In Afrikaans they have a saying: "Te veel van 'n goeie ding is ook nie goed nie." Translated it means: "Too much of a good thing isn't good."  What am I trying to say? I hear you ask well exactly that. Too much of something is bad for you. It takes away from the joy of it and the taste and flavour becomes ordinary and stale. Give me a chance and I will explain my position better. 

I'm an avid sports fan that watches just about every major sport that is played or competed in the world. Rugby, cricket, soccer, golf, F1, tennis and so the list goes on. Every season one of these grabs my attention and hooks me into watching every game, but there has always been one that I followed no matter what: Rugby. Now however it has become stale. Especially Super Rugby. It has become an everyday taste with no flavour. 

When it all started it was a delicacy found only in a specialist deli, a wine produced and only obtainable from the estate. Now it is an everyday sweet bought in any supermarket or corner cafe. A commercial wine that you can
get at any liquor store and Pick 'n Pay. What was once a successful competition has become a bore. 
 
When Super Rugby started as the Super 12 in 1996 I looked forward to seeing my team play against the best in the Southern Hemisphere and that once a year derby against their local rivals. Later in the season the Currie Cup
would see them pitch against each other twice in a home and away fixture. Now I see them play only 2 Australian and 2 New Zealand sides away and 2 of each at home with one local derby after the other. 
  
Come the Currie Cup it is more of the same. In the past I would at least see some new teams compete in the Currie Cup with fresh talent. Now I have to hope that Super Sport will show some Vodacom Cup rugby to see those new
faces in rugby. And it is all because of money. Sponsors and television money only go to the top competitions. Viewing is also determined by this. 
  
I remember the days when the All Blacks came to tour South Africa for 3-4 weeks with 3 tests and a couple of mid weeks games thrown in. It would happen only once every 3 or so years and everybody got talking about it. Now it
is fly in, fly out and we will see you the same time next year, maybe just at a different venue. Talk about the test starts the week before and two days after it is forgotten. Now what is the fun in that? 

The England tour of South Africa this year brings back memories of this. A three test serious including two mid-week games. A proper tour like a rugby tour should be. Already talk is starting of how it will go and who will
reign supreme. But super Rugby stays the main topic. Gone are the days of Springbok trails and selectors choosing a team. The trails are now the games played the week before hand. The coach selects who he believes to be the best.
And with that a piece of rugby has died. 
  
The only thing that keeps me watching rugby is the fact that there is nothing that comes close to the hard hitting tackles and the beauty of a winger running with the ball to score in the corner.  Only thing is that this week the winger scores a try for your team and next week against your team. 
 
In essence there is just too much rugby without any real substance being played. 132 Super rugby games a season and then a Rugby Championship competition with more of the same. In the end no one goes to live games anymore as it is just too much. Cost is a big problem as well. No more full stadiums with supporters cheering their team on. I rather watch at home where I can change the channel if it gets boring. 
 
And so a beautiful game starts to die a slow death. Call me cynical but I just can't see Super Rugby and the Rugby Championship being good for South African rugby or advancing the game at all. The game I once loved and
craved has become just another garage pie that gives you heartburn and indigestion because you ate too much of it. Another bottle of cheap wine that will leave you with no more than a headache and upset stomach the next day. 
 
It is no longer that delicacy bought at the deli or that wine order from the Estate. It costs an arm and a leg to go watch live, but is like a Citi Golf or a Toyota Tazz. You see one game every 20 seconds.  
 
But this is just my  view...............

The TMO in rugby in my view is under utilized and currently nothing more than a pretty (or sometimes not so pretty) decoration. The poor guy sits in a booth and watches rugby only to be called on when the referee and his assistant referees can’t make a call on a try. And then he can only rule on what happened behind the try line. “Try or no try” and “Give me a reason not to award the try” is pretty much the only choices he gets given. Not much of a
job if you ask me. Then again he gets to watch rugby and gets paid for it. (Probably not much more than a car guard, but still.)

Even if he sees a forward pass or a player passing the ball, infringing, he may not rule on that. The IRB, that is you guys, made the rules very clear: The TMO may only decide on what happens behind the try line and on a mistake that the try scoring player makes. For crying a storm in a tea cup, that is not rugby. If he sees an infringement or error made in the build up or in the course of scoring a try, let the man speak up. That is why we have television and the technology. That is also why he became a referee after all.

