Afrikaner perspektief: Geskryf deur Dirk UysDit is geen geheim dat die meeste blanke Suid-Afrikaners ‘n obsessie met rugby het nie. Die posisie van die nasionale afrigter is dan ook een waar kritiek ‘n integrale deel van die pakket vorm. Enigeen wat al om ‘n braaivleisvuur na eindelose disseksies van die jongste Sprinbok-wedstryd moes luister, weet dat iedereen ‘n mening oor die afrigter het. Met ras het dit niks te doen nie, want dit was nog altyd so. Daarom verstom dit mens dat Peter de Villiers gedurig die rassekaart speel.
(Foto bo: Peter de Villiers)
As nasionale afrigter verwag ‘n mens darem ‘n bietjie waardigheid van die persoon wat die pos beklee. De Villiers, wat ’n paar maande gelede openlik verklaar het dat hy vir die ANC stem, maak egter die een flater na die ander met sy bisarre metafore. Hofnar sou dalk ‘n meer gepaste posbeskrywing wees.
Om die waarheid te sê is “nar” presies die woord wat nou die dag ten opsigte van die kontroversiële Suid-Afrikaanse afrigter gebruik is. Dit het gevolg op die insident verlede Saterdag toe Schalk Burger sy vinger in die Britse speler, Luke Fitzgerald, se oog gesteek het. De Villiers se gewraakte, ondiplomatieke reaksie het soos volg gelui: as die Leeus nie die fisiese sy van rugby kan hanteer nie, moet hulle eerder ballet-tutu’s gaan koop.
Toe lede van die media na afloop van die eerste toets tussen die Springbokke en die Leeus die keuse van die lomp Ricky Januarie bevraagteken het, het De Villiers hom vererg en gesê dat die media “rassisties” optree.
Verlede jaar het gerugte die rondte gedoen dat daar ‘n video bestaan van De Villiers wat seks in ‘n parkeerarea beoefen. Weer het die afrigter hom vervies en gedreig “om die werk vir die wittes terug te gee.”
Op 2 Julie vanjaar het hy die BBC-joernalis Simon Austin verstom deur te sê dat hy nie van plan is om sy styl te verander nie. "I won't change my style. If I change my style I change Peter de Villiers and will have to go back to God and say 'you are doing a bad job'."
Dit wil egter voorkom of die Suid-Afrikaanse rugby-unie, en meer spesifiek die president, Oregan Hoskins, 100% steun aan die hofnar verleen. “Peter absolutely has my full support," het Hoskins onlangs aan BBC Sport verklaar. "He is doing a good job, he is a good coach and there is huge potential for him to be successful," het Hoskins aan Austin gesê.
Die ongemaklike waarheid is natuurlik dat De Villiers nie destyds net gekies is vir sy vaardigheid as afrigter nie. Op die dag toe sy aankondiging as afrigter aangekondig is, het Hoskins immers self gesê dat rugbyredes alleen nie ter sprake was by die keuse nie, maar dat “transformasie” baie swaar geweeg het. Hiermee het hy eintlik van De Villiers ’n aanstelling ’n klug gemaak.
Die bekende sportjoernalis Clinton van der Berg het verlede jaar op 31 Augustus ’n kostelike artikel genaamd Twakkie’s wit & wisdom in die Sunday Times gepubliseer waarin hy van De Villiers se “juwele” ten toon gestel het. Ek haal graag aan:
“Questioned by a Welsh journalist on his team selection ahead of the Bloemfontein Test, the coach made the curious revelation that he might “pull a rat out the hat” before the end of the week.
Later in New Zealand, inquiries focused on how he planned to pep up his team for the Wellington Test. “I’ll tell them talk is cheap and money buys the whisky,” he smiled through world rugby’s most frightening moustache.
Unimpressed that Craig Dowd had labelled him a puppet, he shot back: “I don’t know what’s his agenda, if it is racism or not.” De Villiers was apparently unaware that Dowd is a Maori, so it was a case of the pot calling the, oh, never mind...
There were some bizarre remarks in the aftermath, as the Boks went down 19-8.
“You win some, you lose some,” De Villiers mused, before moaning about the opposition’s scrum tactics. “We just have to become illegal sometimes, too.”
But it was all okay. “There is a quiet positiveness that we lost it rather than they won it,” he waxed. All hunky-dory, then.
As for CJ van der Linde being replaced, that was serious. “He was hit in the larynx and that’s why he had to come off. He was sounding like me.”
