A lot has been made in recent days on the inclusion of Saracens hooker, Schalk Brits, in the Stormers team for their semi-final clash against the Crusaders this weekend at Newlands.
It seems there are two issues people are debating here;
a) Should the Stormers have considered Brits in the first place?
b) Could this be a platform for Brits to make a case for himself for Bok selection (as a hooker)?
As different as the two issues are on the face of it, they both also tie in with one another.
Quite simply, the decision to include Brits on the bench as cover for loose-forward (or even backline player) was an absolute master stroke by the Stormers management, but to suggest that the Aviva Premiership Final’s Man-of-the-match should leapfrog some of South Africa’s Super 14 hookers for a place in the Rugby World Cup squad is totally absurd.
Dealing with the first issue in isolation, it was absolute genius to include Brits in the Stormers match-day 22 for this weekend’s semi-final match. There are those who bemoan the lack of faith Stormers management are showing in their structures by not selecting the next guy in line to come in as cover for the injured Duane Vermeulen, but if you consider the Stormers are reportedly down to their 7th choice loose-forward with a semi-final coming up against the most successful Super Rugby team in history, the selection of Brits is not only clever, it’s bloody logical!
For individuals to claim that the Stormers are not investing in their youth or structures, I would like to point out the amount of youngsters that ran out for this team in the league stages of this tournament, some of whom are yet to play a senior Currie Cup game!
One also has to appreciate the magnitude of the situation and match coming up. This is not a simple league game in which you can afford to blood a brilliant young, but ultimately inexperienced talent. This is a semi-final of arguably the toughest provincial tournament in the world in which games in finals matches are won by the smallest of margins, or a single mistake by either team, from which there is no coming back next week to fix it!
Simply put, experience is key in these type of games, and in Brits they do not only get that, they get a player that has played for the Stormers a couple of years ago that knows the structures and the players involved, not to mention the intensity you find in Super Rugby which is a massive step up from the what the current number 7th or 8th choice loose-forward would have.
The genius of this move by Stormers management however does not come from picking a player with Super Rugby experience or knowing structures. Yesterday, the very cool folks at Rugbydump.com posted a highlights package of Brits in the Aviva Premiership Final Match where he was picked as the Man of the Match. If you have not yet seen this clip, here it is.
If ever you questioned the logic of including Brits, a hooker by trade, as cover in a Super Rugby semi-final as a loose-forward (he is not allowed to substitute at hooker), this clip should answer that question emphatically!
Schalk Brits is a player with amazing skills and vision, and I do not think one person will ever argue that. The first two moves in the Rugbydump package sees Schalk Brits covering in the last line of defense where your fullback or wings should be, where in one instance he kicks an up-and-under as-well as I have seen any backline player kick in history, and in the second, again covering at the back he runs the ball back and although getting smashed in the tackle, he managed to off-load beautifully to a supporting player putting his team on the front foot yet again.
In fact, this highlights package is littered with examples displaying the vision and skills of Schalk Brits, the rugby player.
And this brings me to the second issue at hand; ‘Should Brits leapfrog hookers like Chiliboy, Adriaan Strauss, or any other Super Rugby hooker and be included in the Rugby World Cup squad as a hooker?’
My simple answer to that was ‘No’, and then that is where things got complicated, because why do I believe a Strauss, or a Chiliboy or even Bismarck are better ‘hookers’ than Brits?
Without getting too technical on the issue or having to resort to ‘statistics’ which is subjective at best when comparing players, my arguments lies within the type of game employed by most South African teams, and the Springboks, and the capacity or role Brits is used at Saracens.
It is quite simply impossible to do a head-to-head comparison between Brits as a HOOKER, against Strauss, Bismarck or Chiliboy, because show me one South African team or coach that would use their hooker in the last line of defense, as far away from every ruck as possible, as the highlights package from Rugbydump showed Brits being used.
