Our Springboks made us proud. We did it! It is however the superb performance that makes you think of some corporate lessons on how to realize the highest dream. There are lessons from this team that you can pull through into the corporate world (someone can now go and set up the presentation)
Let’s start at the top. Jake White had a vision four years ago that he wanted to hold the world cup. He shared this vision with everyone and said that there will be pains along the way. Many people laughed at him, but he stuck to the vision. He then got an inspirational leader in John Smit and although the public did not agree with the decision, he committed himself to his leader and together they created a shared goal to win the world cup.
The players were selected to become the team members and together they started working towards a common goal. Jake had a vision and his captain had to lead the team towards that goal. Together they backed their team through thick and thin and took the criticism on the chin. They showed that when you have a clear vision and a common goal which the team can work towards, the sky is the limit.
Jake also realized that a team needs to be a blend of youth and experience. He brought to “old”, nearly forgotten, members into the team to help keep the youngsters in line. Os du Randt and Percy Montgomery played vital roles in the team. They showed that if you have a big team, it is not necessary the hard working energetic youngsters that will pull you through, but the cool and calm heads of experience to ensure they get pulled in the right direction. It is visionary that the Os lead head first on the shoulder of his captain and the experienced, calm Percy was there to cover the last outpost.
The next part was to introduce young raw talent in people like Francois Steyn, JP Pieterse and Pierre Spies. The latter unfortunately dropped out due to injury, but it did not derail the campaign. They youngsters bought a new energy to the team and also sometimes did stupid things, but they showed the team that the old traditional way of thinking is not always right and that you should sometimes leave people to try new ways of doing things, like popping over unlikely drop goals. Fortunately the old hands were there to give advice.
Mistakes were made – think of some selections, but ultimately the right decisions came up trumps. That showed that as long as the shared goal and vision is chased, mistakes are permitted. You are allowed to make mistakes and although you will sometimes lead to irate clients (read supporters) and management (read SARU), if you believe in yourself and your team, you will succeed.
During the match, Percy got shoved into a camera by Toby Flood. Flood lost his cool and Percy kept his. That is the way you want to see your seniors conduct themselves. Do not get sidetracked by personal attacks and keep your mind on your goal. Don’t be intimidated when other people start personal attacks, but react only when it affects your goal. Anything else is not worth bothering.
When England nearly scored, the desperate lunge from Danie Rossouw probably saved the day. That proved that you should never give up, no matter how hopeless it seems. It looks inevitable that a major setback would occur, but one member put up his hand and gave his all to save the dream.
Bismarck du Plessis came on as a blood replacement and had to take one very important lineout throw. England had the momentum and one mistake would have lead to a try. Bismarck hit the mark 100%. That shows that when you introduce someone for a short period of time into your team, let him be an expert at what he does so that he will not let you down. The same applied to Wicus van Heerden who played a short while, but made a critical steal in the loose. Apply experts from outside the initial team when required.
Bryan Habanna and Juan Smith were absolutely superb throughout the tournament. They proved that although all the members are making contributions in the bigger team towards the shared goal, there can always be stars as well. If the team members are empowered and allowed to use their own creativity, someone will always put up his hand and show why he is the star.
At the end of it all when the goal was achieved and the vision realized, all participated in the festivities. Even the members that were on the fringes and did not directly participate were allowed to share amongst accolades as they also played a part – no matter how small – in the ultimate success. When your team has delivered make sure that everyone is thanked for their contribution and not only those in the direct limelight.
Finally, the man who had the vision in 2004 and the captain who got appointed to lead the team to war should get special thanks. The coach everyone wanted to fire and the captain no one wanted have now become heroes because they delivered on the vision in time and on budget! They were key to this success story
Be proud of the team South Africa. Be very proud!
Tuesday, October 30, 2007
Tuesday, June 05, 2007
Sal jy my broek vashou?
In 1982 het ‘n paar dogters op Jefferysbaai die volgende woorde geskryf op die maat van die ou Jimmy Osmond treffer ‘Long Haired Lover of Liverpool”. Ek kan nie onthou wie hulle almal was nie, maar onthou dat die voorbok in die skrywe Antoinette Keet was. Die woorde is as volg:
Jy’s my bakoormaatjie van die kleuterskool
En ek wil alles met jou deel
Selfs jou rekker en jou cracker
En jou blou-oog pop
Selfs jou suigstok is nie te veel.
So, kom parkeer dan jou fifty langs my stootwaentjie
Bring jou pop en fopspeen saam
Jy’s my bakoormaatjie van die kleuterskool
En ek wil alles met jou deeeeeeeel!
Dit is so oulike ou liedjie wat eintlik opsom wat ek vandag oor gaan skryf. Die title oor die “broekvashou” gedeelte klink baie erger as wat dit is en ek sal dit kortliks verduidelik met ‘n klein vehaaltjie. Die tema van hiedie skrywe is vriendskap, of liewer die spesiale vriendskap wat mans en vrouens bestaan.
Nou die verhaaltjie. Ek gaan terug na die sestiger jare toe daar ‘n seuntjie [so ongeveer vyf jaar] en sy famillie in ‘n woonstelblok in Pretoria gewoon het. Dit was die dae toe woonstelle erg aan die ontwikkel was en die famillie het in die woonstel gebly terwyl gedeeltes in aanbou was. Hulle was nie ‘n ryk famillie nie en speelgoed vir die seuntjie was maar skaars. Hy het sy tyd spandeer deur tussen die boumateriaal en bourommel te speel. Dit was ‘n kind se droom. Hy het egter geen maatjie gehad nie.
Oorkant die straat het daar mense gewoon. Hulle het ‘n dogtertjie gehad wat min of meer dieselfde ouderdom was. Dit was nie ‘n 100 jaar nie, of die twee het bymekaar uitgekom en saam tussen die boumateriaal en bourommel begin speel. Dit was baie lekker – behalwe vir een problem. Die dogtertjie se ma. Sy het elke dag ‘n groot gedoente daarvan gemaak dat die dogtertjie “skoon” moet speel [belaglik vir ‘n vyfjarige] en het elke middag vir die dogtertjie gevra on haar broek te sien. Sy moes dan buk, haar rokkie optel, en as dit vuil was, ‘n pak slae gekry. Haar ma het geglo dat ‘n dogtertjie se broek altyd moes skoon wees!Dit het uitdagings met die speel tussen die twee gelei. Die dogtertjie kon nie regtig tussen die rommel speel nie, want hoe kry jy dit reg en hou jou broekie skoon? Dit was hier dat die twee maatjies met ‘n baie goeie plan vorendag gekom het. Elke oggend wanneer hulle twee bymekaar kom, het sy bloot haar broekie uitgetrek en die seuntjie dit veilig in sy sak gesit. Daar het dit mooi skoon gebly en sy kon klim en klouter en speel soos sy wil. Aan die einde van die dag het sy bloot haar broekie weer aangetrek en is huistoe. Wanneer haar ma “inspeksie” gehou het, was sy baie bly, want haar dogtertjie se broekie het mooi skoon gebly! Almal gelukkig!
As ek aan die vriendskap dink, het ek begin wonder hoe om ‘n baie goeie vriendskap tussen mans en vrouens – wat nie ‘n paar is nie – te beskryf. Ek het toe gedink aan die term dat dit iemand is wat jou broek sal vashou. Dit kan jy vertolk op enige manier, maar dit is bloot iemand wat vir die ander een enige iets sal doen sonder enige by bedoelings.
Dit is ‘n vriendskap wat tussen mans en vrouens kan bestaan. Dit kan nie tussen mans en mans of vrouens en vrouens gebeur nie – net tussen mans en vrouens. Daar is ‘n band wat tussen hulle ontstaan wat nie liefde is nie. Dit het niks met liefde te make nie. Hulle is egter vertrouelinge en vertel mekaar enige ding. Die vrou kan vir die man vertel van haar intiemste probleme en die man kan dieselfde met die vrou doen. Die twee kan saam slaap in dieselfde bed en mekaar vertroos wanneer daar hartseer is. Alles sonder enige bybedoelings of seksuele kontak. Daardie tipe verhoudings bestaan. Sodra die vriendskap in meer as net vriendskap ontaard, is dit gewoonlik verby..