De Villiers admitted that Dan Carter had been tackled late, but he defended the game’s robust nature. “I know dancing is also a contact sport, but rugby is far from dancing. If you want to run with the big dogs then sometimes you have to lift your leg.”
Criticism of roughhouse Bok tactics was over the top, he railed: “This kind of thing is as old as Noah, but it’s great how they have now picked up things that have been part of rugby for a hundred years.
“There will be late tackles, there have been for 100 years and the referee is there to police that. But I was tackled late at school and in provincial games and that was never mentioned in the papers.”
His pre-Test babble in Perth was equally outlandish: He declared war on the Wallabies and vowed that he would wake up alive on Test morning.
On a roll, he explained his peculiar philosophy to the gathered media corps. “What we try to tell them is when you point your finger into the sky, don’t concentrate on the finger because you’ll miss all the heavenly glory out there. Concentrate on the heavenly glory that you can bring and make yourselves so fulfilled.”
People were curious about how the Boks had celebrated the rare away victory over the All Blacks. As ever, De Villiers had the answer. “We went wild, wild, wild — some of the guys went wilder than that.
“South Africans are normally great people and we’ll take the bitter with the sweet. It’s only the guys who don’t feel part of that bitter or that sweet that will always moan and groan and say: ‘Why do they go so wild?’ Join in, we’ve got enough stuff to share with you.”
Warming to the theme, there was more: “I’ve got nothing to prove. I believe in myself, the players and God.”
Post-Dunedin, things began to get wonky.
As the De Villiers party began to lurch dangerously out of control, he assured millions of supporters that he had everything in hand. They all ought to relax — he really had a plan.
“I was appointed to make rugby decisions. I promised to be honest and focus on rugby. We never said it was going to be a perfect world. If you look at the Bible, Joseph started out in the pit and ended up in the palace. There was a moerse lot of kak in between.”
And then the All Blacks pounded the Boks 19-0 in Cape Town. And a still deluded De Villiers hammered away with his woolly rhetoric. “I believe we’re developing a style here that the whole world will fear,” he said earnestly.
And then, his great Eureka moment: he announced the unravelling of one of sport’s great mysteries — that the rest of us had all got it wrong because winning and losing were actually much the same.
“There’s little difference between winning and losing, except that one feels better after winning,” he declared after losing in Durban last week. He later warned that when the Boks finally grasped his methods, someone was going “to get a hiding”.
When it all came down to it, though, De Villiers’ choicest words were the three he uttered to a TV reporter after last week’s pak slae.
“We played kak.”
Sal iemand asseblief opstaan en erken dat die Springbokke gelukkig talentvol genoeg is om sonder hierdie hofnar klaar te kom?
As nasionale afrigter verwag ‘n mens darem ‘n bietjie waardigheid van die persoon wat die pos beklee. De Villiers, wat ’n paar maande gelede openlik verklaar het dat hy vir die ANC stem, maak egter die een flater na die ander met sy bisarre metafore. Hofnar sou dalk ‘n meer gepaste posbeskrywing wees.
Om die waarheid te sê is “nar” presies die woord wat nou die dag ten opsigte van die kontroversiële Suid-Afrikaanse afrigter gebruik is. Dit het gevolg op die insident verlede Saterdag toe Schalk Burger sy vinger in die Britse speler, Luke Fitzgerald, se oog gesteek het. De Villiers se gewraakte, ondiplomatieke reaksie het soos volg gelui: as die Leeus nie die fisiese sy van rugby kan hanteer nie, moet hulle eerder ballet-tutu’s gaan koop.
Toe lede van die media na afloop van die eerste toets tussen die Springbokke en die Leeus die keuse van die lomp Ricky Januarie bevraagteken het, het De Villiers hom vererg en gesê dat die media “rassisties” optree.
Verlede jaar het gerugte die rondte gedoen dat daar ‘n video bestaan van De Villiers wat seks in ‘n parkeerarea beoefen. Weer het die afrigter hom vervies en gedreig “om die werk vir die wittes terug te gee.”
Op 2 Julie vanjaar het hy die BBC-joernalis Simon Austin verstom deur te sê dat hy nie van plan is om sy styl te verander nie. "I won't change my style. If I change my style I change Peter de Villiers and will have to go back to God and say 'you are doing a bad job'."
Dit wil egter voorkom of die Suid-Afrikaanse rugby-unie, en meer spesifiek die president, Oregan Hoskins, 100% steun aan die hofnar verleen. “Peter absolutely has my full support," het Hoskins onlangs aan BBC Sport verklaar. "He is doing a good job, he is a good coach and there is huge potential for him to be successful," het Hoskins aan Austin gesê.