Those who supports Brits’ inclusion will no doubt highlight the player’s running meters, tries scored, line-breaks, play-maker passes etc. Those against it will ask how many ruck cleans he does, what is his defensive statistics around the fringes are or how many times he crosses the advantage line close in (rather than with 30 meters of space to work with) because those, quite simply, is how hookers in South Africa are being employed.
The argument should therefore not center around who is the better hooker, the question should be what type of hooker is best suited for the type of game we will be looking to play and then from there, which candidate(s) brings the most to the table based on that.
Schalk Brits and Bismarck du Plessis (or any other South African hooker) play completely different games, and is used in completely different capacities which means their individual strengths are also, completely different.
In other words, if you ask Brits to adapt his game and use him in a role the Sharks and Springboks use Bismarck, he will not nearly be as effective, it is simply not his strength as a player. Similarly, if Saracens had to ask Bismarck to cover the last line of defense and improve his kicking game, off-loads, speed off the mark (etc.) Brits will win that battle hands down!
In fact, the reason I believe the Stormers decision to include Brits in their match-day 22 is a masterstroke, is not because of his brilliance as a hooker, it is because of his brilliance as a ball player and the destruction he can cause in the final 20 or 30 minutes given his skill and vision as is clearly evident in the video evidence above.
So is he a better ‘hooker’ than Bismarck, Strauss or Chiliboy? I don’t think so, not for the type of game we play. Is he a better ball player than any of them, or even any other forward (and some backline players) whether it being tight 5 or loosies? Of that there can be no doubt. So unless the Springbok coaching staff is looking for a multi-skilled impact player they can use from the bench in this World Cup, I am afraid you won’t be hearing the name of Schalk Brits being called out when the final squad is announced.
Morné Rysmier,
I agree with you fullheartedly regarding POINT “b”… regarding the exact role the Springboks ascribe and use their hooker, but I can only partly agree regarding POINT “a”… here’s my reasoning…
Whereas I agree that a Schalk Brits TYPE of player, with all the attributes and experience is the right person on the bench for this game and whereas I consider the Stormers choice logical and meritorious, I also consider the MERCENARY NATURE of using an “Outsider” (who does not belong or form part of your current Franchise or the sub-ranks and feeder Unions thereof) diabolical, morally bankrupt and a clear fraud!
There are reasons WHY the Competition has rules which state that a player had to play at least 4 games for a Franchise in a season to be eligible to play in a semi or in a final (unless express permission is obtained)… it is geared at cutting out that exact MERCENARY ACT, that FROWNED UPON CHOICE of an outsider, as backup.
To me, the very late arrival of Freddy Michalak has the same MERCENARY aspect to it.
I would have liked a further qualification to the rules, stating that any backup player who does not conform to the 4-game rule (due to extreme situations such as the Stormers find themselves in), has to come from within the feeder Unions of that Franchise. In that case Schalk Brits, would not have been considered, having played overseas, and clearly does not form part of that feeder Union group.
That to MY mind is the honourable thing to do, the right choice to make… and a knife in the back of RUGBY MERCENARIES!
As we know, the rules do not have that qualification built in, so technically the Stormers are correct to ask for the allowance to have Brits on the bench… but morally they are bankrupt and are showing a ZAP sign in the faces of Boland players and Western Cape Club players…. that I have a serious problem with and objection to!
@ grootblousmile:
Just as a point on that.
The next in line as to my understanding is one Yaya Hartzenberg. If my information is correct this guy is a rookie at Vodacom Cup level, let alone Currie Cup level. He is currently playing club rugby for SK Walmers where if the information relayed to me is to be believed, struggling with form…
Now if you have, or consider the merits of who is fit and next in line, and you find yourself with a player who is a Vodacom Cup rookie, and struggling with form in club rugby, then you can raise some serious merit in the case of looking outside ‘what you have available’.
This is Super Rugby, not only is this Super Rugby, this is a Super Rugby semi-final.
IF the Stormers had a capable replacement in the ranks fit and available to them, I would agree with you – the circumstances in this case however, is absolutely unique, which is why SANZAR judges these requets on a case-by-case basis (no set qualification rules) and agreed to the merits of including Brits.