Another area where the TMO can be utilized to great effect is when a little TLC breaks out between the players. Most of the time the referee and his assistant is so busy breaking up the “tea party” that they either forget or
don’t see who started the “get together” between players. Or they see something but are unsure as to the extend of what happened or who was involved even when it happens right in front of them(why does the name Bryce spring to mind?). The Stormers vs Cheetahs game at Newlands on Saturday is a pretty good example of
this.

About 50 minutes into the game Kaplan saw Ryno Elstadt of the Stormers driving a knee into a Cheetahs player. He flagged the referee, Mr Walsh, to discuss this matter. At this point a WWE type Royal Rumble broke out with just
about every player on the field joining in and even some of the replacements getting involved in the break up. Walsh discussed the matter with Kaplan and decided to yellow card Elstadt and put that incident on a white card. They proceeded in putting the whole “let’s get to know each other” incident on a white card as well.

Jean de Villiers protested and debated with Walsh that the Cheetahs retaliated and at least the penalty should be over turned but to no avail. Replays of both incidents showed that Elstadt in the process of getting up of the ground made contact with a Cheetahs player’s head with his knee. It wasn’t a deliberate act or with any intend as the Cheetahs player lifted his head just as Elstadt moved forward. A TMO could have pointed this out. Elstadt will probably not get suspended or banned by the citing commissioner or he might get a life time ban. It is SANZAR’s officials making the ruling after all.

The fight however got started when Ashley Johnson came running in and grabbing Deon Fourie to ask how his father was doing. Adrian Strauss joined the conversation and it all went pear shaped from there. On the replays it is clear that Johnson and Strauss started it all and should have gotten yellow cards at least. A couple of hugs and kisses with a wild punch here and there, before they all were comfortable that they knew each others plans after the game. If a punch even landed is still out to the jury. Walsh white carded the whole 3 minutes worth of “hopie” and that was that.

Just a thought: no boxing or wrestling trainer will take any of these guys. If I had to score the fight it would be a draw and all involved ban from any future incidents as they clearly don’t know how to land them punches. (Note
to self: for a proper fight watch the 1995 SA vs Canada match. Dalton knows how to land punches)

Had the TMO been called in, he could have pointed out that Strauss, Johnson and Fourie had started the whole sorry affair and that they should at least get some time off to think about the sins they have committed. If he could determine who of the other players should have spend time in the bin, is open for discussion. I don’t think even the citing commissioner will have a chance in doing that.

That Jean de Villiers was right in saying a white card doesn’t really mean much to him and his side, is in fact correct. Any advantage they could have had if players got carded went out the window. The chance of the penalty being overturned as well. They had to be content to play with 14 men for 10 minutes, while the Cheetahs got a free ride.

The same can be said for every game where a white card is given. The team against whom the infringement is committed gains nothing from it. They still have to face the player and his antics while he might get suspended afterwards and that is that. A TMO looking at the incident can make a difference as it may just result in that player being send to the bin for 10 minutes or even the rest of the game.

Come on IRB, and the rest of the Officials out their making the decisions on rules and regulations, give the TMO more scope and power or get rid of him. Either way you decide, but please don’t waste his time with limited decision making powers as it is now. At least let the on field referee decide how much help he needs. Some of them (the name Bryce keeps popping into my head) needs a hell of a lot more than what you are offering right now. Once you are done with this please also look at the process of dealing with citing and the resulting bans and suspensions as it is clearly not consistent.

Well I’m off to watch some more rugby. So get cracking on those law changes. And feel free to follow me on twitter @djvanman or just pop me an e-mail if you need some help. (Oops I forgot that is technology and you probably won’t know how to use it)

Regards

Dave

In a recent article I looked at the possibility of the Lions playing in the Amlin Challenge   Cup and how this might be the answer to their problems and that of SARU in  dealing with the whole Southern Kings and Super Rugby dilemma they have. This  came after I read a comment or two on twitter eluding to this. Well it seems  I’m  not the only one out there that has looked at this as a possible answer for  Lions Rugby. Francois Nell posted an article on WeTalkRugby where he discusses  this same idea. Here is his article:  http://www.wetalkrugby.com/archives/9026  
Francois went  further and wrote to the GLRU and to Kevin and Ruben personally. I have a copy  of the letter and I can clearly see this is a true Lions and rugby supporter. Here are two excerpts from his letter:   
 “…I  really feel for the staff and players affected by all the negativity and  threats. The injuries came at the worst possible time for the Lions this year  ... a year in which we were planning to silence all those ….shouting  from the rooftops that we must be kicked out of SupeRugby. I, like many,  struggle to understand why this is happening to us at this time. Just when we  got it right by winning the CC we are hit with the worst injury problems in  years. At times it feels to me like God has other plans for the Lions and that  SupeRugby is not part of his plans for us anymore. And to be very honest ... I,  like many others, have had enough of SupeRugby. It has become boring. SupeRugby  just don't excite people like it used to…”
 “…The  Lions can again be the leaders - like we were when the game became professional.  Maybe we must stop fighting for that which offers us little value and go after  something new and more exciting. The Lions will get a lot more supporters going  into a new direction. People that support other teams in SupeRugby will support  the Lions in a Euro league. Europeans will also supports the Lions. In this way
we become a truly international brand..”
 
Now if this  is not passion for your team I don’t  know what is. As a Stormers supporter I’m  feeling bad that I don’t  even show this passion for my own team. But  let’s  consider what Francois and myself have touched on in our separate articles and  how this may be a solution for all South African teams and the Currie Cup. True  SARU is contractually committed to SANZAR, Super Rugby and The Rugby  Championship until at least the end of 2015. What happens then? Do we continue  in a partnership that is beneficial only to one party or do we seek other  avenues to grow our own rugby? To be honest I would love to see SARU going into  a different direction and if they can support the Lions now in doing so it might  just open up the doors for the rest of South African rugby in the  future.

Looking at the  Amlin Challenge Cup and Heineken Cup and how it is made up at the moment we
might just be able to convince the ERC that adding South Africa to the mix is a  good idea. And would you not rather see the Springboks up against the 6 Nations  teams and a tour to Australia, New Zealand and Argentina on a rotation basis  once every 3 years. It will bring back that old rivalry of Springboks vs All  Blacks. Currently it is getting watered down as we play them in 3 tests every  year just after we have played against their Super Rugby teams. “How  can this work and is it truly viable for South African rugby?”  I hear you ask. Let us look at the options and how this might work and benefit  South African rugby. And please bear with me as I look at the setups we  currently have in place.
 
South Africa  currently has 6 Franchise teams in the Bulls, Stormers, Sharks, Cheetahs, Lions
and Southern Kings, with only 5 being able to participate in Super Rugby. This  means that one team loses out every year. The teams competing Super Rugby will  play 16-19 games depending on how far they go in the competition and where they  finished after the conference stage. During this time we have the Vodacom Cup  which sees all our provinces and a team from Argentina compete in two logs to
determine the winners in the end. Again depending on how far a team goes they  will play 6-10 games. Lastly we have the Currie Cup Premier (WP, Sharks, Blue  Bulls, FS Cheetahs, Golden Lions, Griquas) and First Division competitions (EP  Kings, Pumas, Falcons, Leopards, SWD Eagles, Border Bulldogs, Boland Cavaliers,  Griffons).
 
The Premier Division sees a team playing 10-12 games and the First Division teams playing 14-16 games. Add to this a the 3 test England tour, The Rugby Championship with 6 test and a Year-End Tour with 3 test. This means that between 24 February 2012 and 24 November 2012 a Springbok rugby player who had no injuries would have played in anything from 32 – 37 rugby games excluding warm up games. This is a lot of rugby. Take into account that the period consists of only 40 weekends. That means that he will only have 3 weekends off. No wonder that we are struggling so much with injuries
in the Southern Hemisphere. 
 
An English player will have the following to contend with during the 2011/2012 season:
6-9 Heineken Cup games
22-24 Aviva Premiership Games
5 Six Nations Tests
3 South African tests
4 Year-End Tour tests
In total he will play 31 to 36 games. Pretty much the same as what is being played in the Southern Hemisphere.
 
In effect South African Rugby teams will be playing the same amount of rugby but it can be better structured and give more teams exposure to higher levels of competition. How will this work? Well I don’t
know for certain, but this is how I can envision it working:
France and England will have to agree to giving up to spots each in the Heineken cup. In the Amlin Challenge Cup it will be 3 spots by France, 2 By England and 1 by Italy. The 6 Nations will have to expand to the 7 Nations. From South Africa we will then have to restructure our season and the domestic competitions we run. And this is how I see that restructuring:

We run our rugby season to coincide with the European season starting in August and ending in May with a June window for tours to Australia, New Zealand or Argentina. The Vodacom Cup stays but in a new format. The bottom 4 teams of the last Vodacom cup in 2015 stays as is, with teams from Argentina, Namibia, Zimbabwe and a combined Pacific oceans team joining. Thus making it a 8 team competition. The Currie Cup sees the 6 teams competing currently joined by the next best 4 teams from South Africa in the 2015 Vodacom Cup competition. This will make it a 10 team competition. The top 4 teams at the end the 2015 season will compete in the Heineken Cup with the last 2 teams being joined by the next best two teams in the Vodacom Cup of 2015 in the Amlin Challenge Cup in 2016. From 2016 the top 4
teams in the Currie Cup goes to Heineken cup and teams placed 5-8 goes to the Amlin Challenge unless of course the SA teams wins the Heineken Cup or Amlin Challenge. If this happens an extra team goes to either competition and the next team in row joins the competition from the bottom up. 

The Currie Cup gets played on a home and away basis meaning 18 round robin games with a semi final and finals game. The bottom two teams plays a relegation promotion game against the top two South African sides in the Vodacom cup competition. The Vodacom Cup also sees a home and away structure with foreign teams being based in South Africa at one of the top 4 provinces or a province of their choice not in the Vodacom cup.  
This will see a Springbok rugby player competing in the following games if he plays in all games:
18-20 Currie Cup matches
6-9 Heineken Cup matches or 8-12 Amlin Cup matches
6 Seven Nations test
3 Mid-Year tour tests
4 Year end tour test
A total of 33 to 37 games, pretty much the same as now. 
 
The big difference here is that players will get exposure to European conditions as well as Southern Hemisphere conditions. The added bonus is that we will be able to pick players currently playing in Europe. We will also be exposed to the European funding. In the end a think a better deal than the current SANZAR deal we have where only one country really benefits. We will have more teams exposed without a franchise system and the current hassles of who plays and who stays. 8 teams exposed to inter-country competition will surely strengthen our own player base and see as keep more players in SA. It will also open the doors for European players to play for our sides. Experience and exposure can only come when it is created in this type of form. 
 
In the end this is just my view, but how do you see it?

The RFU and coach Lancaster announced the England Squad, to tour South Africa in June, today. They will be playing 3 tests and 2 mid week games in what is an attempt to return to the rugby tours of old. Lancaster is a lucky man as he knows who will be ready and able to play in that first test bar any training injuries.

Heyneke Meyer does not have that luxury as there are still 4 Super Rugby rounds to be played before the test serious. The last weekend seeing a hard North vs South derby in Pretoria when the Bulls take on the Stormers at Loftus Versfeld. Only once these games are played will he be able to announce his Springbok squad. Well we can only hope for the best when it comes to injuries and availability of players.

The first test will no doubt be a hard one for both teams. The Springboks have only a week to prepare as a team before that game. The English will come well prepared, but after two weeks of rest, match sharpness may be lacking. It is interesting that they didn't op for a warm up game of sorts before the first test.

With only 42 players coming it will also mean that some of the England lads will play in 4-5 games in the space of 21 days. Not a prospect I would be looking forward to. It will be interesting to see who these lucky players are as they will probably sit on the bench for at least 2 of the games.

The England squad looks as follows:

Forwards

Mouritz Botha (Saracens), Dan Cole (Leicester Tigers), Alex Corbisiero (London Irish), Paul Doran Jones (Northampton Saints), Phil Dowson (Northampton Saints), Carl Fearns (Bath Rugby)Joe Gray (Harlequins), Dylan Hartley (Northampton Saints), James Haskell (Otago Highlanders), Tom Johnson (Exeter Chiefs), Graham Kitchener (Leicester Tigers), Joe Launchbury (London Wasps), Joe Marler (Harlequins), Lee Mears (Bath Rugby), Ben Morgan (Scarlets), Matt Mullan (Worcester Warriors), Tom Palmer (Stade Francais), Geoff Parling (Leicester Tigers), Chris Robshaw (capt, Harlequins), George Robson (Harlequins), Matt Stevens (Saracens), Thomas Waldrom (Leicester Tigers), Tom Youngs (Leicester Tigers)

Backs:

Anthony Allen (Leicester Tigers), Chris Ashton (Northampton Saints), Brad Barritt (Saracens), Mike Brown (Harlequins), Danny Care (Harlequins), Lee Dickson (Northampton Saints), Owen Farrell (Saracens), Toby Flood (Leicester Tigers), Ben Foden (Northampton Saints), Alex Goode (Saracens), Charlie Hodgson (Saracens), Jonathan Joseph (London Irish), George Lowe (Harlequins), Ugo Monye (Harlequins), David Strettle (Saracens), Manu Tuilagi (Leicester Tigers), Jordan Turner-Hall (Harlequins), Christian Wade (London Wasps), Ben Youngs (Leicester Tigers) – Reuters

Here are the comparison between the Springboks and England:
Overall
Played Bokke England Draw
   32        19      12           1

Now the only question is who will face the English Roses in the Green and Gold. Let me have your probable team and we can compare it in a few weeks time when Heyneke Meyer announces his starting line up for that first test. Here is my probable team:

Forwards
Jannie du Plessis, Bismarck du Plessis, Beast Mtawarira, Adriaan Strauss, Coenie Oosthuizen, Andries Bekker, Eben Etzebeth, Juandre Kruger, Pierre Spies, Heinrich Brussow, Keegan Daniel, Dwayne Vermeulen,

Backs
Francois Hougaard, Morne Steyn, Bryan Habana, Jean de Villiers, Wynand Olivier, JP Pietersen, Pat Lambie, Zane Kirchner, Gio Aplon, Juan de Jongh

With either Pierre spies or Jean de Villiers to captain the side. 

With the Lions vs Southern Kings dilemma that is facing SARU, and that has the whole of the SA rugby public debating, it has been mentioned that maybe the Lions should play in the Amlin Challenge Cup. This might just be a viable answer to their seeming imminent demise, but is it really practical? Well let's look at this option and you can decide for yourself.

The Amlin Challenge Cup is a second tier competition for rugby clubs and teams in Europe that doesn't make it into the Heineken Cup or falls short of making the quarter finals of the Heineken Cup. The set up currently is as follows:

8 teams from France, 6 teams from England and 4 teams from Italy are joined by a team each from Ireland, Wales and Romania. Portugal or Spain has the last birth depending on qualification. (See diagram for qualifying below). Subtractions are made for the countries that win the Heineken Cup and Challenge Cup. The 20 teams are setup in 5 pools of 4 each. Home and way games against the teams in the pool are played. The winners of each pool goes to the quarter final with the 3rd to 5th best runners up in the Heineken Cup making up the other 3 teams.

Now for the Lions to play in the Amlin Challenge either France, England or Italy will have to give up a place for one of their teams in the competition. The other option is for the Lions to play a qualifying competition against the teams from Portugal and Spain to take that spot from them. The ERC will also have to agree to the Lions joining. Let's presume that France agrees to go with only 7 teams and the ERC agrees to allow the Lions in to the competition, what does this mean for the Lions?

Well first and foremost we must remember that the South African rugby season runs from February to November at the moment with Super Rugby and Vodacom Cup being played from February till they conclude in May and August. Then the Currie Cup starts in August and Runs till end of October with the year end test tours following this. The Rugby Championship is played in September and October and winter test tours in June. The European Season runs from September to July. The Amlin Challenge is played during and concurrent with the various countries domestic club competitions and only breaks for the year end tours and what we call winter tours.

The Lions will have to decide if they want to play their home games in the Amlin Cup here in South Africa or at a neutral venue in Europe. If they decide on Europe this will mean that they will have to have two teams. One for the Amlin Challenge and one for the Currie Cup and Vodacom Cup competitions in SA. Over and above this it will impact them in the latter two competitions or the Amlin Challenge as their will be weekends that they have two games. And then their is the question of making players available for the Springboks in the Rugby Championship.

Looking at all this it will be a logistical nightmare to compete in an European competition purely due to the amount of traveling involved or having to teams. For a Union already struggling financially it just seems impossible to do this.

My conclusion: it makes as match sense for the Lions to play in the Amlin Challenge, as it does for me to work in Cape Town and stay in Johannesburg traveling to work every day. The cost and logistics involve is just to great. It is the same as having them join up with the Cheetahs to reunite the Cats Franchise of yesteryear. Unless SARU comes to their aid I just can't see this happening.

But as always this is just my view...... 

Looking at the Super Rugby Logs for the various conferences and overall, I am once again baffled by this system. And yes I know this is probably a topic that most rugby supporters are sick and tired off, but I'm not here to only discuss how a team with less points can be above another team. I want to know how fair the Bonus Point system is.

The Stormers and Chiefs are the only two teams that have lost only one game. Yet the Stormers are lying second in the South African conference and 4th overall. The Bulls have lost one more game, but have more log points than the stormers due to bonus points they got. Yesterday the Bulls scored 5 tries for a 4 try bonus point, but they conceded 5 tries in the process. They won by only 6 points and still got 5 points from the game. A couple of weeks ago the Stormers scored 3 tries and won 21-6 yet they got no bonus point for that win.

In essence this just doesn't seem right. A team with a brilliant defense and a good attack gets nothing because they can't score 4 tries in a game yet they never concede more than a try a game. On the other hand a team scores 4 tries but concedes 4 as well and still get that bonus point. And due to that they have more log points and are ranked higher on the log. It just doesn't make sense.

Looking at the 6 Nation it is clear cut. 2 points for a win even if you win by 100-0 and scored 20 tries. 1 point for a draw and a round 0 if you lose. The team winning the most wins the competitions. Now that is fair. If you don't win games you stay behind and if you win you top the log. You can also go the route of soccer. 3 points for a win, 1 for a draw. If two teams are tied at the top of the log a points difference determine the winner.

The other option is to give a defensive bonus point rather than a bonus point purely for scoring tries. The French Top 14 applies a bonus point like this. If you score 3 more tries than the opposition you get a Bonus point. Now this will motivate teams to score those vital tries and play good attacking rugby, but in the same instance it will reward good defense.

Currently we are seeing combined scores in the region of 70-80 per game and it is neatly split around 40/60 ratio. Are you then really as good as you think. Scoring all those tries but conceding as many. In my eyes you are just another average team. The game of rugby is not just0 about attack, but defense is just as vital. If you do both good you will win.

Then this conference system really is not working. Rather mix the teams from the countries up and have home and away games against those in you group. So that is 8 games before the play offs. The top 8 teams on log points plays quarter finals, the winners gone to the semi finals and then the final. That way it fair and the season is cut by half. Maybe it will fill up stadiums up again. 

I can remember the days growing up and dreaming of playing for my beloved Western Province team one day and then on to the Springboks. I new I would have to move and get a job in Cape Town or somewhere close by as it would be the only way that I could realize that dream. Back in those days rugby players had a day job and they weren't paid to play. An early injury at school level saw those dreams shattered as I could no longer play rugby.

I kept supporting WP and the Springboks and still do. I still think of those days. Now they are many moons in the past. The days when players only changed teams due to work transfers. Days when you played rugby for the love of the game. When you played for the team in the province or area you where born in or stayed. The days of greats like Danie Gerber, Naas Botha and Pote Fourie.

Now it is all different. Players start their careers at a province/club and a season or two later they playing for their arch rivals all because of money. Bryan Habana is a great example. He started at the Lions, moved to the Bulls and now he is finishing his career at the Stormers. Smaller or less wealthy teams are struggling more and more to compete. They develop the players and then they lose them to richer and bigger teams. Griquas and Leopards are great examples of this. Players like Riaan Viljoen, Sarel Pretorius and Bondise Maku are all players that started here and now plays rugby for the bigger unions.

Europe has more foreign players today in their club competition than players from their own countries. Saracens is a good example. Nearly half the team are South African and they are regulary could Saffarcens. The Heineken Cup final will feature at least 4 South African players. Japanese Rugby thrives on South African, Australian and New Zealand players. To the extend that some players like Jacque Fourie has given up a Springbok spot to play in Japan.

In those days gone by it was a privilege and honor to play for your country at international level. Now it seems all that matters is who can pay you the most. Then there's the players that crave international rugby and a chance to play World Cup Rugby so much that they will leave the country of their birth and go play for another country if they can. It is a well known joke that the English rugby team stays with their parents or school friends when touring South Africa.

True this is not just a problem in rugby, but all professional sport. Soccer and Cricket suffers the same fate. My son will probably support a team that his hero plays for. So I will have to buy new supporters kit every year as the player changes teams.

The worst of all is that supporters are starting to ebb and flow between teams as well. Today a WP man tomorrow a Bulls man. Who ever wins gets my support. And if they don't win we don't go to the stadium to watch them play. And this is very sad.

Back in those good old days the stadiums were packed to the rafters every week. Tickets cost a fiver at Newlands for a standing ticket on the railway stand and R10 for a seat. R15 on the grand stand. Sure things were cheaper then, but really R12 for a 500ml Coke. I can buy a 2lt at the supermarket for R14.

I will probably take my boy to one game a year because of the cost. R80 a ticket for a Super Rugby game and R40 for safe parking. That means R210 and we are still to get a match program and something to eat and drink. At the end of the day it will cost me probably R400-500 for the day. I can have a decent braai and a few cold ones for half that and watch the game at home.

Rugby Bosses are complaining because fans are no longer coming to the games. Guys look at the prices you charge and make it cheaper. Stadiums will once again be full and you will actually make more money. Bring in Salary caps for teams and players and they won't move every second season to a new team. These players are like gold diggers looking for a new sugar daddy that can house them, feed them and pay their way.

Yes I know that a rugby player's career is maximum 15 years and after that they have to live of what they have. Most however have the oppertunity to study as Universities pay them to play while they study. If they really want they can still work after their rugby careers have ended.

Thinking back I can still hear my Dad: "My boy, mark my words, rugby will never be the same again, now that money is involved." He said these words to me the day rugby went professional. I have argued on many occasions that players deserved to be paid and that it might have been a good thing. However today I have to say this to my Dad: "Dad you were right. Rugby has not been the same and it will never be again." 

I just want to state clearly that is article is not at all aimed to credit or discredit the Lions nor the Southern/EP Kings. The aim here is to correct the facts that one Mark Keohane presented in a misleading manner in a recent article of his. The article: "SARU must end Lions' misery" can be read on "http://www.keo.co.za/2012/04/30/saru-must-end-lions-misery/"  

In his article Mark makes it clear that he would rather see the Kings in the 2013 Super Rugby than the Lions. He goes on to lambaste the Lions for their poor performance and the fact that they have in the last 5 years not finished higher than second last. Oops, Mark, in 2009 they finished 12th in the Super 14. I know it is only 3rd last but that is still one higher than what you said. He goes further by stating that the Lions won less than 20% of their matches in this period. The Lions record since 2008 up to last weekend was 83 games played with 10 wins. It is actually a 12% winning ratio. Maybe next time just use your calculator and work it out.

Mark goes on to compare the Lions to the Stormers and the way they perform. Should he not have looked at their performances over this period compared to the EP Kings who make up the core of the Southern Kings team. To put this whole issue into perspective I will give you the Lions and EP kings stats in the Vodacom Cup and Currie Cup for the period 2008 up to last weekend. Throwing stats of only one team around in a situation like this is also not prudent of a journalist. Now the Lions do play in the Premier Division of the Currie Cup and the Kings in the 1st Division but for the purpose of this exercise this is all we have to work with. And my aim is to show wining ratios and not compare the two teams strength in relation to each other, but rather their regular competition outside of the Super Rugby sphere.

Here is the Lions stats:

Competition      Played  Won  Win%
Currie Cup.           52      32   61,53%
Vodacom Cup       34      19   59,38%
Overall                 86      51   59,30%

The EP Kings are going as follows:

Competition      Played  Won  Win%
Currie Cup           40       24  60.00%
Vodacom Cup      35       15  42,86%
Overall                75       39  52,00%

Looking from a purely Vodacom Cup perspective it become clear that the Lions are far better at this level than the EP Kings. Currie Cup wise they are performing much the same when playing against teams at their same level.

Mark maybe you should have taken this into consideration before asking SARU to end the so called misery of the Lions. Because I can promise you, you will be begging for them to end the Kings' misery before week 8 of next year's Super Rugby. But then again as you have mentioned in Super Rugby anything is possible and it rewards attack. I just don't know if the Kings has the attack you are talking about. They for one don't have big match temperament as they have shown in the last couple of seasons.

They have played in two finals and in 4 relegation/promotion matches. And still they have no Title to show for it and couldn't get promoted. The Lions on the other hand won the Currie Cup in 2011.

Now you as the reader and fan can decide who should be in Super Rugby next year. I can tell you that SARU has no choice but to let the Southern Kings play. And in my own view this might not be such a bad thing. All I ask is that journalists report the facts correctly and give the whole story not just the side that will benefit them 

The Southern Kings inclusion in the 2013 Super Rugby competition has sparked a great debate between Mark Keohane of www.keo.co.za and Francois Bonthuys of www.rugbybanter.com. Mark believes the Lions are not worthy of being in Super Rugby after a dismall run of performances over the last three seasons. Bonty on the other hand believes the Kings have no claim to playing in the competition either.

Well I believe it is not the teams that don't have a claim but rather SARU that stuffed up big time. SARU is no longer about rugby and what is good for South African Rugby but rather about how much money they stand to make or loose. And through that they have landed themselves ina rather sticky old mess. And they can't get themselves out of it. The gravy train for the officials have now become an old farm longdrop.

Let us take a step back from where we are right now in this mess and look at were it all started. Back in 2007 the doors were opened by SANZAR for a 15th franchise to join the then Super 14. The Kings were one of the teams that presented along with various teams from Australia. In the end the Australians formed the Melbourne Rebels. The Rebels came in as an outside horse against the Kings.

For all practical and rugby reasons the franchise should have gone to the Kings. They had a better business plan, better administration and a better team set up. SANZAR backed the Australians after they were told that broadcasting rights in Australia would see them loose $20 million over the next four years if the Kings got the nod. The Kings wanted to take the matter to arbitration, but SARU made them a promise of inclusion by 2013 if they let it go.

Then the Kings made sure that they started winning Currie Cup First division games to be able to compete in play-offs for promotion. And suddenly in 2011 SARU announces a reduced Premier Division in the Currie Cup. Again leaving the Kings in the dark and out of the loop. The main reason was Super Rugby. The money cow for SARU.

Now it is true that money talks and bullshit walks. But currently money has landed SARU right in the bull's private toilet. They are bound to allow the Kings to play and withdraw another SA team. The Lions with a poor record currently is the team to go. However SARU forgets that they won the first South African Title in Super Rugby back in 1993 when it was still the Super 10. And when rugby was played for the love of the game and not for money.

Mark my friend both teams deserve to be in the competition, but SARU unfortunately has no balls to stand up to Australia. Only once they can do this will they be able to resolve the matter.

But this is just my view.... 

Dr Danie Craven, rugby player and administrator, was born Daniel Hartman Craven on 11 October 1910 in the small town of Lindley, Free State. He is known as Danie Craven or Doc Craven. He attended Lindley High School and from there went to Stellenbosch University, or Maties as it is known, in the Western Cape. Craven received his Doctorate and later lectured at Maties. He became the resident principle of Wilgenhof during his stay at the Univertsity. Craven married twice and had 4 children.

Danie Craven played scrum half for Western Province, Eastern Province, Northern Transvaal and the Springboks before becoming a Springbok selector and later Springbok coach. He was the President of SARB (South African Rugby Board)and later SARFU (South African Rugby Football Union). He also served on the IRB and was it's chairman on more than one occasion.