Die ongemaklike waarheid is natuurlik dat De Villiers nie destyds net gekies is vir sy vaardigheid as afrigter nie. Op die dag toe sy aankondiging as afrigter aangekondig is, het Hoskins immers self gesê dat rugbyredes alleen nie ter sprake was by die keuse nie, maar dat “transformasie” baie swaar geweeg het. Hiermee het hy eintlik van De Villiers ’n aanstelling ’n klug gemaak.
Die bekende sportjoernalis Clinton van der Berg het verlede jaar op 31 Augustus ’n kostelike artikel genaamd Twakkie’s wit & wisdom in die Sunday Times gepubliseer waarin hy van De Villiers se “juwele” ten toon gestel het. Ek haal graag aan:
“Questioned by a Welsh journalist on his team selection ahead of the Bloemfontein Test, the coach made the curious revelation that he might “pull a rat out the hat” before the end of the week.
Later in New Zealand, inquiries focused on how he planned to pep up his team for the Wellington Test. “I’ll tell them talk is cheap and money buys the whisky,” he smiled through world rugby’s most frightening moustache.
Unimpressed that Craig Dowd had labelled him a puppet, he shot back: “I don’t know what’s his agenda, if it is racism or not.” De Villiers was apparently unaware that Dowd is a Maori, so it was a case of the pot calling the, oh, never mind...
There were some bizarre remarks in the aftermath, as the Boks went down 19-8.
“You win some, you lose some,” De Villiers mused, before moaning about the opposition’s scrum tactics. “We just have to become illegal sometimes, too.”
But it was all okay. “There is a quiet positiveness that we lost it rather than they won it,” he waxed. All hunky-dory, then.
As for CJ van der Linde being replaced, that was serious. “He was hit in the larynx and that’s why he had to come off. He was sounding like me.”
De Villiers admitted that Dan Carter had been tackled late, but he defended the game’s robust nature. “I know dancing is also a contact sport, but rugby is far from dancing. If you want to run with the big dogs then sometimes you have to lift your leg.”
Criticism of roughhouse Bok tactics was over the top, he railed: “This kind of thing is as old as Noah, but it’s great how they have now picked up things that have been part of rugby for a hundred years.
“There will be late tackles, there have been for 100 years and the referee is there to police that. But I was tackled late at school and in provincial games and that was never mentioned in the papers.”
His pre-Test babble in Perth was equally outlandish: He declared war on the Wallabies and vowed that he would wake up alive on Test morning.
On a roll, he explained his peculiar philosophy to the gathered media corps. “What we try to tell them is when you point your finger into the sky, don’t concentrate on the finger because you’ll miss all the heavenly glory out there. Concentrate on the heavenly glory that you can bring and make yourselves so fulfilled.”
People were curious about how the Boks had celebrated the rare away victory over the All Blacks. As ever, De Villiers had the answer. “We went wild, wild, wild — some of the guys went wilder than that.
“South Africans are normally great people and we’ll take the bitter with the sweet. It’s only the guys who don’t feel part of that bitter or that sweet that will always moan and groan and say: ‘Why do they go so wild?’ Join in, we’ve got enough stuff to share with you.”
Warming to the theme, there was more: “I’ve got nothing to prove. I believe in myself, the players and God.”
Post-Dunedin, things began to get wonky.
As the De Villiers party began to lurch dangerously out of control, he assured millions of supporters that he had everything in hand. They all ought to relax — he really had a plan.
“I was appointed to make rugby decisions. I promised to be honest and focus on rugby. We never said it was going to be a perfect world. If you look at the Bible, Joseph started out in the pit and ended up in the palace. There was a moerse lot of kak in between.”
And then the All Blacks pounded the Boks 19-0 in Cape Town. And a still deluded De Villiers hammered away with his woolly rhetoric. “I believe we’re developing a style here that the whole world will fear,” he said earnestly.
And then, his great Eureka moment: he announced the unravelling of one of sport’s great mysteries — that the rest of us had all got it wrong because winning and losing were actually much the same.
“There’s little difference between winning and losing, except that one feels better after winning,” he declared after losing in Durban last week. He later warned that when the Boks finally grasped his methods, someone was going “to get a hiding”.
When it all came down to it, though, De Villiers’ choicest words were the three he uttered to a TV reporter after last week’s pak slae.
“We played kak.”
Sal iemand asseblief opstaan en erken dat die Springbokke gelukkig talentvol genoeg is om sonder hierdie hofnar klaar te kom?
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment