Sports Ministry is right about this one

Far from being criticised, as they were by opposition parties, the Sports Ministry should have been lauded for their suggestion earlier this week that transformation should take priority over performance in the contract of the new Springbok coach.

If this was the case, it would make everyone more honest by giving structure to something that has long been a reality.

Why do you think SA Rugby (Pty) Ltd managing director Rian Oberholzer was so willing to fight for Harry Viljoen after the disastrous end of year tour?

There were probably several factors, but chief among them was Viljoen's willingness to embrace the transformation ideals by going where no-one else had gone before him.

When I met with Oberholzer late last year, there was little talk from the SA Rugby boss of Viljoen's game-plan. Most of the pluses centred on the selection for test matches of Conrad Jantjes, Lawrence Sephaka and Adrian Jacobs.

Make no mistake, Viljoen was very brave to select Jantjes for the Tri-Nations test against Australia in Pretoria. But while Jantjes proved after that impressive opening that, contrary to what Laurie Mains might have thought, he was certainly up to Super 12 standard, his subsequent appearances were less assuring.

Viljoen did several crazy things as Bok coach, but not even he would have selected Jantjes for the Twickenham test against England were it not for his commitment to transformation. Both Thinus Delport and Percy Montgomery would have been better bets for that particular game.

Jantjes was a good investment for the future, but Montgomery and Delport would have been better equipped to win the game for him on that particular day.

The unwritten law was that once Jantjes was chosen to give the Springbok two black players, there was to be no backing down.

Those who keep their ears close to the ground know that to be the reality of South African rugby, so why not be honest about it, as Sports Minister Ncgonde Balfour suggests they should be, and formalise it in the new coaches contract.

At least then the new man won't have to do the difficult balancing act demanded of him if he is to satisfy both the bigger political goals concentrated on by the representivity lobby and the narrower win-at-all-costs demands of what used to be SA rugby's only target market.

Sometimes it is necessary to live in the Cape to fully understand the dynamics at work in South African rugby. From my conversations with black officials, I was long ago convinced that we had reached a time when the demand was for black players to be selected regardless of what impact it might have on results.

After several long conversations the message was clear - transformation comes first and should always be seen as the priority. This was something that Nick Mallett failed to understand. While Mallett was incensed at Oberholzer's reaction to his assertion in Cardiff in 1999 that he would not be dictated to by politicians, he did not understand the pressure that Oberholzer was under as a result of his comments.

John Ncinane, the feisty sports politician cum rugby administrator from Border, was one of the first to phone Oberholzer on the morning the comments were printed.

The following is a rough reproduction of their discussion: "Mr Oberholzer, while Mr Mallett was living in Constantia eating bacon and eggs, my people were breaking stones on Robben Island. They are incensed and want to know what is the meaning of his outburst."

"Mr Ncinane, Mr Mallett was trying to..."

"No excuses, Mr Oberholzer, my people want to know. They want to know now."

I was in Cardiff at the time, but I am led to believe there was a lot of anger back home. It was unfair that players and some officials should have blamed Oberholzer for subsequent events. Let's just say that there was a dynamic at work which none of them could properly understand.

Mallett was wrong to blast off as he did, but at the same time it was understandable that he should be concerned. He was preparing his team to win the World Cup and it demanded single-minded focus - the rugby public he was exposed to back home were going to accept nothing less than the best performances from his team.

Of course, it is politically incorrect to suggest that the selection of black players should imply a weakening of the team. Recent history has shown the contrary, such as when Mallett finally chose Breyton Paulse for the third place play-off game at the World Cup and the winger played a blinder. The success of Herschelle Gibbs as an opener in the national cricket team after his initial forced seledction is another example.

But Sports Ministry spokesman Graham Abrahams was 100% correct when he suggested it would be unfair to contractually bind the next coach to success in the World Cup when it has been made clear to him that transformation is a priority.

This is so because selection along racial lines automatically puts the South African coach at a disadvantage compared to his direct opponents, who don't have to work within the same parametres and are simply employed to choose the best team, regardless of who the players are and where they come from.

Winning, as Abrahams pointed out, is important. But it should not be so important that it stands in the way of a transformation strategy designed to ensure that rugby is still flourishing in this country 20 years from now.

Not that there should be too many people in this country who should have a problem with that. The widespread acceptance of the bar on a foreigner coaching the Springboks suggests most disagree with the modern professional sports notion that results should come at any price.