Talk:South Africa national rugby union team/Archive 1

Origins of rugby in South Africa
It is very confusing. For some reason the SARFU seem to think that Winchester rules are a type of rugby and many sources credit Oglivie as the father of South African rugby even though he was promoting a different sport.

This is the best I have found on Gog's role in SA rugby. Winchester school claim that their game held sway until 1878 but I do not know how Rugby rules came to trump Winchester ones or why Gog is considered so important.

If you know better then please edit.GordyB 15:28, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Recent fixture, and Upcoming fixtures lists
Please contribute to the discussion about this at the WikiProject Rugby union talk page here. - Shudda   talk  22:11, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Current notable players

 * Moved here, as most names can be found in current squad and the list is more pov than the past one.

Present

 * Eddie Andrews
 * De Wet Barry
 * Bakkies Botha
 * Gary Botha
 * Schalk Burger
 * Deon Carstens
 * Jean de Villiers
 * Os du Randt
 * Gaffie du Toit
 * Jaque Fourie
 * Bryan Habana
 * Ricky Januarie
 * Marius Joubert
 * Victor Matfield
 * Percy Montgomery
 * Wynand Olivier
 * Breyton Paulse
 * Ruan Pienaar
 * Andre Pretorius
 * Danie Rossouw
 * Brent Russell
 * Lawrence Sephaka
 * Hanyani Shimange
 * John Smit
 * Juan Smith
 * Andre Snyman
 * Albert van den Berg
 * Jaco van der Westhuyzen
 * Wikus van Heerden
 * Joe van Niekerk
 * AJ Venter
 * Pedrie Wannenburg
 * Tiaan Strauss
 * Pierre Spies (Edit)Cobusdebeer 19:09, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

(Edit) Tiaan Strauss is not a current player. As I remember he was a defector who left SA to play for Australia after he missed out selection in the 95 world cup. Travsuth 06:13, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Racial Quotas
Ssome mention needs to be made of the forthcoming Racial Quotas, which are due to be implimented, after the world cup finshes.--217.40.186.249 12:46, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Tidy-up
I've just made some extensive tidy-ups, and introduced a new subheading. Please edit and adjust - if you feel it's necessary - rather than just reverting the lot.Snori 04:27, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Coaches
I'm trying to find a list of all the team's coaches to include in the article. I know that they havn't had a coach their entire history, and sometimes have had manager/coaches, or captain/coaches, but even a recent list of coaches would help. Thanks. - Shudde   talk  01:37, 2 November 2007 (UTC)


 * you go on http://www.genslin.us/bokke/SARugby.html... You want the coach of South Africa national rugby union team in 2002 ?
 * http://www.genslin.us/bokke/SARugby.html... 2002... 3-53 England... and see the coach... Rudolph Straeuli You see the all the matches, the first and the last... So you can have the coach of South Africa national rugby union team in 2004... 39-7 Argentina... (the next: Jake White) and in 2001...  43-20 USA... (the anterior:Harry Viljoen)...  Ddfree 12:03, 2 November 2007 (UTC)


 * or you go on http://www.genslin.us/bokke/SARugby.html... /Statistics... /Coaches... /Most games... Ddfree 12:06, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

another source

 * http://www.african-geopolitics.org/show.aspx?ArticleId=3792

Ddfree 11:55, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Featured article
A foreign language Article Équipe d'Afrique du Sud de rugby à XV is nominated to be a featured article... Ddfree 08:10, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

List of coaches
I have added a list of the team's coaches. The list only includes coaches since the Second World War. I don't think it's completely comprehensive, and I doubt a complete list exists. I spent quite a while trying to find one, and eventually emailed the SARU to see where I could obtain one. They said the best place was the website www.genslin.us/bokke/SARugby.html which I'd already visited. According to the author of the site his list isn't complete either, but this is as close as is realistically possible at the moment I think. If anyone knows of any coaches that are missing please add it, and if you can email the webmaster of www.genslin.us/bokke/SARugby.html as well. Thanks. - Shudde   talk  06:57, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Succession boxes
A discussion has been started about the breadth and formatting of succession boxes for national rugby union teams at WikiProject Rugby union. Please see the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Rugby union. - Shudde   talk  22:34, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

World cup 1995
In this section it says only one black player, Chester Williams, was in the squad. I could be wrong but wasn't he originally omitted and only called up to the squad when an SA player (Ollie Le Roux?) was sent off and they were allowed to call for a replacement for the rest of the tournament. No mention of this is made on Chester Williams' WP article however, so I could be remembering incorrectly. 212.140.167.99 00:00, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't think so, I think given the political overtones Chester Williams would have been in the squad whether he deserved it or not. IIRC his image was used to market the World Cup inside South Africa.GordyB 14:07, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Williams was first choice before the tournament, but was injured and thus ommitted. When Hendricks and Dalton were suspended following the brawl against Canada Williams and Drotske(sp?) were called up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Special:Contributions/ (talk)

The above poster is correct. Williams was ommitted due to injury. He was recalled after the "Battle of Boet Erasmus". Dalton and Hendricks were suspended, and Chester was called up and scored 4 tries against Western Samoa. Gordy is correct, William's image was used to promote the tournament (as most of us living in SA will recall) however, he was ommitted from the original squad through injury. I think Gordy's point of "given the political overtones Chester Williams would have been in the squad whether he deserved it or not" is a fairly dangerous remark and a little offensive to the player. Also a little concerning given that Gordy is THE primary contributor on most South African Rugby related pages. (Travsuth (talk) 04:51, 4 June 2008 (UTC))

1981 tour of NZ
I think the 1981_Springbok_Tour of New Zealand should be mentioned in the intro, with a wikilink to the other article. Currently, it's hidden well down the article, when this is a major piece of history for more than one nation. Thanks,  Lester  21:02, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Totally disagree. (Travsuth (talk) 04:52, 4 June 2008 (UTC))

Current Roster
Shaulk Burger should be added to the current roster, seeing as he is one of the best players on the side. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.92.44.49 (talk) 01:01, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Strip not changed yet
"During November 2008, the springbok jersey did undergo a major change, with the springbok logo moving to the right chest, thus leaving the protea logo on the left chest as a seperate logo"

That statement needs to be removed. That is only speculation —Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.209.208.232 (talk) 08:14, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

A section needs to be added regarding the current discussion to change the name of the Boks to something else. I am not too familiar, only having read one news article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.221.110.4 (talk) 01:25, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Springbok name
I've read different accounts of how the name came about (very similar stories about the 'Wallabies' name too). Some say Paul Roos invented it to prevent the team being given any other name by the UK press, some say the Daily Mail invented it. I've gone with the latter as Roos did write a letter to the press explaining that the correct Afrikaans plural is 'Springbokken'. It is certainly clear at least that he did not intend 'Springboks' to be the nickname.

As for the Springbok not being on the blazer at this time. Please quote a source. Most of the sources I have used are quoted at the bottom of the page. One of which says that the 1906 tour squad did wear a Springbok on their blazer.GordyB 21:39, 11 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Edit - I wrote the above without reading your edit in full. You may well know what you are talking about. I will leave your edit to stand if you can provide a source over the blazer.GordyB 21:41, 11 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I should have read this discussion before making my edit (I got it from the Paul Roos article! I reversed my edit after coming across a source claiming the badges were present already, and that the Paul Roos story is false :- Greenman 21:53, 11 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I checked a book on rugby history (Rugby and all that - Martin Johnson) and I now believe Greenman to be largely correct. There are different versions of the naming myth and I will now edit the page to be a new version incorporating much of Greenman's data. My original source seems to have been sloppy journalism.GordyB 08:56, 12 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Although "Springboks" is used colloquially, the correct English name is Springbucks. This has been emphasised many times but rugby experts.  When South Africa first toured England, they were definitely called the Springbucks and the name was never changed officially.--Igitur za 15:32, 3 April 2007 (UTC)


 * A) officially they were 'Springbokken' B) SA Rugby uses Springboks c) Never heard of 'Springbucks'.GordyB 15:42, 3 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Just because the badge exsisted before the press article does not make the story false. The New Zealand team toured Britain and gained the All Blacks nickname, not the 'Silver Ferns'. Therefore the South African team may have been asked by the press "what is your nickname", the captain, vice-captain and tour manager, pop into the next room, state to each other "If we don't come up with something, they will...", "Lets go for Springboks as they are on our blazer badges, better than some Boer War or Dutch-insult inspired name." Just because there is a symbol on the badge does not logically follow that was ever going to be the team name, the Welsh team have never used Three Feathers for example. FruitMonkey (talk) 20:03, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I have now added quotes from one of the three people who invented the name, and his recollections of events. Hope this is better then some of the info on certain websites. FruitMonkey (talk) 18:44, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Current squad table format
I propose changing the format of the current squad table:

Which line do we prefer? My vote would go for the flag to go - it's way too repetitive,(maybe replace with a club logo/flag?) and the DOB is a bit useless in conjunction with the age. I would vote for the age only. Any comments? - Sahmejil (talk) 08:31, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The latter for sure. The template could also do with some improvements if someone is feeling keen. It could be sortable (so we can list the squad by age, caps, etc), and should certainly not refer to "club". The Bulls, Stormers etc aren't "clubs". I've added a comment on Template_talk:National rugby squad start.Greenman (talk) 19:10, 10 November 2009 (UTC)


 * IMO, all those flags look ridiculous. They don't add info to the article, and they don't help readers. Greenman is right - these examples aren't clubs. --hippo43 (talk) 21:18, 10 November 2009 (UTC)


 * You should also stick to date of birth rather than age, as one is static and the other requires continual updating. FruitMonkey (talk) 17:46, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, that is part of the beauty of the template and why I added it as a possible option to change - It seems someone was clever and programmed the template to continually calculate and update the age! Since it does that, and we are in fact actually interested in the age of the player - I would rather just see that number, and not the date and have to do the math in my head. I also agree on the "club" terminology - it should probably be "franchise"? If we aren't allowed to use the club logos I would also rather see all the flags go and just list the club names, but even that is barely useful if it isn't a sortable table - Sahmejil (talk) 18:49, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

FAN BIAS

There is no need for a running commentary on every detail to do with the more recent seasons or tiny fluctuations in world rankings. Nor is it relevant to speculate on the public's analysis of sporting results or report on players comments. This is not a news portal, this is a place for worthy and relevant historical facts rather than news reporting. Furthermore, there is no need to simply undo changes when facts are no longer relevant because you're a fan (i.e. after today, the Springboks simply are NOT holders of Tri Nations trophy, therefore, are not holders of every trophy available to them). You either want to make a contribution for educational purposes, or distort the truth through bias because you're a fan of a sporting team. Leave it out, stick to the facts and grow up, please. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.1.180.2 (talk) 20:04, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Sentence removed for lack of substantiation
"Until the 1990s the Springboks had a positive win record against every nation they played."

Please substantiate this argument before replacing the claim, as the article states that New Zealand won the 1956 series and the 1981 series.

Do you perhaps mean that "Overall, the Springboks won more matches than they lost against every nation they played"? DocDee 05:31, 25 February 2007 (UTC)


 * That's what it says.GordyB 19:26, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Some mention should be made of the fact that Springbok results achieved in the Republic prior to reintroduction in 1992 are illegitimate, due to the mandated use of Broderbund referees. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.237.19.1 (talk) 03:59, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Winning percentage
This can be read in the article: «The All Blacks have won about 12% more matches than South Africa because of a run of Springbok losses between 1998 and 2004, that many believe to be caused by the lack of a reliable goal kicker during this period» This sentence is biased, does not provide useful information and is simply not true. From 1998 to 2004 the Springboks played 84 tests, with 51 losses and 32 defeats, a percentage of 61% which is comparable to their overall 63%. Even if the Springboks had won all their matches in that period, 84 wins out of 84 tests, the percentage would increase to 70%. The winning percentage of the Springboks does not need comparisons with any other team, it's valuable in its own and there is no need to justify why it is higher or lower. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.150.248.29 (talk) 14:41, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Current squad
Reason why columns shouldn't be there:

Springbok Number is already on a article, List of South Africa national rugby union players, which readers can find by clicking the link under the players section. I don't actually know what the other column is for. If its uncapped matches, why? It's uncapped. As I mentioned previously, just because players are signed with the SARU, doesn't mean they will be named in the current squad. Who knows actually. If they are signed by the SARU and are injured, in the squad announcement article there is always a mention of players not selected due injury. That means there can be a mention of it like I have just edited, there's no need to make a whole table for it.

For the training squad, either have the current squad for the training squad since technically that is the current squad, and not mention the previous squad. Or make no mention of the training squad.

Just to confirm, are player signed by the SARU only play in South Africa not over seas? If so, you could make a sub section (named Central contracted players) under the players section. That means if they are not in the current squad, there is a reference to it on the article.