2@ Morné:
I hear you… believe me..
The message to Yaya Hartzenberg or to anybody else in contention is….. fark you, buckethead!
… but let me qualify this more.. if the Bulls had been in this situation (which they’re not), I would have expected them to use a Vodacom Cup player, or one from Tukkies, Quins, Police, TUT… ect.
To look abroad and outside is just loathsome.
But hey, that’s me… that’s MY opinion, and maybe my skewed interpretation of what is RIGHT and what is WRONG!
If the current trend continues as is, we’ll see these MERCENARIES play half the year up North and half the year down South…
@ grootblousmile:
You might, but not one person in the Bulls Company would.
There is simply too much at stake, the commercial value of being Super Rugby champions, or semi-final losers, are simply too great. Any team will give themselves the best chance to win.
Where the line has to be drawn is that the circumstances for a special dispensation needs to be very unique, and from where I sit, the situation definitely qualifies for that.
4@ Morné:
The Stormers have had a torrid time with injuries to scrummies, flyhalves, loosies… that I cannot deny.
The rest of the argument I cannot agree with… there has to be more than Yaya out there….
The Lions have played a full season with players who can be compared to Yaya and his peers…. talk about depth, now there is a problem!
Last week the Waratahs had to call in a part time security guard on the bench… but at least he was one of their own…
@ grootblousmile:
That’s the thing, there are none!
Of course there are hundreds of loosies out there in the Cape, but at what level? Club rugby, Varsity Cup, Vodacom Cup at best?
We are talking Super Rugby here, and not just Super Rugby, we are talking a Super Rugby semi-final against the best team in the business!
The Lions did have some very inexperienced players in their squad, and their results show it too ending last in the SA conference and second last overall just clear of the debutant Rebels – and that is exactly the point.
How do we propose the Stormers pull a guy from club rugby, who has arguably never played in front of more than 5000 people in his life, have never played with any of these players or having been coached by Coetzee and never being involved in the structures of this team, and ask him to run out in front of 50 000 people in a Super Rugby semi-final against the best team in the competitions history having had to learn calls and plays within 4 days before the game?
It is simply not practicle.
6@ Morné:
It was possible last week for the Waratahs… in a play-off..
… anyway, let’s differ with dignity…
I won’t convince you, you won’t convince me..
Forgive me therefore if I refer to Brits as “Huursoldaatjie”… hehehe
@ grootblousmile:
They did? Who?
8@ Morné:
Elvis Taione… hooker and part time security guard AND Bernard Foley, Club backline player….
Go read the Article here dated 21 June, at 3:08pm with the heading “Waratahs name 24-man squad for Blues clash”
PS! Those 2 ended up on the bench, both of them….
…I’ll place a link here of the Article that appeaed about Taione in the Telegraph (an Aussie Newspaper) on June 21 as well as a pic of Taione, here for you.. watch this space…
Link:
http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/sport/rugby/nsw-waratahs-draft-club-rugby-hooker-elvis-talone-into-squad-for-match-against-the-auckland-blues/story-e6frey4i-1226078815187
@ grootblousmile:
Very interesting I agree, but the security guard already played for the Waratahs A team in the beginning of the year (which is equal I would imagine to our CC squads for Super Rugby teams in SA) and Foley is an experienced Sevens player, won a silver medal in the Common Wealth games and even captained the Aussie international Sevens side.
I don’t think that really compares to the Stormers pulling a player out of SK Walmers to play in Super Rugby.
Also let’s not forget, the Stormers did go the route of trying to use their own immediate resources first in calling up Kolisi, with all that changing when he got mugged last Friday of course.
Now when your 6th choice loosie (who was called in from the Junior World Cup) goes down to a mugging a week out from the game, you don’t have many options left.
But ja, neither of us will get to agree on this issue I suppose. I am quite happy to let them play the huursoldaaitjie 🙂
@ grootblousmile:
Quite a special story that about Elvis.
