Quote:
Originally Posted by Bowiefan871
why can't we have blacks simply earn a spot on the team by showing they're better than some of the current players instead of them just joining by affirmative action?
Also, they want 10 players on the field at all times that are black. Habana is colored not black(not that it really matters).
Habana is on the team because he's good. Not because he's not white.
|
In an ideal world, we would have a team like the NZ team, where there are lots of non-white players playing the game and excelling at it. Right now, however, in South Africa, rugby struggles against an all-white image. Soccer is an easy game to accommodate in the townships because all you need is an open patch of dirt and a round ball, but rugby is fantastically unpleasant to play anywhere but on grass. The majority of South Africans don't even know the rules of the game!
I would guess that the somewhat drastic AA move is a reaction to a number of non-white players doing very well in the Super 14 and Currie Cup but not getting a start on the Springbok team. Chester Williams started out as an AA member of the team and when he tackled Jonah Lomu in the '95 World Cup final you can bet not a soul would've said he was there for any reason than his ability. But without AA, would he have been given the opportunity? In the days when we needed 2 AA players in the team, there were not many non-white players in the Currie Cup. The proportion of non-white players at the top level has grown, but the number on the Springbok team has not.
I personally don't have a problem with AA in sport as long as it's about giving opportunity to players who, for whatever reason, are not the best of the best. Give them a go, and if they don't make it, then give someone else a go. I think it's wrong to have someone on the team just because he's black being a weak link and getting outplayed week after week. It's demoralizing to him, to his team mates, to supporters and to the opposition.