Talk:South Africa national rugby union team

Rugby union B‑class High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Rugby union, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of rugby union on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Rugby unionWikipedia:WikiProject Rugby unionTemplate:WikiProject Rugby unionrugby union
B	This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

South Africa B‑class High‑importance

	South Africa portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject South Africa, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of South Africa on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.South AfricaWikipedia:WikiProject South AfricaTemplate:WikiProject South AfricaSouth Africa
B	This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article was reviewed by Mail & Guardian on November 7, 2005.
Comments: It was rated 10/10
For more information about external reviews of Wikipedia articles and about this review in particular, see this page.

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)[reply]

From external peer review

[T]he rugby [pages (league, union)] are A1. If I were to be hyper-critical, I might say that they are a little too up to date and don't care enough for history, but that merely reflects the audience, I would suggest. This is what the internet was intended to be: a non-pejorative, apolitical take on everyday life.

-- Andy Capostagno, sports commentator at Supersport and rugby commentator for the Mail & Guardian online, Can you trust Wikipedia?, Elvira van Noort, Johannesburg, South Africa, 07 November 2005 09:13.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 :- [1] Greenman 21:53, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

(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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 146.232.75.208 (talk) 01:54, August 25, 2007 (UTC)

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))[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

another source

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

Ddfree 11:55, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Featured article

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

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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#Succession boxes. - Shudde ^talk 22:34, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Current squad table format

I propose changing the format of the current squad table:

Note: Flags indicate national union for the club/province as defined by World Rugby.

Player	Position	Date of birth (age)	Caps	Club/province
Bismarck du Plessis	Hooker	40	30	50px - Sharks
Bandise Maku	Hooker	(1986-06-24) 24 June 1986 (age 38)	0	Bulls

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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