The understanding reached between SARU and the participating franchises in Vodacom Super Rugby are as follows:
At a pre-season meeting between SARU’s CEO, the Springbok Coach and Rugby Department staff, with union CEOs and coaching representatives the desirability of managing the playing time of an identified group of Springbok players was agreed.
Two principles were identified as being ideal:
- That players should not play more than 5 consecutive weeks.
- That certain Springbok players should have a number of weeks of rest during the tournament (2 to 4 weeks depending on each player’s personal needs and position and the franchise’s playing resources).
Note: BYE weeks are not considered as a rest week (although they do trigger a restart of the count of consecutive weeks) while injury weeks are ‘invisible’ (i.e. a player injured for 2 weeks during the 1st 7 weeks of the tournament would be regarded as having played 5 consecutive weeks at the end of week 7).
The understanding is not legally binding.
Jurie Roux, CEO of SARU, said: “The players are primarily the assets of the Unions and they will have their different dynamics and needs at different stages of the season.
“We worked towards the understanding to prioritise Springbok readiness for the international season and the Rugby World Cup but we realise it is a balancing act for coaches in terms of juggling their union’s needs and the national interest.
“The important thing for SARU was to take the initiative to try and find a solution to questions relating to player workload. If we get 90% compliance during the season it will be a 100% improvement on where we were a year ago when no player could expect any break.
“If franchises feel they are unable to stick to the letter of the understanding that is less than ideal but we would expect them to stick as close to it as possible in the interests of the Springboks.”
Will it be best for Sharks or Boks?
by Brenden Nel 18/03/2015, 09:12
Will the Cell C Sharks do what is best for the country, or simply what is best for themselves?
The focus will be firmly on the Durban side this week when they name their team for their important Vodacom Super Rugby clash against the Chiefs, and whether they will give their Springboks a rest or whether they will play them for a sixth game in a row.
Last month SA Rugby came to an agreement with the provinces that they would give the contracted Springbok rugby players enough rest during this year’s Super Rugby season, so as to ensure they are fresh and not overplayed with the Rugby World Cup ahead of them.
But with the Sharks’ poor start, it seems they are set to ignore the agreement, and play their Boks in an extra game against the wishes of the mother body.
While you can understand the Chiefs game is of importance, especially with the way the Sharks season has gone thus far, the question has to arise as to what value the agreement with the franchises holds if any team can simply ignore their wishes?
To have a fit team at this year’s Rugby World Cup is of interest to every rugby fan in the country, and more than that, to have the players in top form and fresh will be a massive part of the success or failure of such a campaign.
There was a reason why the agreement was formed in the first place, with provinces left to plan for themselves, while giving the top players a rest when it was needed.
But the underlying agreement was straight-forward – no player should play more than five consecutive matches.
While the bye week has not been included in this equation, the DHL Stormers have already indicated they would be giving captain Duane Vermeulen a break next weekend, thus trusting their squad system and allowing the SA Player of the year to enjoy two weeks off the field.
The Vodacom Bulls have also had a bye, but are likely to give Victor Matfield a break this coming weekend when they face the Western Force at Loftus Versfeld, even though they’re not forced to.
The Toyota Cheetahs have also indicated they are likely to give a number of players a rest in their second game of the tour next weekend, against the Chiefs in Hamilton and already wanted to rest Teboho “Oupa” Mohoje last week before an injury brought him back into the starting line-up.
The Sharks are yet to name their starting line-up, but three players in particular have played five games in a row, and according to the agreement should be rested.
They are Patrick Lambie, Marcell Coetzee and Cobus Reinach.
It is difficult to fathom the Sharks resting all three in such an important game, but the counter-argument is that they could have been rested during any one of the five games.
If the Sharks do play the three, defying their own agreement with SA Rugby, it gives all other franchises the license to ignore the agreement as well, with the ultimate loser being the Springbok team.
Last year the Sharks played their players into the ground, making them play eight games in a row without a break. This meant that the Boks received players who were physically and mentally tired, and it showed in the Bok performances during the season.
Not only that, but the recent injury to Pieter-Steph du Toit simply underlines the importance of using a squad system in Super Rugby and ensuring that players get enough rest. Willem Alberts is out again for two weeks, with those close to the Bok camp telling stories of how close he is to breaking down permanently from playing too much rugby.
If the Springboks are to do well at this year’s Rugby World Cup then sanity should prevail and players should be rested as agreed.
If not, the entire agreement is simply worth less than the paper it is written on.
@ nortie:
what a load of horseshit from this plank brenden nel, particularly that third last paragraph.
since when does a knee injury come from overplaying?
when last did willem alberts play any rugby?
tosser.
@ Charo:
lol
I believe that the sharks are busy digging themselves into a hole here, I also dont think they will rest lambie, reinach and marcel next week, especially if they lost… will have to see.
Also don’t like the fact that they are busy reneging on a gentleman’s agreement it seems.
But yes that paragraph was indeed a huge load of toss.
I wonder what, if any, scientific evidence was used to come to the conclusion that no player should play more than five consecutive matches.
