‘Jags’ discipline will go’
DE BRUIN: LIONS COACH BELIEVES NAUDE, SIMELANE CAN UPSET VISITORS
Rudolph Jacobs
The Lions should attempt to capitalise on the Jaguares’ habit of playing with poor discipline when they host the Argentine side in a key Super Rugby contest at Ellis Park this afternoon.
While the Lions lost their last two games, the Jaguares won their last two, and Lions coach Swys de Bruin made a bold call to introduce several youngsters in his starting line-up this week.
“The Jags are a good side, make no mistake. They beat the Bulls there and they beat the Blues there,” De Bruin said.
“They lost against us but they are a great side, almost an international side.
“But we know them well. We know when they commit obstruction in the lineout, when they take your lifter out.”
It could mean that referee Rasta Rashivenge will need to be on top of his game to ensure a fair contest.
“We are quite involved with all their tricks, like taking guys away off the ball, and we know their discipline is not what it should be, so we will have to stay disciplined like in that first half against the Stormers and in Argentina,” De Bruin said.
“If our discipline goes wayward with this young side, we are going to have problems, but if we stay focused I can guarantee you their discipline will go.”
De Bruin admitted it was a brave call to introduce two youngsters in the midfield, with Franco Naude and Wandisile Simelane included in the team, but it was one which could just pay off.
“Franco is a specialist No 12 like Harold (Vorster) who has played a lot in Japan and we needed him as a back-up for Harold. He put his hand up straight away,” De Bruin said.
“He is an energetic type of guy. He gets involved and just wants to play, and I thought this was a brilliant time to look at a new centre pairing for the future. It’s not to say the other two are not good enough anymore.
“We know we can’t just run everything, but as soon as we get our defence and kicking game correct we can make big strides.”
De Bruin admitted, however, that they would have to experi- ence some growing pains before they could start firing on all cylinders again.
“Our secrets the last few years were Jaco Kriel, (Warren) Whiteley and Warrick Tecklenburg. They were in the wider channels and they were fantastic,” he said.
“So people often think it’s about forwards and backs, but it’s rather about attack and defence.
“It’s a team thing, but in 2016 our loose forwards were dominant.”
Heinz Schenk
During the week, Rassie Erasmus reiterated the Springboks’ commitment in 2019 towards having 50% representation. That means the national team must average 12 non-white players in every 23-man match squad during the season.
Ironically, the respective sentiments on both sides of the debate were rather negative.
Conservatives used the outrage from South Africa School Athletics’ plan to enforce quotas (which was subsequently abandoned) to moan about transformation again.
After all, Erasmus didn’t reach his 45% target in 2018, so what exactly is going to fundamentally change this year? Can’t say I blame them. I’m going to adopt a third view on the matter: apathy.
Erasmus’ 50% pledge is not going to matter in any way, whether he makes the number or not.
Our politicians are notoriously bad at backing up their condemnation of a lack of transformation with deeds.
Ngconde Balfour didn’t utter a word when the Boks were thumped by the All Blacks in the 2003 World Cup quarterfinal and only had Ashwin Willemse as a non-white in the starting XV.
There were six players of colour in a squad of 30 in 2007, but no-one really talked about that because it was hard to do so when your national rugby team actually wins the World Cup.
In 2011, the silence was deafening on Peter de Villiers’ decision to include just three black players in his starting line-up for the heart-breaking loss to the Wallabies in the last eight.
Fikile Mbalula called a media conference at the end of the Boks’ campaign in 2015 to denounce Heyneke Meyer’s lack of promoting black players. But after that? Nothing. Hell, even his “major” shake-up in banning five major federations from hosting major international events in 2016 amounted to zilch.
SA Rugby was still given “conditional” support for its 2023 World Cup bid and the others didn’t have the money anyway for such ventures.
The whole discourse will continue to be bluster because nobody can agree on what transformation really means.
Is it pure numbers, such as 50% of 23 players (it doesn’t even make mathematical sense)?
What if you only pick eight out of 23, but five of those men are key players who get consistent gametime? There’s no consistency. To emphasise again: 50%, so what?