The 'Weakened' Squad

As published in my column 'The Blog Roll' in the August 2011 edition of SPORTElizabeth.

There was hope once again. But, then again, there always is. As much as we acknowledge in the weeks leading up to the match that the Springboks will be a fragile, tentative unit with the at least 21 of the leading players out injured, we are South African sports fans and deep down most of us would have harboured at least some hope. And don’t tell me you didn’t because then the question is why were you were glued to your screen throughout the duration of the match? And if you weren’t because you really did think it would be a waste of time, then well done, but in that case, I’d rather have you shouting for the All Blacks or (for that matter) Australia during the Rugby World Cup.

As I write this, the opening match of the Castle Lager Trinations between South Africa and Australia in Sydney has just ended, and there are a number of issues I’d like to discuss with regard to today’s 39 – 20 loss, as well as the tournament in general. Firstly, let’s go back to the selection of the Springbok squad for the away leg of the Trinations. As expected, there was a great deal of banter from the Australian and New Zealand media (although, especially the Australians in my opinion) as they accused the Springbok selectors of picking a weakened squad in order to rest key players for this year’s World Cup in New Zealand. All in all, 21 top players were ostensibly receiving treatment for a variety of different injuries, and as a result, were ostensibly unable to hop on board that (faulty) Qantas plane. This is nothing new – Jake White did the same thing in 2007, and also found himself in the line of fire as he too was accused of insulting the Trinations tournament etc etc.

Something I did not know until very recently is that the SANZAR countries have all signed an agreement forbidding them to intentionally field ‘weakened’ squads for any Trinations match(es). Now, is it just me, or are the holes in that so-called agreement bigger than those found in the Bok defence today? My first problem is: Please define a ‘weakened squad.’ Secondly, who decides what a weakened squad is? And why doesn’t that person just select all three squads for the Trinations and be done with it? Thirdly, please do me a favour and define exactly what an ‘acceptable injury’ is according to this agreement. These are all questions which I believe cannot be answered objectively. If Springbok doctor Craig Roberts decides that it is in Bakkies Botha’s best interests that he does not take to the field, who has the authority to override that? Forget the authority, who has the courage to do so? I say ‘courage’ because should you force an injured player to take to the field, and the injury worsens, surely you should then be held accountable. As such, in my opinion that agreement is flawed in so many ways.

Let’s now look even further than the obvious case of a player suffering a hamstring strain, for example, and physically not being able to play rugby. If Springbok management decides that Bakkies Botha is not injured, as such, but is definitely suffering from serious fatigue having been completely overplayed of late, surely selecting Bakkies would then be fielding a ‘weaker team,’ not so? For instance, if we could see a graph for Bakkies – much the same as the players’ profiles on PS3 or Xbox rugby games – his skill bar might be higher than most other locks in the country, but his energy bar would be at zero, bringing his average right down; in turn meaning that he would be the ‘weaker’ option. But, we do not have such graphs available to us in the real world, and it would all be a matter of opinion anyway, bringing me back to my argument that firstly, the agreement is a farce, and secondly, it cannot be enforced objectively.

In the end, nothing much came of it, and I don’t care much whether the players are injured or not – I am just really relieved that they are eventually getting the rest Prof. Tim Noakes has spoken about for years now. This is very difficult to say, and I know that it is probably rubbish, but I said it before the Trinations started: “I don’t care what happens during this year’s Trinations. All I care about is the Springboks becoming the first ever team to actually defend the William Webb Ellis Trophy. If it really gets too bad to watch, I’ll gladly dust off my 1995 and 2007 RWC dvds and watch them. On repeat. If necessary, over and over again.”

I promised I would discuss today’s match too, so here goes: The Springbok defence was an absolute shambles, Quade Cooper is possibly the most annoyingly good rugby player in the world, and the Springbok defence was a shambles. I also do feel that John Smit is now passed his expiry date. He had one or two good moments, and even scored a try, but I really can no longer watch him puff and pant his way around the field. Surely it is no secret that Bismarck is not only the better option, but possibly even the best hooker in the world. Take John Smit to the World Cup, sure – his experience is invaluable – but let the man mentor the team, while his fitter, more energetic compatriots take to the field. Anyway, I must run – the 1995 Springbok squad has just run onto the field at Ellis Park and I have a beer waiting.