Why not 4 matches?..or 6?…. and it also does not make sense to use the same number of matches for all players… I would have thought a fullback for example takes less punishment than a flanker and should therefore be able to play more matches before physical fatigue sets in…. mental fatigue is another issue.. it will also differ from player to player and cannot be measured beforehand.
To me the whole issue has been handled in an amateurish way and we should not have ended in a situation where a pre- determined maximum number of successive matches that applied equally to all contracted players was set.
@ robzim:
I guess it was decided in consultation between HM and the coaches.
Re the fullback taking less punishment than another position….try telling that to Kolbe after being targeted by Frans 😆
@ Charo:
I agree that Nel might not be the biggest Shark fan out there, but I also believe he hit the nail on the head regarding which SA franchise will be the first to renege on the agreement.
nortie wrote:
I rest my case….
Sharks: 15 SP Marais, 14 Odwa Ndungane, 13 JP Pietersen, 12 Francois Steyn, 11 Lwazi Mvovo, 10 Patrick Lambie, 9 Cobus Reinach, 8 Ryan Kankowski, 7 Renaldo Bothma, 6 Marcell Coetzee, 5 Marco Wentzel, 4 Mouritz Botha, 3 Jannie du Plessis, 2 Bismarck du Plessis (c), 1 Tendai Mtawarira.
Replacements: 16 Kyle Cooper, 17 Dale Chadwick, 18 Lourens Adriaanse, 19 Lubabalo Mtyanda, 20 Daniel du Preez, 21 Conrad Hoffmann, 22 Andre Esterhuizen, 23 Waylon Murray.
nortie wrote:
It appears as if all the teams that the Stormers have played against so far have targeted Cheslin ( although Frans took it to a new level).
I doubt whether Kolbe, tough as he is, will last the whole season if it carries on like that.
The Stormers are missing Taute big time ( even if only for his size) and i also believe they should have selected Pat Howard to go on tour as 2 small players in the back 3 ( Kolbe and Leyts) are one too many.
@ nortie:
@ 7
Disgraceful 🙂
And we cannot even contact CEO John Smit to complain as he is currently kakking off big time trying to complete the Cape Epic mountain bike race and in no condition to even think about rugby.
robzim wrote:
Where should they start then? Withdraw all the key players for four weeks between the tournament?
What other way would be more “professional” when we can all agree that players need to be better managed. What other solutions are there?
@ MacroBull:
@ 10
I am not disputing that SARU had to start somewhere but think that their ” hit or miss” effort is not really based on any science.
I know that in American football for example they have a system whereby they monitor the |”wear and tear” of each and every player INDIVIDUALLY and use that as a basis to determine when they should be rested. Our system seems to me like a “thumbsuck” in comparison.
It should be interesting to hear what Noakes or Ross Tucker have to say on the ” 5 consecutive matches for every player” approach and whether they reckon it is a valid method of managing players
11 @ robzim:
Rob, I’m sure there would have been some sort of thought process with the conditioning managers as to how they came to the 5 games.
It’s really only supposed to be for a handful of players, not many are contracted by the Boks, and then probably half of those are playing overseas.
I’m sure that not only contracted Boks would need a break during the season, but then it’s supposed to be up to the franchises to decide when.
I firmly believe that had the Sharks not screwed up their own season by losing 3/4 in the opening month, they would have honored the agreement.
But using the “it’s do or die or important match” as an excuse to flout the agreement, then they should never have agreed to it in the first place, because, as we hear year in and year out, there are no easy games in Super Rugby and every game is an important match.
12 @ nortie:
Again I rest my case….
http://www.sport24.co.za/Rugby/Super15/Sharks-defy-SARUs-request-20150319
“”The Springbok trio of Marcell Coetzee, Patrick Lambie and Cobus Reinach will all feature in this vital match. There was doubt over their inclusion after playing five matches, but SA Rugby has confirmed that the Springbok player management agreement with the South African Super Rugby franchises is not a legally binding understanding. Instead SA Rugby expects them to stick as close to it as possible in the interests of the Springboks,” the statement from the Sharks read.”
@ nortie:
What constitutes a “vital” match?
@ robzim:
As far as I understand some players “need” 4 rest weeks and some 2 rest weeks, so 3 rest weeks, ie 5 games is a mid point.
So maybe guys like Serfontein is on the “two week rest” list.
Also it seems easy to find loopholes,
“Note: BYE weeks are not considered as a rest week (although they do trigger a restart of the count of consecutive weeks) while injury weeks are ‘invisible’ (i.e. a player injured for 2 weeks during the 1st 7 weeks of the tournament would be regarded as having played 5 consecutive weeks at the end of week 7).”
In that case the Bulls may only have to rest him at round 11 after he has played 4 consecutive games + bye (reset) + 5 consecutive games.
Duane and probably Big Vic as well on the other hand is likely on the 4 rest week list
“That certain Springbok players should have a number of weeks of rest during the tournament (2 to 4 weeks depending on each player’s personal needs and position and the franchise’s playing resources).”
The Sharks may have agreed on 2 weeks for lambie and reinach because they don’t have faith in their squad system?
I honestly don’t know what the science in this would be.
Also has the Sharks released an official statement regarding this issue?
In that case the Bulls may only have to rest him at round 11 after he has played 4 consecutive games + bye (reset) + 5 consecutive games.
Edit to add:
In that case the Bulls will also have to rest him again during the regular season for the quota 2 weeks. whether 5 consecutive games has passed or not.
I just used him as an example, he may well be on the 3 or 4 week rest list since JdV is injured.
15 @ MacroBull:
http://www.rugby365.com/article/65089-no-rest-for-the-special-sharks
“”We have agreed to the [SARU player rest initiative] plan, but for us it is slightly different, we have a different challenge to other unions,” Gold said ahead of the game against the Chiefs.
“We have got the largest contingent of Springboks and our first bye-week is only in Week 11.
“Other teams have already had a bye and get a break from that five-week deadline.”
Gold wanted to make it clear that although he was breaking the agreement with SARU by playing his core Springboks this weekend, he was in no way against SA Rugby and its initiative on resting players.
“I want to make it known now that our view here at the Sharks is that we are 100 percent behind the Springboks and resting players, I think it is the right thing to do, ” Gold added.
“From my point of view, being able to meet the commitments of resting players will be possible for us.
“For example, if Bismarck needs four or five weeks rest over the season, we can accommodate that.
“The only time it starts becoming a juggling act is when I may not be able to meet the five-week deadline because we have not been given the benefit of a bye week.
“Three of the other South African franchises already have had one [a bye-week] and that breaks up their five-week commitment.”
Gold then said that two of his big-name Boks in Jannie du Plessis and Mtawarira, had already been rested.
“We are the only franchise that has rested players at this early stage, and you can argue that it hurt us,” Gold said.
“Not having Jannie [who was given a week off for the birth of his second child] at Newlands [against the Stormers] was a big loss.”
So giving a guy off for the birth of his child now counts as “as per agreement 😆 ”
What happened to family responsibility leave.
Old Gary Glitter is slick when it comes to spin-doctoring, I will give him that.
“Other teams have already had a bye and get a break from that five-week deadline.”
What about teams that don’t have that perk at the business end of the season?
Gold then said that two of his big-name Boks in Jannie du Plessis and Mtawarira, had already been rested.
“We are the only franchise that has rested players at this early stage, and you can argue that it hurt us,” Gold said.
nortie wrote:
Wanneer Goue Gert so sê
robzim wrote:
Targeted?
If he’s your best try scorer the other teams will structure their defence to stop him first and not to give him any room
I don’t think they’re out to hurt him
A small player like him will get hurt being tackled week after week by players at least 20kg heavier than himself
19 @ Victoriabok:
Nou wat op aarde het Gert en die Stormers met die gesprek uit te waai?
20…ja right, as n speler n geel kaart kry omdat hy aanhoudend n ander een laat loop dan is dit natuurlik die Stormer wat laat getackle was se skuld.
Kolbe moet dadelik ophou speel want dis sy skuld dat Frans maar besluit het om hom uit te haal en dat arme Frans n kaart daarvoor gekry het.
Vieslike Stormer spelers wat natuurlik gemaak het dat precious afgestuur was
MacroBull wrote:
I think the All Blacks withdrew their players for the first month in 2007
They should cap the amount of games a player can play, i.e. SARU tells AC and HM Duane can only play 14 Super Rugby and 8 tests a year
nortie wrote:
Gary Gold = Goue Gert
Victoriabok wrote:
O, ok, dog dis Gert Smal waarvan jy praat.
Gary Glitter, Goue Gert….hy is n spin doctor van formaat
nortie wrote:
Ek het nog nooit veel ooghare vir dikgat Frans gehad nie
Ek het so gehoop iemand gaan hom hard bliksem in Frankryk toe hy daar gespeel het maar die Cheese Eating Surrender Monkeys het toe nie.
Hulle kon hom seker nie raaksien tussen al die croissants en gebak wat hy besig was om op te vreet in die Patisserie nie
nortie wrote:
hy hom eenkeer laat geloop
22 @ Victoriabok:
All Blacks have already been withdrawn this year as well….Kieran Read and Whitelock for instance only started last week, Todd Blackadder wasn’t bitching like a little girl like Goue Gert though, took their losses on the chin and carried on
nortie wrote:
Wat’s jy so wipperig die week?
Is jy moerig omdat julle verloor het?
Of het jou tannie met die rooi Volksie kom kuier? 😛
@ Victoriabok:
I have no problem if teams stucture their defence and try harder to stop him as he is a very dangerous player with ball in hand. What bugs me a bit is the number of late tackles and the deliberate blocking when he chases his own kicks though.
25 @ Victoriabok:
😆
26 @ MacroBull:
Ja, maar was al vroeer gewaarsku ook.
Het jy eenkeer gesien dat hy vir De Allende, wat sy direkte opponent was, probeer tackle het?
Makliker om die klein outjie te target, want anders kan jy dalk op jou dik gat beland
Users Online
Total 137 users including 0 member, 137 guests, 0 bot online
Most users ever online were 3735, on 31 August 2022 @ 6:23 pm
No Counter as from 31 October 2009: 41,335,494 Page Impressions
_