Apparently he had to go and do a 12 hour shift after the game! 🙂
10@ Morné:
Waratahs A is more like our Vodacom Cup levels… what with the much smaller amount of players Aussie has in reserve compared to SA.
It is EXACTLY a similar situation…. not one previous Super Rugby game between the 2 of them… Club players… Aussie Club players…
I agree with you regarding the injuries and the Kolisi mugging… notwithstanding that… I think the excuses are coming too easy.
By the way, that Kolisi chap is freegin good, hey!! Watched him for the Junior Bokkies… strong ball carrier!
11@ Morné:
Fark, I missed that part… 12 hour shift you say… hehehe
@ grootblousmile:
Kolisi is something special… cannot wait for him to come through the ranks.
Whether I agree with Stormers picking Brits is neither here nor there, I will be very surprised if he gets selected for the Boks, don’t get me wrong think he is a super player. Just cannot see how someone can on the basis of a performance as a subtitute in one game, ok sorry Stormers fans maybe two ;-), can force his way into the Springbok squad. Unlike the other overseas based players he has not been picked in the Boks extended squad in spite of his exploits in the UK and one must assume therefore not a priority for the Boks till now, so how can his short stint in the Super 15 make a difference? From a different perspective – I would also think that Saracens must not be too concerned he will get selected for the Boks otherwise why would they have let him go so easily, remember he is an integral part of Saracens and they would not want him to be away for the World Cup and miss games at the start of the season, would think that they would even be unhappy if he only played Trinations as that would mean him coming back without as much rest for the new season. Would be interesting if any of you guys in the know could find out if Saracens have any ‘guarantees’ that Brits will not be chosen for the Boks as a result of him joining the Stormers.
This is what Todd Blackadder has to say about the issue… clearly he feels a lot like me about it:
Crusaders coach Todd Blackadder has said that Stormers have brought the integrity of Super Rugby into question by including English Premiership player Schalk Brits in their team.
Hooker Brits left South Africa in 2009 and was on holiday in South Africa during the off-season with Saracens in London but has been called up by the Stormers.
The Stormers applied to SANZAR for permission to play Brits as players need to qualify for the Semi-finals by playing at least four regular season games for their Super Rugby team.
SANZAR usually give permission for players to participate in finals Super Rugby matches if there is a need for a specialist position such as Brits’s position at hooker.
The twist in the saga is that SANZAR have given the Stormers permission to play against the Crusaders but not as a hooker and he can only come off the bench as a loose forward which is not his specialist postion.
The Stormers applied for permission to play Brits after injuries to number 8 Duane Vermeulen and loose forward Siya Kolisi was mugged over the weekend in Cape Town.
Crusaders coach says that after this Sanzar need to revisit the situation going forward as it could pose future problems.
“To bring in marquee players at the business end of the season could open up a can of worms – you could have an injury and bring anyone in from anywhere in the world,” he said.
“I could bring in Victor Matfield…” Blackadder jokingly told Eyewitness News.
Blackadder said that the Stormers could have backed local talent instead.
“There must be a lot of good Stormers loose-forwards out there that will feel a little bit aggrieved,” he said.
“It is something SANZAR are really going to have to really look at and deal with going forward,” Blackadder told NZPA.
“I do think you have to be really careful if you bring in marquee players at this time of the year, especially for finals footy.”
He said he expects the “loophole” will be closed by the end of the season because “it brings the integrity of the game into question.”
“Going forward, I doubt whether this will be allowed again.”
However Blackadder said that the issue was not a distration for his team.
“It hasn’t really been a focus of ours.”
grootblousmile wrote:
I think i am the first who pointed this out, look at my comments back. So at least i have some insight, hahaha. I am a big traditionalist. The Bulls too, they seldome do this, thats why i will always be a Bull. You dont just walk into the team, you earn your place.
Brits already is a liability to the Stormers.
Motivation to the opponents.
Doubt in the Stormers ranks.
Rule bending might even get the refs attention.
He will be under extreme presure now to show his worth.