Daar is nie ‘n ander vorm van vriendskap wat hierdie een kan aanvat nie. Die band tussen die man en vrou is gewoonlik baie sterk en dit is gewoonlik ook waar probleme in die toekoms voorkom. Hierdie verhouding het niks met verliefdheid te doen nie en is total platonies. Dit is egter altyd die eerste plek waar die man of vrou altyd na toe hardloop vir hulp, raad, of sommer net bystand. Soek net ‘n drukkie. Die twee mense probeer hierdie spesiale verhouding geheim hou. Nie omdat hulle skuldig daaroor voel nie, maar eerder omdat ander mense dit nie verstaan nie. Dit kan gebeur dat albei die partye baie gelukkig getroud is, maar dat daar steeds hierdie spesiale band met die ander persoon is. Iets groots gebeur en die persoon deel dit met die spesiale vriend in plaas van die persoon se lewensmaat. Indien daardie lewensmaat dit uitvind………baie moeilikheid. Wat die mense nie verstaan nie is dat die tipe van verhoudings bestaan. Hierdie vriendskappe is rondom ons tussen getroude en ongetroude mense, maar dit word oor die jaloesie van samelewing geheim gehou.
Ek is seker dat baie van julle mense ken wat in sulke verhoudings is. Die meeste gevalle waar jy dit sien is tussen gay mans en vrouens, maar daar is ook wel gevalle waar dit heteroseksuele mans is. Die getroude vrouens kom egter maklik weg met die gay man, want as die vriendskap op die lappe kom, voel die man nie so bedreig nie.
Die intressante is dat dit ‘n baie spesiale man vat om deel van so vriendskap te wees. Vrouens gly makliker in die rol in, maar vir mans is dit moeilik. Dit is omdat mans seker oor die algemene baie meer visueel is as vrouens – hulle hou daarvan om te kyk en nie te lees nie. Mans verkies persoonlike kontak en nie die diep dinge nie. Vrouens, daarenteen, is ‘n spesie wat eerder na die siel kyk as die uiterlike. Dit is hoekom soveel lelike mans mooi vrouens het!
Dit is vir ons as samelewing om te aanvaar dat daar hegte bande tussen mense bestaan en dat huwelike al uitmekaar geval het as die verhoudings op die lappe kom. Die grap is dat die twee “sielsgenote” egter nooit self daarna afhaak nie. Dit vat wilskrag vir die mense om nie in ‘n dieper verhouding betrokke te raak of seksueel betrokke te raak nie, want hulle ken mekaar naderhand so goed dat dit amper ‘n logiese stap is. Dit gebeur egter nie, want altwee respekteer die ander se verhoudings en liefde in hulle lewens. Hulle hou net mekaar se broeke van as dit nodig is.
Ek ken mense wat in sulke vriendskappe is. Ken julle enige?
Jy’s my bakoormaatjie van die kleuterskool
En ek wil alles met jou deel
Selfs jou rekker en jou cracker
En jou blou-oog pop
Selfs jou suigstok is nie te veel.
So, kom parkeer dan jou fifty langs my stootwaentjie
Bring jou pop en fopspeen saam
Jy’s my bakoormaatjie van die kleuterskool
En ek wil alles met jou deeeeeeeel!
Dit is so oulike ou liedjie wat eintlik opsom wat ek vandag oor gaan skryf. Die title oor die “broekvashou” gedeelte klink baie erger as wat dit is en ek sal dit kortliks verduidelik met ‘n klein vehaaltjie. Die tema van hiedie skrywe is vriendskap, of liewer die spesiale vriendskap wat mans en vrouens bestaan.
Nou die verhaaltjie. Ek gaan terug na die sestiger jare toe daar ‘n seuntjie [so ongeveer vyf jaar] en sy famillie in ‘n woonstelblok in Pretoria gewoon het. Dit was die dae toe woonstelle erg aan die ontwikkel was en die famillie het in die woonstel gebly terwyl gedeeltes in aanbou was. Hulle was nie ‘n ryk famillie nie en speelgoed vir die seuntjie was maar skaars. Hy het sy tyd spandeer deur tussen die boumateriaal en bourommel te speel. Dit was ‘n kind se droom. Hy het egter geen maatjie gehad nie.
Oorkant die straat het daar mense gewoon. Hulle het ‘n dogtertjie gehad wat min of meer dieselfde ouderdom was. Dit was nie ‘n 100 jaar nie, of die twee het bymekaar uitgekom en saam tussen die boumateriaal en bourommel begin speel. Dit was baie lekker – behalwe vir een problem. Die dogtertjie se ma. Sy het elke dag ‘n groot gedoente daarvan gemaak dat die dogtertjie “skoon” moet speel [belaglik vir ‘n vyfjarige] en het elke middag vir die dogtertjie gevra on haar broek te sien. Sy moes dan buk, haar rokkie optel, en as dit vuil was, ‘n pak slae gekry. Haar ma het geglo dat ‘n dogtertjie se broek altyd moes skoon wees!Dit het uitdagings met die speel tussen die twee gelei. Die dogtertjie kon nie regtig tussen die rommel speel nie, want hoe kry jy dit reg en hou jou broekie skoon? Dit was hier dat die twee maatjies met ‘n baie goeie plan vorendag gekom het. Elke oggend wanneer hulle twee bymekaar kom, het sy bloot haar broekie uitgetrek en die seuntjie dit veilig in sy sak gesit. Daar het dit mooi skoon gebly en sy kon klim en klouter en speel soos sy wil. Aan die einde van die dag het sy bloot haar broekie weer aangetrek en is huistoe. Wanneer haar ma “inspeksie” gehou het, was sy baie bly, want haar dogtertjie se broekie het mooi skoon gebly! Almal gelukkig!
As ek aan die vriendskap dink, het ek begin wonder hoe om ‘n baie goeie vriendskap tussen mans en vrouens – wat nie ‘n paar is nie – te beskryf. Ek het toe gedink aan die term dat dit iemand is wat jou broek sal vashou. Dit kan jy vertolk op enige manier, maar dit is bloot iemand wat vir die ander een enige iets sal doen sonder enige by bedoelings.
Dit is ‘n vriendskap wat tussen mans en vrouens kan bestaan. Dit kan nie tussen mans en mans of vrouens en vrouens gebeur nie – net tussen mans en vrouens. Daar is ‘n band wat tussen hulle ontstaan wat nie liefde is nie. Dit het niks met liefde te make nie. Hulle is egter vertrouelinge en vertel mekaar enige ding. Die vrou kan vir die man vertel van haar intiemste probleme en die man kan dieselfde met die vrou doen. Die twee kan saam slaap in dieselfde bed en mekaar vertroos wanneer daar hartseer is. Alles sonder enige bybedoelings of seksuele kontak. Daardie tipe verhoudings bestaan. Sodra die vriendskap in meer as net vriendskap ontaard, is dit gewoonlik verby..
Daar is nie ‘n ander vorm van vriendskap wat hierdie een kan aanvat nie. Die band tussen die man en vrou is gewoonlik baie sterk en dit is gewoonlik ook waar probleme in die toekoms voorkom. Hierdie verhouding het niks met verliefdheid te doen nie en is total platonies. Dit is egter altyd die eerste plek waar die man of vrou altyd na toe hardloop vir hulp, raad, of sommer net bystand. Soek net ‘n drukkie. Die twee mense probeer hierdie spesiale verhouding geheim hou. Nie omdat hulle skuldig daaroor voel nie, maar eerder omdat ander mense dit nie verstaan nie. Dit kan gebeur dat albei die partye baie gelukkig getroud is, maar dat daar steeds hierdie spesiale band met die ander persoon is. Iets groots gebeur en die persoon deel dit met die spesiale vriend in plaas van die persoon se lewensmaat. Indien daardie lewensmaat dit uitvind………baie moeilikheid. Wat die mense nie verstaan nie is dat die tipe van verhoudings bestaan. Hierdie vriendskappe is rondom ons tussen getroude en ongetroude mense, maar dit word oor die jaloesie van samelewing geheim gehou.
Ek is seker dat baie van julle mense ken wat in sulke verhoudings is. Die meeste gevalle waar jy dit sien is tussen gay mans en vrouens, maar daar is ook wel gevalle waar dit heteroseksuele mans is. Die getroude vrouens kom egter maklik weg met die gay man, want as die vriendskap op die lappe kom, voel die man nie so bedreig nie.
Die intressante is dat dit ‘n baie spesiale man vat om deel van so vriendskap te wees. Vrouens gly makliker in die rol in, maar vir mans is dit moeilik. Dit is omdat mans seker oor die algemene baie meer visueel is as vrouens – hulle hou daarvan om te kyk en nie te lees nie. Mans verkies persoonlike kontak en nie die diep dinge nie. Vrouens, daarenteen, is ‘n spesie wat eerder na die siel kyk as die uiterlike. Dit is hoekom soveel lelike mans mooi vrouens het!
Dit is vir ons as samelewing om te aanvaar dat daar hegte bande tussen mense bestaan en dat huwelike al uitmekaar geval het as die verhoudings op die lappe kom. Die grap is dat die twee “sielsgenote” egter nooit self daarna afhaak nie. Dit vat wilskrag vir die mense om nie in ‘n dieper verhouding betrokke te raak of seksueel betrokke te raak nie, want hulle ken mekaar naderhand so goed dat dit amper ‘n logiese stap is. Dit gebeur egter nie, want altwee respekteer die ander se verhoudings en liefde in hulle lewens. Hulle hou net mekaar se broeke van as dit nodig is.
Ek ken mense wat in sulke vriendskappe is. Ken julle enige?
Tuesday, May 29, 2007
The Luke Watson Saga
If there is one thing SA rugby did not need, it was another scandal. The whole Luke Watson sage ended up very close to one.
Before I give my point of view on the whole story, let’s look at what happened. The national selectors selected a training squad of 45 players to join a training camp. When the squad was announced, there were suddenly 46 players. The news broke that the president of the SA rugby board, Oregan Hoskins, and one of his vice presidents, Mike Stofile, decided that Luke Watson had to be included in the squad. It is common knowledge that Jake White does not see a role for Watson in his team. Then the rubbish continued. First Mr Hoskins acknowledged the fact that they put Watson in the squad and that they felt the selectors had erred in not selecting him in the first place. If it ended there, it would probably have dies a death.
The statements then started getting a lot more ludicrous. Hoskins then made a statement to East Coast radio that if Watson got trimmed from the squad, White will have to find another work. A statement that he distanced himself from later, but although he did not say it in that many words, the meaning of what he said was very clear. Mike Stofile and Ebrahim Rasool, premier of the Western Cape, then went even further and really made a joke out of the situation by calling Watson as good as black and saying that he should actually be regarded as a quota a player! Stofile then went even further and accused the national selectors of not selecting the Watson due to the history his father has with rugby.
To understand his last statement, it may be good to look at the [now] famous Cheeky Watson. Before this balls-up in rugby at the moment, very few people could actually remember the antics of mainly Cheeky Watson and his brother Valance in the mid seventies. Why Cheeky takes more of the limelight is that he was a great wing who was at that stage very close to a call-up to the Springbok side. To make a long story short, he was asked to assist in coaching a
team in a black township and when he got roughed up for it, he joined the club. This put him in total contravention of the group areas act as he entered a black township after hours and also associated with them. He got beaten up and thrown into jail often, but remained true to his conviction, which lead to him being banned from SA sport. For most of the world he became a forgotten wing and only the people who were there in that area can still remember him – until now. (Photo of Cheeky Watson)
The for Watson brother has since grown old and the days when they defied the regime has now paid off for them and they are very well connected in the business world. There is however one specific friendship which I feel had a huge influence on what happened to Luke now. That is a very tight friendship between Cheeky Watson and the Stofile brothers. The one is the vice president of SA rugby [a controversial figure himself] and the other is the ex premier of the Eastern Cape Province and now minister of sport. I am sure that it is this connection that has forced Luke Watson into the Springbok group and not any form or stature the player has. The comments that it is all about unfairness towards the player, is just a smokescreen.
Taking that into consideration means that the forced selection of Luke is not on merit, neither as a quota player, but plain and simple as a political choice due to his fathers’ background and connections.
I have no doubt that Luke will wear the green and gold this year, That decision has already been taken by the higher echelons in SA sport and there is nothing that Jake White or the selectors can do about it. If Cheeky Watson was given the honour of a Springbok jacket – which he probably missed out on due to his political stance – I will fully support it. I think Cheeky moved boundaries in South Africa in the seventies and needs the recognition for it.
The question I have, however, is when Luke gets his jacket; can he wear it with the pride it deserves? How must he feel knowing that his selection was not due to the will of the selectors, but rather due to politics? The same politics that possibly kept the jacket from his father will now in some strange reversal of fortunes become his. Will he be able to sleep well on that thought, I don’t think so.
At the end of the day, it is about a player who is undoubtedly very talented and although he is sometimes a bit of a loose cannon with his mouth, he should eventually force himself into the real squad with good play on the field. Let that do the talking and not his mouth or his fathers conections.
Mike Stofile, Vice President SARU
Before I give my point of view on the whole story, let’s look at what happened. The national selectors selected a training squad of 45 players to join a training camp. When the squad was announced, there were suddenly 46 players. The news broke that the president of the SA rugby board, Oregan Hoskins, and one of his vice presidents, Mike Stofile, decided that Luke Watson had to be included in the squad. It is common knowledge that Jake White does not see a role for Watson in his team. Then the rubbish continued. First Mr Hoskins acknowledged the fact that they put Watson in the squad and that they felt the selectors had erred in not selecting him in the first place. If it ended there, it would probably have dies a death.
The statements then started getting a lot more ludicrous. Hoskins then made a statement to East Coast radio that if Watson got trimmed from the squad, White will have to find another work. A statement that he distanced himself from later, but although he did not say it in that many words, the meaning of what he said was very clear. Mike Stofile and Ebrahim Rasool, premier of the Western Cape, then went even further and really made a joke out of the situation by calling Watson as good as black and saying that he should actually be regarded as a quota a player! Stofile then went even further and accused the national selectors of not selecting the Watson due to the history his father has with rugby.
To understand his last statement, it may be good to look at the [now] famous Cheeky Watson. Before this balls-up in rugby at the moment, very few people could actually remember the antics of mainly Cheeky Watson and his brother Valance in the mid seventies. Why Cheeky takes more of the limelight is that he was a great wing who was at that stage very close to a call-up to the Springbok side. To make a long story short, he was asked to assist in coaching a
team in a black township and when he got roughed up for it, he joined the club. This put him in total contravention of the group areas act as he entered a black township after hours and also associated with them. He got beaten up and thrown into jail often, but remained true to his conviction, which lead to him being banned from SA sport. For most of the world he became a forgotten wing and only the people who were there in that area can still remember him – until now. (Photo of Cheeky Watson)The for Watson brother has since grown old and the days when they defied the regime has now paid off for them and they are very well connected in the business world. There is however one specific friendship which I feel had a huge influence on what happened to Luke now. That is a very tight friendship between Cheeky Watson and the Stofile brothers. The one is the vice president of SA rugby [a controversial figure himself] and the other is the ex premier of the Eastern Cape Province and now minister of sport. I am sure that it is this connection that has forced Luke Watson into the Springbok group and not any form or stature the player has. The comments that it is all about unfairness towards the player, is just a smokescreen.
Taking that into consideration means that the forced selection of Luke is not on merit, neither as a quota player, but plain and simple as a political choice due to his fathers’ background and connections.
I have no doubt that Luke will wear the green and gold this year, That decision has already been taken by the higher echelons in SA sport and there is nothing that Jake White or the selectors can do about it. If Cheeky Watson was given the honour of a Springbok jacket – which he probably missed out on due to his political stance – I will fully support it. I think Cheeky moved boundaries in South Africa in the seventies and needs the recognition for it.
The question I have, however, is when Luke gets his jacket; can he wear it with the pride it deserves? How must he feel knowing that his selection was not due to the will of the selectors, but rather due to politics? The same politics that possibly kept the jacket from his father will now in some strange reversal of fortunes become his. Will he be able to sleep well on that thought, I don’t think so.
At the end of the day, it is about a player who is undoubtedly very talented and although he is sometimes a bit of a loose cannon with his mouth, he should eventually force himself into the real squad with good play on the field. Let that do the talking and not his mouth or his fathers conections.
Mike Stofile, Vice President SARU
Rev Makhenzi Stofile, Minister of sport
Thursday, May 10, 2007
My Springbok Candidates
As a South African sports lover, I am very passionate about sport and the debates around it. My biggest passion is definitely for rugby and so after the completion of the Super 14 tournament, I would like to give my view on whom I see as the best players, who are the ones not to forget and also who are the disappointments.
Fullback
Percy Montgomery – Percy has his faults and he makes mistakes, but the experience he brings to the table was very clear when he returned to the Sharks team. Together with his attacking ability and a very reliable place- and touch kicking boot, he remains my number one in the last outpost.
Others to consider:-
Bevan Fortuin – this player that looks more like a prop that a fullback has played dome excellent rugby and is very solid at the back. After the tour to the UK last year, I do have some questions over his ability to play international rugby. The step may just be too high.
Francois Steyn – this youngster took the world by storm when he got selected by Jake White last year. His all round ability to kick, run and defend makes him a must for any squad. He does make very stupid mistakes in matches, but will learn as he gains more experience. Fullback, wing or flyhalf is suited to his game and I am even sure that he will make more than an adequate centre if he is given the opportunity. If he does not make a bok starting line-up, he is an absolute must for the bench.
Johan Roets – the Blue Bulls all would love to see him in the starting line-up, but he has never really impressed me that much. He is a good attacking fullback and one that is good at retrieving up and under’s, but he makes serious mistakes under pressure. Just think of the Currie-cup final where he was clueless and cost the Bulls the match against the Freestate.
Jaco vd Westhuyzen – Jaco was part of the Springbok setup, but got left out as he just did not make the grade. He is an excellent provincial player that can play anywhere in the backline and always makes an impact. Unfortunately he does not seem to bring that same sparkle to international rugby.
Conrad Jantjes – His ability to kick a ball for a mile from he back is his strongest attribute. He is a good player that can also fill in very easily on the wing and although I do not regard him as a front runner in any position, I will always be happy to allow him into the team as I know he will not disappoint me.
Disappointments:-
Gio Aplon – this electrifying fullback from the Stormers found that the pace in Super 14 is just a little faster and all the fancy moves and runs in Currie Cup do not work in real rugby. He has to look at his kicking game as it is the worst under the fullbacks in the country. You cannot play international rugby as a fullback if you cannot get the ball out of you own half.
Wings
Left Wing – Bryan Habana – after a very slow start, Bryan changes his game around and became the number one wing in the country again. He is once again displaying the talent that got him into the side and when the Bulls started playing to his strengths and creating more opportunities for his, his electrifying pace left his opponents grabbing thin air.
Right wing - Francois Steyn – I already discussed him under the fullbacks, but he will be my choice on the right wing. He can always be moved into the flyhalf or fullback later in the match. He is too good not to play.
Others to consider:-
Akona Ndugane – The Bulls wings always gives 100%, but have a couple of shortcomings that may not make him the best candidate. The first issue is his protection of the fullback,. I just cannot relay on him to assist a fullback confidently at the back. Francois Steyn can do that easily. The second is that his hands are not the nest around. He tends to knock the odd vital pass.
Odwa Ndugane – the Sharks part of the twins had a good season. He plays as well as his brother and proved it when they both played for SA-A side. Hehas however also the same type of problems his brother has. There is however no reason that the two brother can in future not form the wing pairing for the Boks after they have gained even more experience.
JP Pietersen – JP has the ability – like a Pieter Rossouw of old – to really piss the opposition off with his unorthodox way of playing. He plays a different type of match and his ability to break the line and follow up on kicks has put him very close to my starting line-up.
Jean de Villiers – Jean is a centre, and I shall discuss him there in more detail, but he is also one of the best wings around. Although he does not play on the wing anymore, I shall seriously consider playing him in the Bok line-up if he returns to the wing.
Jonghi Nokwe – The blistering pace of Jonghi makes him the fastest wing in the country ad I canot understand why not one of the franchises has given him a chance. He has grow substantially as a player and is no longer the speed-only player he was in the past. He has in fact turned into a very intelligent wing and should any of the bigger unions give him a chance, I am sure he can develop into a top international wing. The old tours would have been exactly what the doctor ordered.
Disappointments:-
Breyton Paulse – his experience cannot be just forgotten and he has the ability to run, kick and defend well, should have made him a definite choice, but the years may just be catching up to him. Since his return from France, he has not been the same player as before.
Wylie Human – he is also the full package. On his day, he is an untouchable wing that is devastating on attacked and defence. He kick very well to touch and helps his fullback whenever required. When he is off, he is dismal!
Centres
Inside - Jean de Villiers – Jean started very slowly this season and I really wondered at some stage if he should not switch back to the wing. The latter part of the Super 14 he did, however, hit the form he is famous for, but also the form which we have not seen all that often from him. It was a very difficult decision to keep him in the pound seat, but at the end I decided that he would probably be the best candidate.
Outside - Wynand Olivier – This was another big choice for me to make ahead of players like Jaque Fourie and especially Waylon Murray. I think that Wynand has been very consistent this year and although he does not always have the limelight on him, he does a lot of very good things on the rugbyfield. He can break the line and has the ability to put a wing away very well. He is also very suited on the inside and can interchange with a player like Jean very easily,
Others to consider:-
DeWet Barry – He is still the monster of the midfield and is really starting to hit the form that made him one of the most successful centres in the Bok jersey ever. He can still break the line and is starting to play a lot more towards his old natural game of attacking the advantage line and not this fully grubber game he started that cost him his place in both the Bok and the Province teams.
Bradley Barrit – His combination with Murray for the Sharks was incredible and I very nearly gave him and Murray the top spots. He is a big powerful runner that is more suited to the modern game where you actually need a centre with good flyhalf skills in the inside berth. At only 20, a sure start of the future.
Waylon Murray – The other 20 year old from the Sharks who cannot be far away from the green and gold. His hands are incredible and his pace blistering. Defensive he is also rock solid. He is so good he deserves a run in the very near future. He is also and excellent wing.
Adrian Jacobs – If there was one impact player who made and impact every time he came unto the field. He has been around for a long time – or so it feels. Remember his big partnership a couple of years ago with the late Ettienne Botha at the Falcons? He is however still only about 26 and can still give a lot to SA rugby.
Disappointments:-
Jaque Fourie – He played in a bad side and although there were some highlights in his pay, overall he was disappointing. I know that he will probably be selected.
Meyer Bosman – Bosman played centre for most of the season, but did not met expectations.
Ronnie Cooke – The youngster is full of talent and can really put momentum in the backline, but until his injury he also had a couple of fair matches with magic moments, but overall his defence was weak.
Jaco Pretorius – He got the chance on the end of tour to the UK and was disappointing. As a big star from the Currie Cup, he failed on the tour and even failed to make a regular centre spot in the Lions his own. The step up may have been just too big.
Flyhalf
Derick Hougaard – The flyhalf was a big part of the success of the Bulls. His tactical kicking is excellent and he has definitely picked up his game this season. He is standing much closer to the advantage line and can run if required. He is also a great defender of his channel. The biggest bonus is is very accurate place kicking boot and his ability to drop the ball accurately.
Others to consider:-
Peter Grant – One of the stars of the season. He has played very well for the Stormers and I had to think very hard before selecting Hougaard above him for the honours. His placekicking may not be all that good, but if you have a reliable Montgomery in your side, you can play him in the Nr10 spot anytime.
Butch James – The hard man in the number ten channel. I don’t have to say anything about his defensive ability and he is a very intelligent flyhalf that can pull off very unorthodox moves to get points on the board. He also kicks well and will not let us down.
Francois Steyn – I have already discussed the talented youngster.
Disappointments:-
Andre Pretorius – Andre was injured for the first part of the season and came back well initially, but as the season progressed he got worse. He is the complete flyhalf and the only one in SA that can kick well with both feet. He needs to jack up substantially to get back into the Bok squad.
Willen de Waal – I know there are a number of people and ex-players who belive he may be the answer, but honestly, apart from and excellent boot, there is nothing to be excited about De Waal.
Scrumhalf
Fourie du Preez – he is without any doubt the best scrumhalf in SA and probably in the world He has stopped playing a traffic officer behind the scrum and made a huge impact in the matches he played. His boot is excellent and defensive he is impressive. An excellent feel for the game and scores a number of very opportunistic tries due to this ability.
Others to consider:-
Ruan Pienaar – I really feel sorry for Ruan that he has to compete with Fourie. He is also an allround scrumhalf that breaks, passes, kicks and defends well. His ability to play flyhalf – or just about any place in the backline – makes him a huge asset for any bench.
Enrico January – He did not have the best season and did not always get a chance to play due to Jano Vermaak’s consistent form. He is however the only scrumhalf that puts real pressure on the Nr9 and Nr10 and that makes him very dangerous. He will however have to watch his temper carefully.
Disappointments:-
Bolla Conradie – This talented Nr9 seems to concentrate more on the players than his game. He has the ability to become a great and was also very good when he was originally picked for the Boks. His form is however dismal this season and he needs to take a good look at himself and decide whether he wants to play rugby, become a member of the dirty debate society or become a professional boxer. If he gets his priorities right he can once again become a force as he is very talented.
Eighthman
Pierre Spies – Since his high school days we all knew that this man is going to be a star one day. His stint at wing did not do his career any good and when he was taken up into the Bok squad initially there were a lot of raise eyebrows. Since then he has returned to his favourite position in the loose trio and he has been going from strength to strength ever since. He has good pace and always asks questions from the defence. I am really looking forward to see him combine with Schalk Burger.
Others to consider:-
Joe van Niekerk – Injuries has nearly destroyed his career. When he started playing for the Stormers this year he was really bad and it took him a long time to start looking like the old Joe. We are fully aware of his ability and should just not discard him. He has played some great matches for the Boks.
Ryan Kankowski – His father played wing for Eastern Province and was also a fair athlete where he ran hurdles as well as do the shot put! That power and speed is part of Ryan’s genes and he really stormed unto the scene for the Sharks. A little more experience and we have yet another future star.
Bob Skinstad – We all know Bob and his abilities. He is without any doubt one of the best skilled players in the world and has a great rugby brain. He layoff from real hard competitive rugby did not do him any good, but as the season started to progress Bob started becoming stronger and stronger. Maybe he needs a game or two more so sharpen him, but the selectors must not look past his experience and the ability we know he has. He also has a good knowledge of the world cup conditions and can really be a huge asset in any squad. Can play easily at flank as well.
Disappointments:-
Jacques Cronje – The big number 8 moved to the Lions and it was devastating to his career. He is not a patch of the player who became a regular Springbok Nr 8 for a while.
Robbie Diack – Before his injury Robbie played for the Stormers and was awful. After and excellent Currie Cup, the expectations were high that this guy may be future Bok Nr 8. He unfortunately did not make the grade. I shall however keep an eye on him in future.
Flanks
Openside – Schalk Burger – There is not much I can say about him that everyone does not already know. There is not a ore competitive player than this man. He does not give an inch and hands it out twice as hard. His hard driving and solid defence is one of his greatest assets. He is not the best player on the ground to win the loose ball, but he is just such a great player that he cannot be lefty out of any team.
Blindside – AJ Venter – This was a difficult selection, but I cannot see us playing international rugby without this hard man in the team. He is our version of Jerry Collins. He is a hard worker that does not always get the credit he deserves and is just as good as a lock.
Others to consider:-
Danie Rossouw – Whether it is at Nr 8, flank or lock, he always plays a good match. He is definitely also one of the very hard men of SA rugby and it is a real pity that I cannot find a place for him in the side. His power play is a joy to watch and he is surprisingly mobile for one of the biggest men in world rugby.
Juan Smith – I know that all the experts regard him as the best blindside flank in the business. I do, however, not rate him that high. He plays very loose for a blindside flanker and gets trapped with the ball often. He has however played some blinders in certain matches, but not enough to convince me he should get a place.
Wicus van Heerden – Wicus is a good player, but his tests have been substandard. Measuring him purely on his Super 14 performance he must come very close to the starting line-up, but he just does not make the grade.
Pedrie Wannenburg – Experienced Pedrie has also been around for a while and although he plays good rugby, has never really convinced me. That is why he is not a regular in most starting line-ups. He will however never let you down as a back-up player.
Jacques Botes – The stocky Sharks flank once again had a good season. He reminds me a lot of Josh Kronfeld in the way he plays his rugby and is sure that he will be very successful at test level. There are however just better players at this stage.
Luke Watson – The big debate is always there with a number of voices calling for the Stormers’ captain to be included in the green and gold. I am not one of those voices. Luke is a good player and at the right level has proved to be very good. In the matches where the real big heads clash, he seems to drift a little to the background. I am not sure that Luke is actually big enough to play at a real competitive international level. On the right surface, when the game breaks down, he is however devastating.
Justin Melck – Melck filled in on nr 8 for the Stormers when Joe was injured and played very well. He is, however, a natural flank and this is why I consider him in this position. He is also a very talented player that does great work in the loose and is very solid in defence.
Ernst Joubert – The captain of the Lions were one of the stars in the struggling Lions team. This was a season where he came to the front. He was given the captaincy when Andre Pretorius was injured very early on and lead from the front.
Cobus Grobbelaar – “Baywatch”, as he is affectionately know in the rugby community is probably the best “fetcher” in the country. He is also one of the unfortunate players who are in the wrong place at the wrong time and there are just too many other good flanks.
Disappointments:-
Kabamba Floors – His wheels came off in the Super 14. I can only laugh at the experts who have such a high regard of Floors as he hardly got more than 15 minutes or so playing time for the Freestate. There is a reason for it. He is just not good enough. When the game loosens up, he is very effective, but unfortunately that is not how international rugby is played. He is still one of the best sevens players in the country.
Locks
Bakkies Botha – It is an issue that he did not play the full season and he may not be as match fit as expected, but he remains one of the top locks in the world. His ball skills are great and his physical presence unbeaten in the tight phases.
Johan Muller – It took me a long time to decide which lock to play. Matfield and Botha is a good combination and will more than likely be the test combination, but there is no lock that works as hard as Johan Muller. He is not a lock that shines in the backline or out on the wing, but you will always find him right in the middle of the fire working his heart out. He is not the best skilled lock around either, but his work rate in the tight is so high I cannot ignore him. Also a good line-out jumper.
Others to consider:-
Victor Matfield – I have heard him often enough described as the “best lock in the world”. This is a sentiment I do not support, this the reason he does not make my top 15. Matfield is without any doubt the best line-out lock in the world and does incredible work spoiling opposition ball, He does, however, try to evade contact most of the time and that is why we often see him hanging around in the backline. Not the place I like a lot for long periods of time.
Albert vd Berg – The lanky lock is a great impact player. When the game starts breaking up, he is the man to have on the field. He can run like a loose forward and is also a very good line-out jumper. He does lack a bit in the physical nature of the game and his hand also lets him down often. He also has the knack to give away stupid penalties.
Johan Ackerman – The old man of SA rugby is still playing good rugby. He is however starting to show his age and although he is still right in the middle of the action, he just is not the threatening force he used to be anymore. Will not let any side down and his ability to hold on to the ball is still one of best there is due to his incredible upper body strength.
Andries Bekker – The son of Hennie is also starting to grow up. He is a bit disappointing as a line-out forward and needs to be coached carefully into the future. He has beefed up a little, but needs to start showing more aggression if he wants to be a Bok of the future.
Ross Skeate – If I have to select a player purely on the strength of trying, Ross will be it. There is not a player who plays a harder match in South Africa and although he is not really one of the top locks, I can promise you that he will not let a Springbok team down if he ever got selected.
Cobus Grobler – The blond mop of hair has become synonymous with the Lions. Cobus is also one of the players that cannot be penalised for a lack of trying. He works very hard and makes an impact in every match he plays.
Barend Pieterse – If there is one player who had an incredible Currie Cup and a very good start to the season, it was the lock from the Freestate. Unfortunately an injury cut his season. He is however a very good prospect for the future as he showed in the Currie Cup when he made his much higher rated opponents struggle against him.
Corniel van Zyl – The other half of the Freestate combination is one of the most underestimated locks in the country. He is young and fairly inexperienced, but plays hard and does not stand back for any confrontation.
Disappointments:-
Geo Cronje – Geo only started playing towards the end of the season and the big hype around him did not materialise. When he started off in SA rugby he sure looked like the real deal, but the unfortunate incident in the Springbok camp that cost him his place in the previous World Cup squad, possibly cost him more than his place. He does not command the same amount of respect anymore. He is still young and can bounce back in future. Lets hope that we will see the lock back at his best next season.
Props
Loosehead – Guthro Steenkamp – We all waited for the return of Steenkamp after a long lay-off with injury. Before his injury he really played well and we all hope that he would return to form. He did not disappoint us and returned with brilliant form. He is a good scummer and works very hard in the tight.
Tighthead – BJ Botha – Brendon has shown this deason that he does not really have competition in South Africa. We do not have a better anchor in a scrum in South Africa and he plays well in the tight phases. He is also a good defender.
Others to consider:-
CJ vd Linde – As a ball player he is very skilled, but although there are some people who regard him as a strong boy in the scrum, I personally have seen him take some serious strain in the scrums
Heinke vd Merwe – The youngster from the Lions had a good season. He has made big leaps forward and scrummed well. I do however believe that he ha to look at his technique and he scrums with a bent back and in bigger company he may get very seriously injured. Someone like the old Henning van Asweging – who had superb technique – should be asked to help this young man and he could then really become a force in world rugby.
Wian du Preez – The Freestater stood in very well for Os and in slowly making his mark in SA rugby. He has made an improvement to the Cheetah scrum ever time he came onto the field.
Deon Carstens – One of the more mobile props in the country, but unfortunately not good in the scrums. He is still one of the better skilled props with good hands and always asking questions of the advantage line with ball in hand.
The two Zimbabwean props were not considered although they played very well.
Disappointments:-
Os du Randt – The old ox seems to have reached the end of the line. He is not a shadow of the player he used to be and has dramatically gone downhill from last year. I don’t think he can even play 80 minutes anymore.
Jannie du Plessis – I had high hopes for this tighthead from the Cheetahs, but he just did not make the grade in the bigger company.
Eddie Andrews – The Bok is not playing well at all. He could not even retain his place in the mediocre from row of the Stormers.
Hooker
John Smit – The captain is still the best hooker in the country, regardless of all the local opposition. I have three requirements for a hooker. The first is to scrum well and the second to work hard in the tight phases. In these to departments John is head and shoulders above the rest in the country. The last requirement is to throw the ball accurately into a lineout. This aspect is a little concerning to me as he made some very poor blunders during the Super 14. Towards the end of the tournament he really started to show why he is so highly rated.
Others to consider:-
Tiaan Liebenberg – The Stormer hooker went to Cape Town into the shadow of the highly liked Schalk Brits. Comparing the two against each other has show that Liebenberg is streets ahead of his counterpart and he does all aspects of the game well. He is really exiting with ball in hand and just about always breaks the advantage line.
Bismarck du Plessis – To live in the shadow of John Smit at the Sharks is not easy. This year, he got the opportunity to play more regularly and did he not impress. His tight play is excellent and his driving can compare with the best in the world. Currently I would rate him as the number two hooker in the country.
Gary Botha – The Bulls would love to see him in green and gold, but I cannot see it happen. Gary is a good player that has good all round skills, but I have seen him croak at critical stages. Making bad mistakes by loosing lineout ball with the best lineout outfit in the world and also his hands sometimes letting him down. You are however guaranteed that he will always give you 100% if selected.
Chilyboy Ralepele – An injury stopped this youngster in his tracks this year, but the potential is high. Coming through the under 19 and under 20 ranks as captain, he is detonated for glory. The officials must be make sure that they manage him properly and not destroy this career too early.
Disappointments:-
Schalk Brits – He is the hooker who can run like a centre, but unfortunately that is where it ends. He does not do any of the hooker functions with great success.
These are my summary of the players this year. I know that there are my of the so called experts that will not agree with what I have written, but I know I am right and they are wrong! That is my opinion! What is yours?
Fullback
Percy Montgomery – Percy has his faults and he makes mistakes, but the experience he brings to the table was very clear when he returned to the Sharks team. Together with his attacking ability and a very reliable place- and touch kicking boot, he remains my number one in the last outpost.
Others to consider:-
Bevan Fortuin – this player that looks more like a prop that a fullback has played dome excellent rugby and is very solid at the back. After the tour to the UK last year, I do have some questions over his ability to play international rugby. The step may just be too high.
Francois Steyn – this youngster took the world by storm when he got selected by Jake White last year. His all round ability to kick, run and defend makes him a must for any squad. He does make very stupid mistakes in matches, but will learn as he gains more experience. Fullback, wing or flyhalf is suited to his game and I am even sure that he will make more than an adequate centre if he is given the opportunity. If he does not make a bok starting line-up, he is an absolute must for the bench.
Johan Roets – the Blue Bulls all would love to see him in the starting line-up, but he has never really impressed me that much. He is a good attacking fullback and one that is good at retrieving up and under’s, but he makes serious mistakes under pressure. Just think of the Currie-cup final where he was clueless and cost the Bulls the match against the Freestate.
Jaco vd Westhuyzen – Jaco was part of the Springbok setup, but got left out as he just did not make the grade. He is an excellent provincial player that can play anywhere in the backline and always makes an impact. Unfortunately he does not seem to bring that same sparkle to international rugby.
Conrad Jantjes – His ability to kick a ball for a mile from he back is his strongest attribute. He is a good player that can also fill in very easily on the wing and although I do not regard him as a front runner in any position, I will always be happy to allow him into the team as I know he will not disappoint me.
Disappointments:-
Gio Aplon – this electrifying fullback from the Stormers found that the pace in Super 14 is just a little faster and all the fancy moves and runs in Currie Cup do not work in real rugby. He has to look at his kicking game as it is the worst under the fullbacks in the country. You cannot play international rugby as a fullback if you cannot get the ball out of you own half.
Wings
Left Wing – Bryan Habana – after a very slow start, Bryan changes his game around and became the number one wing in the country again. He is once again displaying the talent that got him into the side and when the Bulls started playing to his strengths and creating more opportunities for his, his electrifying pace left his opponents grabbing thin air.
Right wing - Francois Steyn – I already discussed him under the fullbacks, but he will be my choice on the right wing. He can always be moved into the flyhalf or fullback later in the match. He is too good not to play.
Others to consider:-
Akona Ndugane – The Bulls wings always gives 100%, but have a couple of shortcomings that may not make him the best candidate. The first issue is his protection of the fullback,. I just cannot relay on him to assist a fullback confidently at the back. Francois Steyn can do that easily. The second is that his hands are not the nest around. He tends to knock the odd vital pass.
Odwa Ndugane – the Sharks part of the twins had a good season. He plays as well as his brother and proved it when they both played for SA-A side. Hehas however also the same type of problems his brother has. There is however no reason that the two brother can in future not form the wing pairing for the Boks after they have gained even more experience.
JP Pietersen – JP has the ability – like a Pieter Rossouw of old – to really piss the opposition off with his unorthodox way of playing. He plays a different type of match and his ability to break the line and follow up on kicks has put him very close to my starting line-up.
Jean de Villiers – Jean is a centre, and I shall discuss him there in more detail, but he is also one of the best wings around. Although he does not play on the wing anymore, I shall seriously consider playing him in the Bok line-up if he returns to the wing.
Jonghi Nokwe – The blistering pace of Jonghi makes him the fastest wing in the country ad I canot understand why not one of the franchises has given him a chance. He has grow substantially as a player and is no longer the speed-only player he was in the past. He has in fact turned into a very intelligent wing and should any of the bigger unions give him a chance, I am sure he can develop into a top international wing. The old tours would have been exactly what the doctor ordered.
Disappointments:-
Breyton Paulse – his experience cannot be just forgotten and he has the ability to run, kick and defend well, should have made him a definite choice, but the years may just be catching up to him. Since his return from France, he has not been the same player as before.
Wylie Human – he is also the full package. On his day, he is an untouchable wing that is devastating on attacked and defence. He kick very well to touch and helps his fullback whenever required. When he is off, he is dismal!
Centres
Inside - Jean de Villiers – Jean started very slowly this season and I really wondered at some stage if he should not switch back to the wing. The latter part of the Super 14 he did, however, hit the form he is famous for, but also the form which we have not seen all that often from him. It was a very difficult decision to keep him in the pound seat, but at the end I decided that he would probably be the best candidate.
Outside - Wynand Olivier – This was another big choice for me to make ahead of players like Jaque Fourie and especially Waylon Murray. I think that Wynand has been very consistent this year and although he does not always have the limelight on him, he does a lot of very good things on the rugbyfield. He can break the line and has the ability to put a wing away very well. He is also very suited on the inside and can interchange with a player like Jean very easily,
Others to consider:-
DeWet Barry – He is still the monster of the midfield and is really starting to hit the form that made him one of the most successful centres in the Bok jersey ever. He can still break the line and is starting to play a lot more towards his old natural game of attacking the advantage line and not this fully grubber game he started that cost him his place in both the Bok and the Province teams.
Bradley Barrit – His combination with Murray for the Sharks was incredible and I very nearly gave him and Murray the top spots. He is a big powerful runner that is more suited to the modern game where you actually need a centre with good flyhalf skills in the inside berth. At only 20, a sure start of the future.
Waylon Murray – The other 20 year old from the Sharks who cannot be far away from the green and gold. His hands are incredible and his pace blistering. Defensive he is also rock solid. He is so good he deserves a run in the very near future. He is also and excellent wing.
Adrian Jacobs – If there was one impact player who made and impact every time he came unto the field. He has been around for a long time – or so it feels. Remember his big partnership a couple of years ago with the late Ettienne Botha at the Falcons? He is however still only about 26 and can still give a lot to SA rugby.
Disappointments:-
Jaque Fourie – He played in a bad side and although there were some highlights in his pay, overall he was disappointing. I know that he will probably be selected.
Meyer Bosman – Bosman played centre for most of the season, but did not met expectations.
Ronnie Cooke – The youngster is full of talent and can really put momentum in the backline, but until his injury he also had a couple of fair matches with magic moments, but overall his defence was weak.
Jaco Pretorius – He got the chance on the end of tour to the UK and was disappointing. As a big star from the Currie Cup, he failed on the tour and even failed to make a regular centre spot in the Lions his own. The step up may have been just too big.
Flyhalf
Derick Hougaard – The flyhalf was a big part of the success of the Bulls. His tactical kicking is excellent and he has definitely picked up his game this season. He is standing much closer to the advantage line and can run if required. He is also a great defender of his channel. The biggest bonus is is very accurate place kicking boot and his ability to drop the ball accurately.
Others to consider:-
Peter Grant – One of the stars of the season. He has played very well for the Stormers and I had to think very hard before selecting Hougaard above him for the honours. His placekicking may not be all that good, but if you have a reliable Montgomery in your side, you can play him in the Nr10 spot anytime.
Butch James – The hard man in the number ten channel. I don’t have to say anything about his defensive ability and he is a very intelligent flyhalf that can pull off very unorthodox moves to get points on the board. He also kicks well and will not let us down.
Francois Steyn – I have already discussed the talented youngster.
Disappointments:-
Andre Pretorius – Andre was injured for the first part of the season and came back well initially, but as the season progressed he got worse. He is the complete flyhalf and the only one in SA that can kick well with both feet. He needs to jack up substantially to get back into the Bok squad.
Willen de Waal – I know there are a number of people and ex-players who belive he may be the answer, but honestly, apart from and excellent boot, there is nothing to be excited about De Waal.
Scrumhalf
Fourie du Preez – he is without any doubt the best scrumhalf in SA and probably in the world He has stopped playing a traffic officer behind the scrum and made a huge impact in the matches he played. His boot is excellent and defensive he is impressive. An excellent feel for the game and scores a number of very opportunistic tries due to this ability.
Others to consider:-
Ruan Pienaar – I really feel sorry for Ruan that he has to compete with Fourie. He is also an allround scrumhalf that breaks, passes, kicks and defends well. His ability to play flyhalf – or just about any place in the backline – makes him a huge asset for any bench.
Enrico January – He did not have the best season and did not always get a chance to play due to Jano Vermaak’s consistent form. He is however the only scrumhalf that puts real pressure on the Nr9 and Nr10 and that makes him very dangerous. He will however have to watch his temper carefully.
Disappointments:-
Bolla Conradie – This talented Nr9 seems to concentrate more on the players than his game. He has the ability to become a great and was also very good when he was originally picked for the Boks. His form is however dismal this season and he needs to take a good look at himself and decide whether he wants to play rugby, become a member of the dirty debate society or become a professional boxer. If he gets his priorities right he can once again become a force as he is very talented.
Eighthman
Pierre Spies – Since his high school days we all knew that this man is going to be a star one day. His stint at wing did not do his career any good and when he was taken up into the Bok squad initially there were a lot of raise eyebrows. Since then he has returned to his favourite position in the loose trio and he has been going from strength to strength ever since. He has good pace and always asks questions from the defence. I am really looking forward to see him combine with Schalk Burger.
Others to consider:-
Joe van Niekerk – Injuries has nearly destroyed his career. When he started playing for the Stormers this year he was really bad and it took him a long time to start looking like the old Joe. We are fully aware of his ability and should just not discard him. He has played some great matches for the Boks.
Ryan Kankowski – His father played wing for Eastern Province and was also a fair athlete where he ran hurdles as well as do the shot put! That power and speed is part of Ryan’s genes and he really stormed unto the scene for the Sharks. A little more experience and we have yet another future star.
Bob Skinstad – We all know Bob and his abilities. He is without any doubt one of the best skilled players in the world and has a great rugby brain. He layoff from real hard competitive rugby did not do him any good, but as the season started to progress Bob started becoming stronger and stronger. Maybe he needs a game or two more so sharpen him, but the selectors must not look past his experience and the ability we know he has. He also has a good knowledge of the world cup conditions and can really be a huge asset in any squad. Can play easily at flank as well.
Disappointments:-
Jacques Cronje – The big number 8 moved to the Lions and it was devastating to his career. He is not a patch of the player who became a regular Springbok Nr 8 for a while.
Robbie Diack – Before his injury Robbie played for the Stormers and was awful. After and excellent Currie Cup, the expectations were high that this guy may be future Bok Nr 8. He unfortunately did not make the grade. I shall however keep an eye on him in future.
Flanks
Openside – Schalk Burger – There is not much I can say about him that everyone does not already know. There is not a ore competitive player than this man. He does not give an inch and hands it out twice as hard. His hard driving and solid defence is one of his greatest assets. He is not the best player on the ground to win the loose ball, but he is just such a great player that he cannot be lefty out of any team.
Blindside – AJ Venter – This was a difficult selection, but I cannot see us playing international rugby without this hard man in the team. He is our version of Jerry Collins. He is a hard worker that does not always get the credit he deserves and is just as good as a lock.
Others to consider:-
Danie Rossouw – Whether it is at Nr 8, flank or lock, he always plays a good match. He is definitely also one of the very hard men of SA rugby and it is a real pity that I cannot find a place for him in the side. His power play is a joy to watch and he is surprisingly mobile for one of the biggest men in world rugby.
Juan Smith – I know that all the experts regard him as the best blindside flank in the business. I do, however, not rate him that high. He plays very loose for a blindside flanker and gets trapped with the ball often. He has however played some blinders in certain matches, but not enough to convince me he should get a place.
Wicus van Heerden – Wicus is a good player, but his tests have been substandard. Measuring him purely on his Super 14 performance he must come very close to the starting line-up, but he just does not make the grade.
Pedrie Wannenburg – Experienced Pedrie has also been around for a while and although he plays good rugby, has never really convinced me. That is why he is not a regular in most starting line-ups. He will however never let you down as a back-up player.
Jacques Botes – The stocky Sharks flank once again had a good season. He reminds me a lot of Josh Kronfeld in the way he plays his rugby and is sure that he will be very successful at test level. There are however just better players at this stage.
Luke Watson – The big debate is always there with a number of voices calling for the Stormers’ captain to be included in the green and gold. I am not one of those voices. Luke is a good player and at the right level has proved to be very good. In the matches where the real big heads clash, he seems to drift a little to the background. I am not sure that Luke is actually big enough to play at a real competitive international level. On the right surface, when the game breaks down, he is however devastating.
Justin Melck – Melck filled in on nr 8 for the Stormers when Joe was injured and played very well. He is, however, a natural flank and this is why I consider him in this position. He is also a very talented player that does great work in the loose and is very solid in defence.
Ernst Joubert – The captain of the Lions were one of the stars in the struggling Lions team. This was a season where he came to the front. He was given the captaincy when Andre Pretorius was injured very early on and lead from the front.
Cobus Grobbelaar – “Baywatch”, as he is affectionately know in the rugby community is probably the best “fetcher” in the country. He is also one of the unfortunate players who are in the wrong place at the wrong time and there are just too many other good flanks.
Disappointments:-
Kabamba Floors – His wheels came off in the Super 14. I can only laugh at the experts who have such a high regard of Floors as he hardly got more than 15 minutes or so playing time for the Freestate. There is a reason for it. He is just not good enough. When the game loosens up, he is very effective, but unfortunately that is not how international rugby is played. He is still one of the best sevens players in the country.
Locks
Bakkies Botha – It is an issue that he did not play the full season and he may not be as match fit as expected, but he remains one of the top locks in the world. His ball skills are great and his physical presence unbeaten in the tight phases.
Johan Muller – It took me a long time to decide which lock to play. Matfield and Botha is a good combination and will more than likely be the test combination, but there is no lock that works as hard as Johan Muller. He is not a lock that shines in the backline or out on the wing, but you will always find him right in the middle of the fire working his heart out. He is not the best skilled lock around either, but his work rate in the tight is so high I cannot ignore him. Also a good line-out jumper.
Others to consider:-
Victor Matfield – I have heard him often enough described as the “best lock in the world”. This is a sentiment I do not support, this the reason he does not make my top 15. Matfield is without any doubt the best line-out lock in the world and does incredible work spoiling opposition ball, He does, however, try to evade contact most of the time and that is why we often see him hanging around in the backline. Not the place I like a lot for long periods of time.
Albert vd Berg – The lanky lock is a great impact player. When the game starts breaking up, he is the man to have on the field. He can run like a loose forward and is also a very good line-out jumper. He does lack a bit in the physical nature of the game and his hand also lets him down often. He also has the knack to give away stupid penalties.
Johan Ackerman – The old man of SA rugby is still playing good rugby. He is however starting to show his age and although he is still right in the middle of the action, he just is not the threatening force he used to be anymore. Will not let any side down and his ability to hold on to the ball is still one of best there is due to his incredible upper body strength.
Andries Bekker – The son of Hennie is also starting to grow up. He is a bit disappointing as a line-out forward and needs to be coached carefully into the future. He has beefed up a little, but needs to start showing more aggression if he wants to be a Bok of the future.
Ross Skeate – If I have to select a player purely on the strength of trying, Ross will be it. There is not a player who plays a harder match in South Africa and although he is not really one of the top locks, I can promise you that he will not let a Springbok team down if he ever got selected.
Cobus Grobler – The blond mop of hair has become synonymous with the Lions. Cobus is also one of the players that cannot be penalised for a lack of trying. He works very hard and makes an impact in every match he plays.
Barend Pieterse – If there is one player who had an incredible Currie Cup and a very good start to the season, it was the lock from the Freestate. Unfortunately an injury cut his season. He is however a very good prospect for the future as he showed in the Currie Cup when he made his much higher rated opponents struggle against him.
