The Springbok side needs more black players

The inclusion of Solly Tyibilika in the Springbok Tri-Nations squad has again unleashed a storm of debate.

Affirmative action is an emotive topic. It is a process designed to correct demographic misrepresentation, and is practiced all over the world. Commentary and justification is mixed:

1. For some, it is objectionable due to the interference with decisions based on pure merit, for others because they might suffer in its execution.



2. For some, all that counts is momentum - if the current team got us there, they'll take us forward.



3. For a few, affirmative action promises the benefits of diversity, lessening the danger of a crash caused through a team missing the signals of its own decline.



4. For some, affirmative action improves the perception of valuable constituencies.



5. And for some, affirmative action represents the right thing to do.

Of course you will realise that I am talking about affirmative action in its broad sense as it is thought of in a UK boardroom, on a Wall Street trading floor or in South Africa.

The South African justification of affirmative action is almost entirely based on the last reason I mentioned above - it is the right thing to do. Fearing that this might not be enough, affirmative action carries legislative backing in our country. This designed to correct past wrongs.

Working in Zimbabwe in 2000, I was struck by the merits of this rationale. Some parts of the economy remained almost colonial, and I was amazed that South Africa appeared to have made more progress in 6 years than they had in 20 years. Left to our own devices, I remain convinced that the change would not have been that great. Indeed, everything I have witnessed in life suggests that the power of inertia is so great that it mitigates change even when that change is beneficial to survival.

Should affirmative action be applied in this context to representative sports teams? That very phrase "representative sports teams" suggests it might. But for many it jars against the thought of such teams containing our best sportsmen and women.

And further indication that it might not belong in sports is supplied by sports such as athletics - a brutal meritocracy if ever there was one. One person against the clock.

The thing is, meritocracies seldom exist in their pure form. Discrimination is always present even if it is subliminal in the mind of those making selection / promotion decisions. Very few situations exist where a set of absolute comparisons such as 400 meter sprint times are available.

It is a fact that if you ask 100 different Springbok rugby supporters for their picks for a team, you will get many different answers.

Bias or discrimination will influence the result, but it goes beyond this. On a subjective assessment of worth and potential, different assessors will arrive at different answers.

And it is interesting when you specifically mention these two criteria - worth and potential. Because the minute you introduce the second, the subjectivity of the decision becomes enormous. Further, by its very nature it discriminates against a pure merit selection.

Stepping back from Springbok rugby, such discussion has interesting parallels in business. For if decisions were made purely on merit, would "stretch roles" ever exist and would young up-and-coming employees ever be given opportunities?

Such decisions as, "I know what Joe can do, and I'd like to give Steve a chance to experience things and show what he can do," speak to point three above. Many a business has crashed as entire elite teams move on or miss the signs of change.

And therefore in business it is entirely justifiable to safely blood new team members.

Is this true at the highest level? In the Springbok team?

Given South African society it is unlikely that the sports team that attracts the amount of money in sponsorship and supporter wealth as the Springboks do can remain a largely white and Afrikaans team. This is true for a few reasons. The first is that politicians are attracted by visibility. This is true around the globe. The second reason is that sponsors are no longer merely catering to the richest pockets and the richest pockets are also no longer totally white-owned. Rugby competes for sponsorship cash with other sports. So reasons 4 and 5 (5 being strongly pushed by politicians) dictate that there will be pressure to make the Springboks a team more representative of South African racial demographics.

But are there not other benefits too? Could reason 3 apply to rugby? Some might argue that should rugby tap into the vast potential in terms of numbers of possible black players, our rugby strength will increase. After all, look at the strength of nations with small populations such as New Zealand and Australia, and consider, if rugby ever takes off there, the fear of a dominant United States given their population and resources. Further, others might argue that there is natural athleticism of the like of Jongi Nokwe waiting to be discovered. Such are the benefits of diversity.

Many will counter this and state that the place for development is at lower levels and the Springboks is no place to establish a nursery.

Perhaps it is a case of push and pull and elements of both arguments have their merits. Few can argue with the pull of Makhaya Ntini on potential black cricket players. And few can argue the need for the development programmes that gave rise to his success.

All the above argument is worth considering and many of us that love rugby have thought and discussed just such rationale.

But when all things are considered, one fact remains. There has never been a country such as South Africa. A country once with legislated racial discrimination. And, when we consider that we once stood on the brink of civil war and that we are watching massive transformation and close to 6% growth today, that there has perhaps never been such a reversal of fortune as there has been in this country.

