Many similarities between SA rugby and cricket

Rugby faces the same challenges and problems currently blighting the Proteas.

The controversy and media commentary surrounding South Africa's cricketing failures in Australia has at times caused me to pinch myself as a reminder that the subject under discussion is not our struggling rugby team.

There are certainly many similarities. And a glance through just about any newspaper or internet article dealing with the reasons for the South African cricket teams failures brings out a remarkable common thread with the South African oval ball game.

There can be no denying that the problems caused by the drive for transformation and racial representivity has had a dramatic impact on both sports. When cricketing people complain about the lack of clarity about the racial quota system as it is applied at the highest level, they might just as well be making the same point about rugby.

It was good to see that SA Rugby has finally gone public about the quota which will apply to this year's Super 12. Not that the gentleman's agreement between the coaches - actually really a dictate from a higher level, I would imagine - is really anything new. It is just the first time it has officially been made public.

One thing that bothers me about the arrangement is that it seems a little conservative. Surely if a cricket team is required to carry two quota players (an odious term but one which we have to live with) then a rugby team should be expected to include three.

If my memory serves me correctly, the Sharks frequently included three black players in their teams last year, with Ricardo Loubscher, Etienne Fynn, Deon Kayser and Rodger Smith all getting game time at some stage. By contrast the Stormers, representing a region boasting a much stronger rugby heritage among the previously disadvantaged communities, sometimes only had place for Breyton Paulse.

Hopefully that will change in the coming months. Big lock Quinton Davids looks a lot fitter and leaner than this time last year, while the absence of Neil de Kock in the initial stages of the Super 12 through injury will force Gert Smal to start with the gifted scrumhalf Johannes "Bolla" Condradie.

Of course, Breyton Paulse, who Nick Mallett overlooked just two years ago, would now be considered a certainty for just about any team on the planet. So all things being equal, Smal's team should start the Super 12 against the Sharks with at least three black players and maybe even four if Paulse moves to fullback to accomodate the talented and pacy Egon Seconds.

If you look at those players, it quickly becomes apparent that the forced quota system is starting to bear fruit. After attending the Discovery/Supersport Knock-out Challenge at Newlands last week, it appears cricket is starting to do the same.

It has also done so at test level in both sports. Paulse's arrival on the international stage might have taken longer had it not been for the pressure being brought to bear on Mallett, and ditto for Herschelle Gibbs, who like Justin Ontong found himself selected for a test match (versus England in Port Elizabeth 1999/2000) when he was patently out of form.

Cricket followers will recall that there was a big hue and cry over the selection of Gibbs as he was being accomodated out of position at the top of the order. Yet he has subsequently gone on to become one of world cricket's top test openers.

On the rugby front, the jury is still out on Conrad Jantjes. But after watching him pick up the man of the match award in his first big test match against the Australians, it is undeniable that he is a much better player than Laurie Mains appeared to think.

On several occasions during his tenure as Cats coach, Mains invoked the ire of the representivity lobby by ignoring the gentleman's agreement in leaving Jantjes on the sidelines. Clearly Mains did need to be forced, and that is the problem I have with the gentleman's agreement - like in cricket, it is unclear and needs to be properly spelled out to everybody.

And by everybody I mean not just the players, but the fans who pay good money to watch these sports. For while I do see the necessity of a quota policy, I cannot disagree with those who say that neither sport can be expected to push for top sport on the world ranking list while the selection parametres encompass anything other than choosing the best available players for a given match on a given day.

Sports administrators, who are charged with hiring and firing coaches, need to understand this. Rian Oberholzer of SA Rugby is one who appears to be coming around to the reality that a successful transformation policy does not imply immediate onfield results, and may require a bit of time.

Many have been confounded by his continued support for Harry Viljoen.

The problem is their starting point is different from his. While most critics judge the coach's success on the number of victories, Oberholzer tends also to take into account the number of black players introduced.

That there is method in this apparent madness becomes obvious if you look at the demographics of this country. Another decade or two down the road, the white population group will be completely insignificant.

For South African cricket and rugby to survive in the South Africa of tomorrow, it is crucial that both sports be regarded by the other race groups as more than just some sort of neo-colonial influence from an era they want to forget.

Anyone who doubts my words should just refer to the rugby experience in Namibia and Zimbabwe. Both nations boasted strong rugby teams before independence, yet if you go there now you will battle to spot mention of the sport in the local newspapers.