draft system be used, I believe it might target 1 top player from each province. Targeting development players will not work - it removes the incentive for a province to invest in development - a complaint we are already hearing.
Jake White should direct the academy (perhaps not being available full time).
Coaching
Jake White does not want a director of rugby for South Africa. Given his success, he has perhaps earned the right to call some shots.
Clearly though, SA skills and perhaps coaching are not up to scratch. Perhaps something can be done to make provincial coaches accountable to White for players skill levels and fitness. The most practical way to doe this is to give White a say on their pay review meetings. If coaches were aware that White had a say in their bonus, they might be more cooperative.
This cannot be one way traffic. White must be required to give coaches monthly feedback and scoring during the year.
Governance
The most difficult yet crucial issue of all.
What we have does not work. It is biased to the interests of the majority by number and mitigates against the success of the best outcomes.
I believe a modified corporate board structure might work. Rather than partisan regional representatives, perhaps members can be elected representing constituencies. Those that spring to mind are: the players, the sponsors, the coaches and the referees. It is difficult to see how fans / supporters can elect a representative, but perhaps someone, somewhere is aware of somewhere, perhaps in soccer, that this is done. But sponsors should have supporter's interests in mind.
What is clear is that our regional representation does not work and results in sub-optimal decisions.
Conclusion
There are many issues in SA Rugby. Radicalism must be managed with caution. But this may be the last season the watching fans and sponsors maintain their support.
The chance of radical change is limited given South Africa's rugby governance system. The chances of a criminal voting for the death penalty are slight.
Will SA Rugby see the potential of an implosion made of deserting fans and sponsors? I am sure it is coming.
posted at 12:06 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home