Given the nation that the Springboks represent, it is not an option for them to be a white team with two black wings.

I was once at a dinner party where a departing emigrant asked me how, if he stayed, he would one-day justify to his son that he had been excluded from a team on reasons other than merit. I shrugged and ignored his need for justification. Because there is no logic. We are South Africa and that comes with a set of circumstances.

It does not serve us to debate whether we need more black players in the Springbok team. It is of far better use to spend our energy figuring out how to find another potential Bryan Habana, Akona and Odwa Ndungane. And when we might have, that is when it time to say, "I think we should give this guy a chance."

It is a shame that our record with growing black players is so poor. It is a shame that players like Tyibilika should hear "supporters" debate the merits of their inclusion or clamour for the coach to clarify whether they are a quota or not. Play the ball and not the player. What possible good can come from ideological debate about a players inclusion. There is no good that can come from a coach admitting a player is a quota. There is no good that can come from asking a coach to justify their selection.

Instead we should be crying over opportunities gone abegging. We should ask why Tim Dlulane, Akona and Odwa Ndungane were not even included in the pre-season squad of 45. We should ask why provinces are not unearthing more black talent. We should ask why provinces bench Springbok black players. Because, the bottom line is, we need more black Springboks.

Things are looking shaky

Our loss to the French has exposed deficiencies in the Springbok game that we have known about for some time. With this in mind, we should not be surprised by yesterday's loss. We should be looking for the lessons, or that those who count have heeded the warning.

Instead, Jake blamed injuries in his immediate post-match interview. He shrugged and pointed out that the match result bore out what he had been saying for the last 18 months. Players are playing too much rugby and lack conditioning. Uh-huh.

Then in the post match press conference, Jake blamed Monty's missed conversion of Brent Russell's try. Oh yes.

Is it worth mentioning that Jake blamed a lack of experience for not closing out the match after the Boks led? Probably not - we've heard the experience one before.

When Jake watches himself on TV, does he believe this crap?

Can Jake White do any better?

Jake White resurrected South African rugby after the disaster of World Cup 2003. He deserves all the credit due for that. But the question must be asked - is World number 2 the best he can do? He must ask himself honestly whether he could benefit from listening to some others outside his preferred advisors / mentors.

Jake has done what needed to be done to regain competitive strength - he refocused on traditional South African strengths of defence and first phase possession together with passion. There has been little evidence of progression beyond that. While the creaking was audible in the World XV and second Scottish test, yesterday's game exposed that brutally.

To add to the growing dissatisfaction with Jake's lack of ability to accept fault, accountability and consider alternative points of view, his publicising of the state of his contract negotiations prior to a test match smacks of political grandstanding. He has a record of such stunts.

Did White's politics affect yesterday's result? It's impossible to tell. But it's safe to say that it could not have helped.

Boks outplayed

Analysing the match reveals that the Boks were outplayed. Their frailties were exposed and more disturbingly, the strengths that have served them were weaknesses yesterday - the Boks missed tackles, looked shaky in the lineouts and were annihilated in the scrums.

We've talked about the Boks weaknesses. Their ruck-time clearing has been abysmal. Their running lines have been poor on attack - they fail to straighten the line and draw their men, they run away from support and support runners are generally lacking. When people drew attention to many of these failings after the World XV match, Jake responded that nobody had died. He has again failed to acknowledge these weaknesses and instead looked for excuses.

But the Boks were very poor in these basics again yesterday. The burden that Schalk Burger has carried was palpably evident in his absence. Pedrie Wannenberg, Juan Smith and Joe van Niekerk are great ball carriers but fetchers they are not. Jake argues the role doesn't exist, everybody must fetch. In Burger's absence nobody did.

The Boks might have coped with their continued weakness in the tight loose if they had dominated the scrums and lineouts. They did not. The entire front row - including Os - took a hammering. The Boks have alleged that Marconnet scrummed inwards - and this did look to be the case. But after proving vulnerable to the tactic at the hands of Cobus Visagie and Marconnet, The Boks need to find a counter. While the Boks might claim illegal tactics in the scrums, they can make no such claim of the lineouts - they did not look their dominant selves there either.

Roussouw tried hard but did not have things his way as in the last two weeks against the Scots. Matfield tried a beard disguise, but I still picked him out as Mr Anonymous on the field.

