Northern Edition

Select Edition

Northern Northern
Southern Southern
Global Global
New Zealand New Zealand
France France

'The public doesn't give a rat's ass that he hasn't played in 16 weeks'

South Africa's coach Jacques Nienaber conducts a press conference prior to the team's departure for the Rugby World Cup 2023 at OR Tambo International Airport in Ekurhuleni on August 12, 2023. (Photo by Phill Magakoe / AFP) / "The erroneous mention[s] appearing in the metadata of this photo by Phill Magakoe has been modified in AFP systems in the following manner: [Ekurhuleni] instead of [Johannesburg]. Please immediately remove the erroneous mention[s] from all your online services and delete it (them) from your servers. If you have been authorized by AFP to distribute it (them) to third parties, please ensure that the same actions are carried out by them. Failure to promptly comply with these instructions will entail liability on your part for any continued or post notification usage. Therefore we thank you very much for all your attention and prompt action. We are sorry for the inconvenience this notification may cause and remain at your disposal for any further information you may require." (Photo by PHILL MAGAKOE/AFP via Getty Images)

Springboks head coach Jacques Nienaber has come up with a unique way of portraying the South African public’s attitude to the decision not to include outside half Handre Pollard in the defending champion’s 33-strong squad for the Rugby World Cup in France

ADVERTISEMENT

He claims that “the public doesn’t give a rat’s ass that he (Pollard) hasn’t played in 16 weeks” after including the Leicester outside half who helped win the Cup in 2019 in a small group of players who are with the squad for the games with Wales in Cardiff on 19 August and New Zealand in London on 25 August but not in the official 33.

The head coach told reporters in South Africa that “With Handre over his injury, but, in my opinion, is not fit enough to play and perform and win a Test match for you. He’s busy getting there, and remember, when we selected him, the public doesn’t give a rat’s ass that he hasn’t played in 16 weeks. He must perform, and he must be the Pollard that won the World Cup in 2019. That’s the picture of the Pollard they want.

“We’re still building him up to that, so by having four nines, Grant can cover wing, and Faf is our third choice 10. Remember, we went to the 2019 World Cup with two 10s, and Frans Steyn was our third-choice flyhalf, yet he only played in the position last year against Argentina. Everybody commented on how much of a disaster it was and why we shouldn’t have picked him at flyhalf.”

Related

“It’s like taking three specialist hookers to the World Cup, and you’ll find the third one won’t play much. They’ll get 15 minutes here and there, and the same is applicable to the third 10 if three 10s are taken with.

“We’re looking for a bit of both, but less than what we did up until now. We’re sitting with an experienced squad as compared to what other teams have from an age and Test caps experience.

“We thought that if they’d keep their form, we’ll probably end up where we are now in terms of age, but we know that availability can be a problem.

ADVERTISEMENT

“We learned that lesson the hard way in 2011 where the experience to win the tournament was there, but getting them to last through the World Cup was an issue. We’ll chop and change less in the next two games and get combinations going.”

Related

ADVERTISEMENT

LIVE

{{item.title}}

Trending on RugbyPass

Comments

3 Comments
T
Thomas 492 days ago

The issue is with all this deceptive double messaging, this multiplicity in their statements. A couple of weeks ago it was: "Pollard and Kolisi are such known quantities, we're always going to nominate them."

Then the nomination comes and Pollard is not included due to injury. No further comment or explanation, until a couple of days after, just to mitigate the rumour mill that had started whirring in the vacuum left by the lack of communication. Why some other players, who also had been injured had been nominated, is not explained.

Then all of a sudden it's "Pollard is past his injury, but not fit. He hasn't played in 16 weeks, and he couldn't win you a game against Vatican City." Why drag him along, then? If you expect him to get in shape for some games at the RWC, why not nominate him? If not, why drag him along and not release him instead?

I'm tired of this duplicitous messaging.

S
Sumkunn Tsadmiova 492 days ago

It is very obvious, even to us little Bulgarians. They have named 4 scrum-halves because one will drop out to make way for Pollard. Bye bye Grant Williams. It's what passes for a deviously deceptive plan in the fiendish Erasmus-world. He'll probably bring out a video about it says my friend Udum Feukwitz!

Load More Comments

Join free and tell us what you really think!

Sign up for free
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest Features

Comments on RugbyPass

f
fl 22 minutes ago
‘The problem with this year’s Champions Cup? Too many English clubs’

"Right, so even if they were the 4 worst teams in Champions Cup, you'd still have them back by default?"

I think (i) this would literally never happen, (ii) it technically couldn't quite happen, given at least 1 team would qualify via the challenge cup, so if the actual worst team in the CC qualified it would have to be because they did really well after being knocked down to the challenge cup.

But the 13th-15th teams could qualify and to be fair I didn't think about this as a possibility. I don't think a team should be able to qualify via the Champions Cup if they finish last in their group.


Overall though I like my idea best because my thinking is, each league should get a few qualification spots, and then the rest of the spots should go to the next best teams who have proven an ability to be competitive in the champions cup. The elite French clubs generally make up the bulk of the semi-final spots, but that doesn't (necessarily) mean that the 5th-8th best French clubs would be competitive in a slimmed down champions cup. The CC is always going to be really great competition from the semis onwards, but the issue is that there are some pretty poor showings in the earlier rounds. Reducing the number of teams would help a little bit, but we could improve things further by (i) ensuring that the on-paper "worst" teams in the competition have a track record of performing well in the CC, and (ii) by incentivising teams to prioritise the competition. Teams that have a chance to win the whole thing will always be incentivised to do that, but my system would incentivise teams with no chance of making the final to at least try to win a few group stage matches.


"I'm afraid to say"

Its christmas time; there's no need to be afraid!

118 Go to comments
LONG READ
LONG READ Will Bristol's daredevil 'Bears-ball' deliver the trophy they crave? Will Bristol's daredevil 'Bears-ball' deliver the trophy they crave?
Search