He might disrupt the team sinergy.
Just not such a clever call
From Rugby Heaven NZ.
OPINION: What a farce.
Having allowed Schalk Brits back into the Stormers’ 22-man squad for Sunday morning’s semifinal, Sanzar, the Super competition’s ruling body, has not only opened itself to ridicule, it has also risked losing the confidence of the other 14 team coaches and administrators.
Instead of granting Coetzee his request, the Sanzar officials – after they had climbed off the lino and recovered from their laughing fits – should have told the Stormers coach to do what Waratahs coach Chris Hickey did when his roster was chewed to pieces by injuries. Go dig into the academy and club grades and select a player.
19@ superBul:
Kyk bietjie na Admin Chat
Interesting aruements both for and against, all with differing amounts of credit.
IMO though (for what it’s worth), despite the “show pony” having had a couple of absolutely great seasons in mud island, the fact remains, they were in mud island.
He will not be up to Super Rugby speed. The SR game is quicker than both Aviva and Heineken Rugby, and as a loosie I can’t see him making the grade after so long away.
As an “impact player”? Who knows? Personally I think not, but hey, WTF do I know?
As a precedent, I think the decision to allow it is a dangerous one, but once again, WTF do I know? Maybe our resident legal expert Webmonster would like to look at it fron that point of view.
Reds by 10. Stormers by 5. Despite Brits missing a vital corner flagging tackle after the final hooter. But then again, WTF do I know? I support the Lions!
21@ Scrumdown:
Nothing illegal in what the Stormers have done… Brits’ addition was sanctioned by SANZAR on request for his inclusion.
It’s a bit like the difference between Tax Evasion (highly illegal) and Tax Avoidance (very legal)… but the difference is miniscule….. hehehe
@ grootblousmile:
@ superBul:
Sjoe Kerels…
Firstly, Todd Blackadder is the last one to say anything – since he was the one who called up Ward and Thorne when the inury paw-paw struck his team in this very competition ignoring young talent within the Crusaders franchise and represented unions.
Secondly, if we wish to criticise the Stormers call here, how about motivating an alternative?
Just who should they have called up?
GBS mentioned the noble thing the Tahs did last week, my retort to that would be;
a) Would they have done the same if they could call upon more experienced players (like the Crusaders had and did)
b) Through their noble decision, did they not lose in the play-off match regardless?
The selection of Brits does not only center around the actual selection, its whether whoever is contracting him makes him available to be selected.
Given the choice, as the Crusaders showed when they were down to 3rd and 4th choice players through injury, you choose the best AVAILABLE to you.
I particularly find Blackadder’s criticism hypocritical to say the least.
Well, I quite like Brits, and if it is possible for him to play then good on him, the European guys freak out about his abilities, in fact they can’t understand why he is not in the Springbok squad.
On the vital point that Morne addressed. “Traditional play of a SA-hooker”.
I agree that SA does not deploy hookers as free runners. In fact, apart from 1 or 2, I can’t think of many SA fwds who has been celebrated for their flamboyancy. Even Bismarck is more effectively known for the mongrel he brings.
But then again, Sarries is an English team, who won an English title. Coached by a Saffa. England, the same country who won the WC on the back of an abrasive pack of forwards. The country that does not believe in free flowing backline interplay (thats the French). The same country that celebrates players like Lawrence D. Martin Johnson and Andrew Sheridan. Much like SA would.
Yet in the lineouts, Brits had the best accuracy of ANY hooker in the Premiership.
In the Scrums… well, Sarries won the final. Would that be possible if he was not strong in this area?
The same could go for around the rucks. Brits missed one game in 2 seasons, and yet Sarries have been successful. Would this be possible if their starting hooker was a liability in the open tight phases?
Again, I bring your attention to the fact that this is European/English Rugby. NOT Aussie Rules.
P.Div refuses to recognize Liebenberg’s contributions, and believes that Chilli, Bandisu Maku and Smit are better all round players than Brits (a fact I find perplexing).
Yet with Vermeulen out, I believe this could open the door for Brits as No. 8. Who else? Pierre Spies is only there to make sure that the airplane doesn’t float away, Kanko is inconsistent in the tight games, Lions’ Strauss? Too inexperienced. Johnson? Maybe? Fact is, the selectors would do well to consider him as a bench option for the tri-nations. Or even to start as No.8.
Look at it as you may, this is a great opportunity for SA not to piss another great talent away.
This is gonna be fun.
@ grootblousmile:
“To me, the very late arrival of Freddy Michalak has the same MERCENARY aspect to it.”
Not really. The Sharks still had many FH options available. Lambie for one. Also, Michalack was allowed to play in his preferred position, Brits not.
“…current Franchise or the sub-ranks and feeder Unions thereof…”
Tell me, is this still the Super 12? There are no more “Feeder Unions” only one, singular, Union.
“…showing a ZAP sign in the faces of Boland players and Western Cape Club players…” & “The message to Yaya Hartzenberg or to anybody else in contention is….. fark you, buckethead!”
What they are REALLY saying is: lift your game.
@ Morné:
Absolutely. The financial gain would mean that the WPRU would be able to hold on to guys like Robbie Diack, Peter Louw, Francois Louw and would not have this problem in the first place.
@ GBS #5.
The truth is, for this magnitude, there is no one. Honestly. But I think Morne pretty much made the argument at #6.
GBS, you talk a lot about promoting from within your own ranks. But when was the last time the Bulls has a starting 10 that does not come from the Cape (consistantly starting).
Flip van der Merwe-F.S, D. Potgieter-Boland. D.Stegmann-F.S, Hougaard-W.C, M.Steyn-W.C, Kichner-GKW, J.Pretorius-G.P. And the Bulls wants to buy Sadie as well.
Kom nou, na die Wereld Beker is die toekoms van die Bulle ook maar grootliks in ‘n klomp ouens wat nie eers in die Provinsie gebore is of skool gegaan het nie.
Wel gedaan aan die Tahs en hulle “Morele oorwinning”. Dit het hulle nie gehelp om verby die QF te kom nie.
Brits het BAIE games vir die WPRU gespeel, was by Paul Roos op skool en gaan nie eers in sy eerste keuse posisie speel nie.
Klaar.
gbs @ 1
“and whereas I consider the Stormers choice logical and MERITORIOUS’ 😯
..
jislaaik gbs, you speak mos de rooi lêngwitch deliciously!! hêd to grêb my DICTIONARY (groot woord) to hêve a look ênd sieeeeeee what djou wir êctually saying!! 😀
o, and gooooodmorning everyone!!
good to be back after a week off …
been busy as a bee
busy busy busy …
so i feel refreshed and ready for the rest of the year!! 😀
btw
laughed my ass off yesterday
when i saw that the crusaders have “chased” their sa supporters away (ok, and the media too) from a training … after having to watch a game with those arrogant bliksems at newlands, i can only say … well done, crusaders
and
may you do this a lot more in future!! 😀
..
anyway, seeing the look on the faces of those supporters who were chased away,
were
just classic!! 😆
..
For the most i agree with Rudi on this one.
As an example the Frenchman was allowed top play for the sharks, he however had already played 3 matches prior to the playoff match , he also has signed a 2 year deal with the Sharks thus making him a team member
In the case of Brits? he is on loan , thus not a team member, this is as good as if the Sharks then contacted F Steyn , and arranged with him to suddenly play for the Sharks untill the french season starts up again?? or Ruan Pienaar , Muller.
Just because the once played for the Sharks or for a Union does not mean they can be used as back-up etc
I also agree its a master stroke to play him , not the Stormers fault, they asked and got the go ahead,
It does however show the weakness in the system
Users Online
Total 207 users including 0 member, 207 guests, 0 bot online
Most users ever online were 3735, on 31 August 2022 @ 6:23 pm
No Counter as from 31 October 2009: 41,441,203 Page Impressions
_