Off poor ball, the Bok backs were never going to have it their way. Nevertheless, they looked worse than they should have. Fourie du Preez had another off day after showing some hope in the first Scottish test. Jaco van der Westhuizen continued to lack authority and run skew.

But De Wet Barry! De Wet has always been called a limited player. When his tackling lets him down, well, there's not much left. Yesterday's match is likely to be the end of De Wet's career.

But if yesterday pointed to the end of De Wet's career, it showed that Gaffie du Toit's should never have been reborn. His missed attempt at a tackle resulted in Vincent Clerc and France's match winning try.

And what of Wynand Olivier? Again I'll reserve judgment. He didn't do a lot, but given the ball he was getting, it's difficult to be too critical.

Congratulations to Brent Russell for taking his chance with both hands. His try was fantastic - he made the most of the smallest chance to beat three players and score. He is a dynamo on attack and he looked for work around the park today. His defensive alignment did not look up to scratch though, and even though the rush defence requires the wing to "come up," he did so very early and gave the French opportunities.

I hope someone is giving Monty the praise he deserves. Because if he listened to Jake, he might be tempted to pack it in. He maintains high kicking percentages and his positional play has been spot on. He also put the Boks on the front foot when he took the flyhalf position with a pin-point tactical kick.

Well done France

The French were fantastic today. There tactics were well thought out and marked the predictability of the Boks defensive pattern. Their chips and grubbers exploited the weaknesses of the rush and the Boks will have to think of mixing things up with the drift on occasion in order to raise their defensive game. Damien Traille was magnificent and given his inexperience at pivot made nonsense of Jake White's excuses regarding the lack of experience in his backline. The French tight five were special and destroyed the Boks strength. Together with their loose trio they also feasted on the absence of the Boks in the tight-loose.

Prospects

I hope the Bok management are true to their word and use the Tri-Nations to introduce some youth into the Bok team. I can't help feel they've got the sequence the wrong way round however. Surely the place to try some new combinations was during the World XV and Scottish matches.

I must say that I've been left feeling very bleak regarding the Boks chances for the World Cup. Consider the impact of the return from injury (when compared to last year's Tri-Nations) and change of coach on the Australian side. They looked very special against the Irish. Consider also the months of experimentation applied by Graeme Henry to increase the depth of his All Black squad. The Boks have not yet even admitted their weaknesses.

One moment of hope. John Smit was the antithesis of his coach after the match. He made no excuses and admitted the Boks were outplayed and that the forwards needed to front up for the poor quality of ball to their backs. Hopefully his honesty and humility will rub off on his coach.

Pretty - pretty worrying

It was difficult to know how to approach today's game. I wasn't happy that the Boks had made the most of their forward dominance last week and I was immensely disappointed with the Scots. So I guess it was always likely that the Scots were going to up their level of aggression and competitiveness and the Boks would search for the complete performance.

The first exchanges showed increased aggression in the forward exchanges. While the Boks attempts at pick and go phases were encouraging, I was disappointed that they remain poor in running support lines and looking for the support player. Twice just before the three minute mark, they turned over good attacking ball through poor cleaning out at ruck time. Both times this was due to support players hanging back instead of being on the shoulder of the ball carrier. Then when Juan Smith had Habana on his shoulder he went inside and scorned a good try scoring opportunity.

On the 7 minute mark, it was encouraging to see Monty jump for an up and under - he must have read my commentary from last week. Not only that, but he looked like metronome when kicking for poles. He also continued to looked for work, and on the 20th minute when Paulse shirked his duty under a cross kick, Monty fielded the ball and popped a one handed backflip that almost put Paulse away.

The Scots' first try was worrying - it was a gift and Paulse looked disinterested in defence. After his fantastic return last week, he looked a different player.

Sadly, after an attacking first ten minutes, the Scots opted to try and use the sun and kick onto the Boks for the next ten. This did show the Boks apparent hunger for counter attack, but also exhibited a lack of pace and guile from the home team. After a week where Jake White commented on the Ndungane brothers lack of pace, he hopefully again felt that choking feeling of both his feet in his mouth.

After 30 minutes, the Bok forwards had continued to look good generally (with the exception of quick ruck ball) and the backs had looked average with the exception of Montgomery and a slightly better looking Jaco van der Westhuizen. A nice break by Wynand Olivier and Montgomery in support almost put Habana away, but sadly hands let the side down again.

The Scots would have been pleased with their first half effort that almost included a try for left wing Simon Webster just before the siren. The kick through from Mike Blair exposed the Boks rush defence much like the All Blacks similar tactic did in last year's away Tri-Nations match. It must have raised the eyebrows of the Scots playmakers.

But the Boks lack of penetration and a clinical approach were worrying. If this line couldn't open up Scotland, what chance against Australia and New Zealand? Balie Swart's scrumming work was apparent. But perhaps this has increased the forwards impression that they have possible backline careers outside of the set-pieces. It is all very well to blame the backs for lack of penetration, but slow ruck ball or turnovers from contact make their task impossible.

I'm sure Hadden and White would have made the same observations and doubtless given the teams advice during the break. One would never have known by the rubbish we saw in the second half. I felt sorry for the Eastern Cape - if this is to be the rugby they pay to see every few years, they might as well miss out.

If there is any good to come of this match, it will be to highlight the laziness of our players in the tight-loose. It has been something apparent in even the matches we have looked better in. Today it showed as glaringly apparent.

Maybe the Bok tight five were tired after carrying 10kg sacks of stones on their backs during scrumming practice. Maybe they're unfit. While John Smit has seldom looked as strong a scrummager, he as also never looked as slow and overweight when running with ball in hand. The other forwards were absent in the loose. Schalk slowed ball down in the backs - were Juan Smith and Joe van Niekerk even on the field? Matfield watched the ball as he trundled around. Surprisingly, Danie Roussouw again looked the best outside the scrums.

The South African front row were magnificent in the scrums, however. Os, John and Eddie gave the Scots a torrid working over that did not let up when CJ van der Linde made a return to Springbok rugby.

For the backs, Fourie du Preez looked like a scrummie being harrassed at rucks - which he was. Jaco van der Westhuizen looked much improved given the quality of ball he recieved (shocking in handling that led to Donnie MacFadyen's try aside). It was almost impossible to rate Olivier and Snyman, so I am again unable to judge whether I am wrong about their credentials (or lack thereof). Paulse was poor - but at least looked for work in the middle period of the game. Habana didn't have many chances but his hands looked poor when he did. Monty was outstanding outside of two line kicks that didn't go out. He was my man of the match.

Looking ahead to France, I am a bit worried. The Boks looked anything but world beaters today. If Jake White is still using Pro-Zone, I think his forwards will be in trouble. Once upon a time, Jake White sent Matfield home from Australia for poor work rate and shirking his duties in the loose. Schalk was also once left out the team for similar reasons. Perhaps the time has come to send the same message again.

Credit to the Scots. They looked to up the pace of the game. They played the ball close to the ground. They defended well.

Boks too good for sad Scots

My happiness with the Bok victory is tempered by disappointment. Disappointment that the game did not live up to its billing as a contest against Six Nations contenders. I am also disappointed at aspects of the Boks' game.

But let's start with the positives. This was the Boks' first test of the season. It was the first time to see the full strength side play together. It was a match for which only a win would suffice. It was a match that needed to be hard but from which we needed to minimise injuries. And coming away with a dominant performance and only Jean de Villiers' bruised ribs, one would have to say mission accomplished.

The Springbok pack was awesome. My apologies to Os. I believe he has a dodgy knee, but it did not show and he demolished the Scottish scrum. Eddie was indeed steady and the substitution of John Smit showed his power in the scrum. Danie Rossouw put his hand up - against my expectations. Victor Matfield did what he does - win lineouts and field kick-offs - but was lacking in the loose.

Speaking of loose, the loose trio looked very good and to me were the most positive aspect of the Bok performance. Schalk's workrate was fantastic and it seemed that he really enjoyed his return to the open-side. Joe van Niekerk is an awesome ball carrier. Juan Smith was steady.

At scrummie, Fourie du Preez made a welcome return to form. He looked very good behind a dominant pack.

And then the first luke warm performance - Jaco van der Westhuisen. It was better than against the world fifteen, but behind a storming pack, it was merely adequate. Mark my words, if Jaco does not pick up his game we are not going to be smiling against stronger packs. He has to be the general and stamp his mark on the game. At the moment, his mark is poor lines and pathetic kicking out of hand.

Given this, Jean de Villiers performances over the last two weeks have been encouraging. He has looked a different player to the shadow he was in the Super 14. I don't believe the quality of ball was good enough (slow and static down the line) to accurately judge Jaque Fourie.

Despite the slow possession, Snyman's touches did not do enough to change my view that he is an undeserving inclusion in the side.

Hats off to Jake for including Paulse though - he was assured and looked for work. So too did Monty, and it was encouraging that either the fullback has been encouraged to attack more, or he has decided to do so himself. Apart from missing two kicks, he is looking the real deal again. He must seek to dominate under the high ball though, by out-jumping competitors when contesting.

So why my unhappiness? As good as the Boks were at the set scrums, the Scots were poor. I don't believe the Boks will enjoy the same dominance against the All Blacks and Aussies. Given the dominance they enjoyed, I was looking for the boys in green to dictate terms more. Ultimately it is the patterns and structure of the game that will determine whether the Boks will win the close games.

Many will say that Jake can't win. When the guys play a pattern, he is accused of overcoaching the team. When they look to attack, he is accused of not coaching structure. There is a difference between patterns and gameplans. I do think our coaches overdo gameplans (and lack imagination in their design). But gameplans are made up of patterns. Whether they be "attack the fringes on second phase ball, wait for gaps to open up, spread it wide" or running lines that the backs look to execute. Stucture relates to how players break, looking for lines that allow their support to move with them, or how the team divides up the field and allocates styles of play.

The Boks have focused on structure in defence for a long time. And that was only right. Jake understands that confidence comes from winning. A winning record will allow his team to grow belief and dominate on attack. Regardless of how they got those wins. Perhaps that points to the next phase of the Springbok evolution. And as such, I believe the focus will shift to patterns and structures on attack. Hopefully the Boks will use the second test against the Scots to dictate terms and rehearse for the season ahead.

Well done on the victory Boks.

What a load of bollocks

I was at the World XV vs. Springbok XV match. The problems started when the World XV set out determined to be the first such team to beat the Springboks. And the Springboks set out determined to defend an unbeaten home record. It made for dour uninspiring stuff. A level of ineptitude added to the occasion. And having paid R300 consigned it to the scrapheap of things I wish to forget.

Let me get this out of the way. Deon Carstens must never don a Springbok jersey again. There is no defence of his drilling at the hands of Cobus Visagie. 20 minutes into the second half, he required medical attention, such was his annihilation. Cobus Visagie was impressive. None more so than when his enormous effort set up the World XV's first try. To fail to recognise this is to ignore the sight of the entire World XV high fiving Visagie as he retreated from the scrum that set up the try. Hats off sir. Jake White's arrogant remarks on Boots & All were a shame and you showed that.

On the subject of those remarks, Jake should learn. I was taught that if one has nothing good to day, rather keep quiet. Jake, you should learn the lesson. Your pre-match commentary has attacked Bill Young, the Irish and the World XV. You appear to have the makings of a great coach. But keep your trap shut. I would have no compunction in telling that to your face. Why could you not merely have said, "I do not believe Cobus is one of our best props at this stage, but hey Cobus, prove me wrong." Instead you said, "I am right and you are wrong" in so many words when you said, "I will not be watching Cobus this Saturday, I'll be watching Deon." Sheer arrogance and pride. As the saying goes, "Pride cometh before a fall."

Enough about that rant. Let's move on.

As much as Carstens' drilling was complete, I must come to the defence of Eddie Andrews. Many have jumped into the fray to criticise his performance after this match. Many have named each black player. Shame on you. I sat on Eddie's side of the field during the second half. Tappe Henning paid complete attention to the other side of the scrum where Visagie continued his showing against Sephaka. Sephaka was an improvement on Carstens, but certainly also suffered. But on Eddie's side, Dave Hewett refused to bind, and all things considered, Eddie stood up well. Further, he was one of the few forwards committed to ruck time and cleared the ball very quickly twice in one move during the first twenty minutes. Given my passion for quick clearance at ruck time, that brought tears to my eyes.

Which brings me to Januarie. Jake betrays his teaching past by making selections based on history or favouritism (teachers pet?). Januarie is low on form and fitness. Further he was low on spark and one has to question his lack of attack around the fringes of a scrum against a team with limited time together and as such, suspect defensive patterns.

Jaco van der Westhuyzen looked similarly poor. His kick straight up the middle of the field towards the end of the first half brought back memories of his poor tactics against the Crusaders. He continues to blow hot and cold as he has done in the Springbok jersey. We cannot afford to alternate the jersey between Pretorius and Van der Westhuyzen just to motivate the guys. It is time to move beyond them.

On the subject of moving on. Players with records who continue to misbehave must be told they have no future in the game. AJ and Roussouw's truculent behaviour is tiresome and could have cost us the game. On a purely sporting note, anybody who strikes a blow from behind deserves to wear yellow for the rest of their playing career - not merely receive it as a card. What is with South African players - Burger Geldenhuys, Kobus Wiese, AJ and Danie Roussouw: I'd rather go down in a losing heap than lose my honour by taking a cheap shot. If you're cowards in a fight, you're probably lacking in values and effort in other areas of the game too.

Now, somewhere Jake was right. Jean de Villiers looked a different player today than in the Super 14. Granted it was a small step up, but the making his tackles and looking to be involved as captain was a pleasant change. He made one or two breaks but failed to set anything up due to the generally slow play from his half backs. Big Joe and Jaque Fourie made some good runs. Fourie suffered for the same reason De Villiers did, and Big Joe lacked support runners.

Big Joe makes a run for the Springbok XV Photo: Getty Images

Monty kicked well. Apparently he did not make a tackle on Nacewa to avoid giving a penalty. I'd have rather seen him give the penalty. Watching the tape, it was a piss-poor effort, and if he'd timed his tackle, there would have been no problem at all.

I cannot judge Gaffie or Snyman on the basis of today's performance. Given the style of the game, it was not possible to draw any conclusions. However, SA teams do not chase kicks, and fullbacks look silly when their wings do not drop back on the assist and chase a upfield kick. This can also be said of today's game. Nevertheless, I remain to be convinced that either Snyman or Gaffie deserve their place ahead of the Ndungane brothers.

Wannenberg made a big difference when he came on today, and between him and Van Niekerk, we have two fine runners with the ball in hand. However, loosies must hunt in packs and today we were shown up for failing to do what the Kiwis do so well - running support from pick-and-goes, rucks or scrums. This invariably results in turnovers or slow ball.

Shimange was average - his throwing in was good but it was difficult to assess his scrumming inside of Carstens. Van den Berg looked similarly average, and it boggles my mind that a player from the Sharks reserve bench was elevated to the starting line-up. Surely this was an opportunity to blood Johann Muller - who played ahead of him for the Sharks.

For the World XV, I was disappointed. I would have expected them to throw the ball around a bit more - in pursuit of a win but with less caution regarding a loss. It was truly a great team and I doubt we'll see another like it for a long time to come. I am looking forward to the match against Krige's WP XV next Friday - I believe we might see more of the festival rugby we missed today. All of that said, the World XV were good on defence and in rucks and mauls when considering they don't usually play together. Chabal was very impressive.

But there was one moment I jumped out of my seat in appreciation of skill and vision - Carlos' banana kick 26 minutes in. The man is sublime and I wish he'd finished his rugby in SA rather than the UK.

Carlos Spencer for the World XV Photo: Getty Images

Now onto what to take away from this match. Not a lot. The Boks will make a lot of changes. So would I. And more radical ones than Jake is likely to make. Monty has slowed up with age, but is wiser and the general the Boks need at flyhalf. Put him there.

Further the Boks look as creative as a white-painted wall. We need more tries. Put Habana in at outside center. Put Fourie inside him. Believe me it will work. It gives us crash ball at 12 and creativity at 13. Further, both Fourie and Habana run good lines.

It won't happen, but put Akona Ndungane at wing and if Jean de Villiers decides to play, him on the other. Otherwise Odwa Ndungane.

Bring Bevin Fortuin in at the back. Now that's a line that would run many sides ragged.

Since my previous selection, I've made a few changes based on form in the final few matches of the Super 14 - and some changes in thinking. We need more on attack. My team (free of injury):

First Choice	Second Choice
15. Bevin Fortuin	Brent Russell
14. Akona Ndungane	Giscard Pieters
13. Bryan Habana	Jean de Villiers
12. Jaque Fourie	De Wet Barry
11. Odwa Ndungane	JP Pietersen
10. Percival Montgomery	Jaco van der Westhuyzen
9. Ruan Pienaar	Fourie du Preez
8. Joe van Niekerk	Pedrie Wannenburg
7. Juan Smith	Tim Dlulane
6. Schalk Burger	Luke Watson
5. Victor Matfield	Ross Skeate
4. Bakkies Botha	Johann Muller
3. Cobus Visagie	Eddie Andrews
2. John Smit	Schalk Brits
1. JD Moller	Lawrence Sephaka