Something like this:

SARU Contracted players


 * Willem Alberts
 * Jean de Villiers
 * Bismarck du Plessis
 * Jannie du Plessis
 * Eben Etzebeth


 * Siya Kolisi
 * Tendai Mtawarira
 * Frans Steyn
 * Adriaan Strauss
 * Duane Vermeulen


 * Marcell Coetzee
 * JJ Engelbrecht
 * Francois Hougaard
 * Patrick Lambie
 * Willie le Roux


 * Coenie Oosthuizen
 * Flip van der Merwe
 * }


 * Re the Springbok number; yes, it already is on the List of South Africa national rugby union players article. If you do want to remove that column, that's fine. The number of caps for each player is also in that article though – would you propose that's removed too? What exactly is the definition of a "cap"? Honestly, I don't know and it's not explained at all. Last year, with the British and Irish Lions tour, the Lions played against the likes of the Barbarians, the Western Force, etc. In the Statistics section of that article, it clearly distinguishes between Test matches and Non-Test matches. That's what "Other" is supposed to be; it's obviously not clear enough, I'll add in an explanation. Are "caps" the same as "tests", or "tests plus tour matches"? I think it's important to show both. I fully agree with you – just because a player in contracted by SARU doesn't mean he's in the current squad; there's nothing implying that they are. But why do you want to add an entirely new section, when one single comment in a separate column could do the same? That seems like an overkill. As for the training squad, you can't show players that attended a training camp as the current squad (they're definitely not technically the current squad"). But why should no mention be made of them? They are basically players that are now officially on the radar of the national coach and under serious consideration for the Springboks in the near-distant future. Also, why do you not want to show additional information for injured players? Surely, there's a benefit to be had from showing more details for an injured player? The reader gets to see how experienced the player is that's injured, i.e. how big a loss the player potentially is to the national team. I honestly don't understand why you want to remove information that gives a better view of the current situation. TheMightyPeanut (talk) 08:18, 25 May 2014 (UTC)


 * TheMightyPeanut The definition for a cap, is the amount of times a player represents a team at test level, IE international team vs international team. Or sometimes international team vs Invitational team, or international team vs club team. Should a team play an invitational team or club team, the union usually says if its a test match or not. For example, the South Africa vs World XV match is not a capped match, not caps will be awarded to players. However, the match between the Pacific Barbarians and Tonga in the 2014 mid-year rugby union tests, has been announced to be a test match by the Tonga Rugby Union, witch means the players will be awarded caps.


 * To what you said about the British and Irish Lions having a non-test section and a test section on the table, that is a tour article. For an actual team article, squads should only reference test caps. For injured players not selected, in a squad announcement article, they always mention players they didn't select due to injury. Like in the article, they only briefly mention it. On this article it says "Injuries to Arno Botha, Pierre Spies, Francois Hougaard and Jaco Taute meant they were not considered for selection.". This is acceptable to be in the current squad, as in the official press release they have it. Basically what I am trying to say, current squads should be a replacer of what the press release looks like, but in a table format. I'm not to sure what to do about your suggestion on training squads. Personally I don't think it should be there, or at least if it is there, put it under current squad instead of the previous squad. Just note it that it is a training squad. Technically it is the current squad, just not the current playing squad. Rugby.change (talk) 17:10, 25 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Fine, so "caps" = "tests". You said: "For an actual team article, squads should only reference test caps." Why? If players played first class matches for the South African rugby team, why should it not be mentioned on the page of the South African rugby team? I just don't understand why you want to remove information that is pertinent to the section and the article, like non-tests played, additional details for injured players, training squads, etc. TheMightyPeanut (talk) 20:16, 25 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Firstly, first class matches is personal opinion, neither you or I can define what first class matches is. But the reason why I say no to, what you call "other caps", is because official players profile doesn't mention it. For example Bismarck du Plessis Springbok profile, or reliable sources like ESPN Scrum also don't mention any "other caps". Remember, Wikipedia uses official information with references. I think we've agreed on not mentioning Sprinbok numbers?


 * Basically I'd set the players section like this:

Players

See List of South Africa national rugby union players for a complete list of every player to have represented the Springboks.

Current squad

On May 19, coach Heyneke Meyer named a 36-man training squad for the upcoming 2014 mid-year rugby union tests.

Note: ‡ denotes players who are centrally contracted to the South African Rugby Union.

The following players were not considered due to injury:


 * Rugby.change (talk) 23:01, 25 May 2014 (UTC)


 * "First class matches is personal opinion"? WHAT? That's rubbish. The South African Rugby Union defines first class matches as:
 * i) To qualify as a first-class match, it must be played strictly according to the Laws of the game (no more than seven players on the bench).
 * ii) The following categories of matches qualify for first-class status if point i) is fulfilled:
 * a) All matches featuring the South African national team (Springboks).
 * b) All matches in senior competitions sanctioned by SARU
 * c) All matches against touring international sides
 * d) All matches between senior provincial teams & touring teams of the same or a higher status.
 * e) All matches between senior provincial teams outside of SARU competitions where the strongest possible teams are fielded
 * f) All matches played by senior teams carrying the name of a South African national team
 * g) All matches played by senior composite teams in IRB approved competitions.
 * iii) Any player appearing in one of the above matches (either in the starting XV or as a replacement - blood replacements and yellow-card replacements included) will be deemed to hae made a first-class appearance.
 * I'm sure all rugby unions would have a similar definition.


 * And, what do you mean other matches aren't included on player profile pages? The Bismarck du Plessis Springbok profile page that you so kindly linked to very clearly states: "Total tests: 57 Tour matches: 2 Total Springbok matches: 59" Yet, you want to include the 57 only?


 * Does it not make much more sense to have an indicator next to the player name to indicate if he's contracted to SARU or not? I really don't see the point in having separate lists. TheMightyPeanut (talk) 23:22, 25 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Ok, rather than a new section for SARU players, add some sort of symbol next to SARU players, with a note to denote what the symbol represents. (I've done it on the above proposal). I'll apologize for me overlooking the Tour matches part on the Springbok profile, I'll admit I just scrolled down to the SPRINGBOK CAREER table. You didn't mention what you thought about using the current squad section for training squads, since technically that is the current squad, it's just a training squad not a playing squad. To be honest with you, I don't know what to make of the tour caps section. Incase you haven't guessed, I'm not fond on the idea. At present, I guess the only reasoning I have, is that majority of the players have "0" next to they name, and it is very rare for such a match to take place in the modern game. Which means there is more chance to have a "0" next to their name than not.


 * I'm assuming you are ok with the more derailed injured player table in the section? I hope you agree with me in saying, only put players in there that are mentioned in squad press releases about not being selected due to injury. Rugby.change (talk) 00:37, 26 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Regarding the training squad – that should only be there temporarily. Once the proper squad is announced, it can be removed. Players playing in Europe were not considered for the training squad, but will be included in the final squad. It won't make sense to remove them, then add them again in a week's time.


 * Re tour matches, there are several taking place within the next few weeks – England v Barbarians, South Africa v World XV, EP Kings v Wales. The best example os obviously the British and Irish Lions Tour, in 2013 there were just 3 tests, but 7 tour matches. There are definitely less of them than tests, but that doesn't mean they don't merit inclusion.


 * Yes, I would definitely agree that only injured players mentioned in the press release should be included in the injured players section. TheMightyPeanut (talk) 08:51, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Article length / History
This article is quite long, at over 120 kB. In particular, the History section is quite long. I propose creating a new article for the History of the South Africa national rugby union team and moving much of the History material to that article. I would then trim the History section in this article to less than half of its current length. I wanted to give other editors advance notice and explanation before I make such a significant change. Barryjjoyce (talk) 13:49, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on South Africa national rugby union team. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20130403095437/http://www.lionsrugby.com/1910.htm to http://www.lionsrugby.com/1910.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers. —cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 17:21, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on South Africa national rugby union team. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20081118113851/http://www.businessday.co.za/specialist/articles/AgonyRant.aspx?ID=BD4A599988 to http://www.businessday.co.za/specialist/articles/AgonyRant.aspx?ID=BD4A599988

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 05:04, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 one external links on South Africa national rugby union team. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20151210012823/http://www.sarugby.net/component/supersportcontent/6777?view=news to http://www.sarugby.net/component/supersportcontent/6777?view=news
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20151120215631/http://www.sarugby.net/component/supersportcontent/6803?view=news to http://www.sarugby.net/component/supersportcontent/6803?view=news

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 21:38, 8 February 2016 (UTC)