Corniel van Zyl – The other half of the Freestate combination is one of the most underestimated locks in the country. He is young and fairly inexperienced, but plays hard and does not stand back for any confrontation.
Disappointments:-
Geo Cronje – Geo only started playing towards the end of the season and the big hype around him did not materialise. When he started off in SA rugby he sure looked like the real deal, but the unfortunate incident in the Springbok camp that cost him his place in the previous World Cup squad, possibly cost him more than his place. He does not command the same amount of respect anymore. He is still young and can bounce back in future. Lets hope that we will see the lock back at his best next season.
Props
Loosehead – Guthro Steenkamp – We all waited for the return of Steenkamp after a long lay-off with injury. Before his injury he really played well and we all hope that he would return to form. He did not disappoint us and returned with brilliant form. He is a good scummer and works very hard in the tight.
Tighthead – BJ Botha – Brendon has shown this deason that he does not really have competition in South Africa. We do not have a better anchor in a scrum in South Africa and he plays well in the tight phases. He is also a good defender.
Others to consider:-
CJ vd Linde – As a ball player he is very skilled, but although there are some people who regard him as a strong boy in the scrum, I personally have seen him take some serious strain in the scrums
Heinke vd Merwe – The youngster from the Lions had a good season. He has made big leaps forward and scrummed well. I do however believe that he ha to look at his technique and he scrums with a bent back and in bigger company he may get very seriously injured. Someone like the old Henning van Asweging – who had superb technique – should be asked to help this young man and he could then really become a force in world rugby.
Wian du Preez – The Freestater stood in very well for Os and in slowly making his mark in SA rugby. He has made an improvement to the Cheetah scrum ever time he came onto the field.
Deon Carstens – One of the more mobile props in the country, but unfortunately not good in the scrums. He is still one of the better skilled props with good hands and always asking questions of the advantage line with ball in hand.
The two Zimbabwean props were not considered although they played very well.
Disappointments:-
Os du Randt – The old ox seems to have reached the end of the line. He is not a shadow of the player he used to be and has dramatically gone downhill from last year. I don’t think he can even play 80 minutes anymore.
Jannie du Plessis – I had high hopes for this tighthead from the Cheetahs, but he just did not make the grade in the bigger company.
Eddie Andrews – The Bok is not playing well at all. He could not even retain his place in the mediocre from row of the Stormers.
Hooker
John Smit – The captain is still the best hooker in the country, regardless of all the local opposition. I have three requirements for a hooker. The first is to scrum well and the second to work hard in the tight phases. In these to departments John is head and shoulders above the rest in the country. The last requirement is to throw the ball accurately into a lineout. This aspect is a little concerning to me as he made some very poor blunders during the Super 14. Towards the end of the tournament he really started to show why he is so highly rated.
Others to consider:-
Tiaan Liebenberg – The Stormer hooker went to Cape Town into the shadow of the highly liked Schalk Brits. Comparing the two against each other has show that Liebenberg is streets ahead of his counterpart and he does all aspects of the game well. He is really exiting with ball in hand and just about always breaks the advantage line.
Bismarck du Plessis – To live in the shadow of John Smit at the Sharks is not easy. This year, he got the opportunity to play more regularly and did he not impress. His tight play is excellent and his driving can compare with the best in the world. Currently I would rate him as the number two hooker in the country.
Gary Botha – The Bulls would love to see him in green and gold, but I cannot see it happen. Gary is a good player that has good all round skills, but I have seen him croak at critical stages. Making bad mistakes by loosing lineout ball with the best lineout outfit in the world and also his hands sometimes letting him down. You are however guaranteed that he will always give you 100% if selected.
Chilyboy Ralepele – An injury stopped this youngster in his tracks this year, but the potential is high. Coming through the under 19 and under 20 ranks as captain, he is detonated for glory. The officials must be make sure that they manage him properly and not destroy this career too early.
Disappointments:-
Schalk Brits – He is the hooker who can run like a centre, but unfortunately that is where it ends. He does not do any of the hooker functions with great success.
These are my summary of the players this year. I know that there are my of the so called experts that will not agree with what I have written, but I know I am right and they are wrong! That is my opinion! What is yours?
Monday, April 30, 2007
The Winner takes it all
I hear the same thing so often in life and that is that winning is not important. As someone who coaches a mini cricket side, I often hear the parents tell the kids after the match that “we were all winners” or that the result is not important. What a load of crap! We are a society driven by winners.
There is only one person in the world that says we are all winners. The other variation on the theme is that he only plays for the fun or that he is only a social sportsman, etc. Yes, you guessed it – he/she/they are all losers! We have changed into a society that accepts average people as a rule. We are no longer striving to success.
It is all very nice and wonderful as we now suddenly don’t have to apply any pressure to our school children as it is ok to be part of the group. We do not acknowledge the fact that one is better that the other. That one is a winner and one is a loser. Suddenly you will get emotionally scarred if you don’t win! I have been around the block and I promise you that I do not see thousands of people with major complexities in their life just because they were losers at school. If fact, there are some of them that has really excelled when they got a chance in a different area. The only reason they did – is because they were always losers! If they did not have the pressure of being losers, they would have never tried so hard to be successful and eventually turn the tables on the previous winners.
We remember stars, e.g Bruce Fordyce won the Comrades Marathon nine times [any idea who came second in the nine races?] The All Blacks won the rugby world cup in 1987 [who was the runner up?] and Pakistan won the 1992 Cricket world cup [who did they play in the final?]. Exactly my point! We only remember the winners and then you want to tell me that we should be happy to be average.
How many times have I heard people say about our national sports teams that they played very well although they lost? I hear that we should be proud of their performance on the field as they were inspirational in the way that they played. They were an example to all students of the game, etc. Fact: THEY LOST. THEY ARE LOSERS!!!! Why do I have to accept it?
When I was young, it was all about competition. It was a race to the line in everything we did. From having the highest marks in a test to playing for the school’s team to scoring the most points in sports event. We would see who could run the fastest, jump the furthest, fart the loudest, pee the longest, tread water the longest, and so on. It was absolutely all about competition and we did everything in our power win, to be the best. If you were not on top, you tried hard to outsmart your opponent or at least him in something else so that the score could be one all. That taught us to fight for the top and strive to be on top as there was an acknowledgement and acceptance of winners. It was every kids dream to make it to the top.
Now we changed it around. We still let the kids play, but praise them if they don’t win and tell them it is great to end in the middle or loose, as long as you enjoyed it. We also look down on the winners as it is not cool to beat other kids as they may be from underprivileged backgrounds or do not have a stable home environment like you. If they win, it proves that they would have been great if they had the same opportunities as you! To be mediocre is fine, to win bad. That is the message we are now trying to give our kids, our leaders of the future.
This is not something that changed suddenly; I have been seeing it happening over a few years. In the line of business I am, I used to have a number of new employees every year that were fresh out of school. I was in this position for about four years and I could see the standards of them drop every year. It is really slow poison that started many years ago and is now finally reaching its climax. We now have a bunch of losers that enter the market and then we wonder why they do not perform in the real world.
The reality is that when they enter the real word it is all about competition. The top salesman gets the good commission; the hard working employee gets the rewards, etc. We have now taken a generation to teach our kids at school that it is OK to be half useless and praise them for participation – just to nail them when they enter the real world, because they are not performing up to the required standards!
Maybe it is about time we relook all these things we do to be “nice” and get real.
There is only one person in the world that says we are all winners. The other variation on the theme is that he only plays for the fun or that he is only a social sportsman, etc. Yes, you guessed it – he/she/they are all losers! We have changed into a society that accepts average people as a rule. We are no longer striving to success.
It is all very nice and wonderful as we now suddenly don’t have to apply any pressure to our school children as it is ok to be part of the group. We do not acknowledge the fact that one is better that the other. That one is a winner and one is a loser. Suddenly you will get emotionally scarred if you don’t win! I have been around the block and I promise you that I do not see thousands of people with major complexities in their life just because they were losers at school. If fact, there are some of them that has really excelled when they got a chance in a different area. The only reason they did – is because they were always losers! If they did not have the pressure of being losers, they would have never tried so hard to be successful and eventually turn the tables on the previous winners.
We remember stars, e.g Bruce Fordyce won the Comrades Marathon nine times [any idea who came second in the nine races?] The All Blacks won the rugby world cup in 1987 [who was the runner up?] and Pakistan won the 1992 Cricket world cup [who did they play in the final?]. Exactly my point! We only remember the winners and then you want to tell me that we should be happy to be average.
How many times have I heard people say about our national sports teams that they played very well although they lost? I hear that we should be proud of their performance on the field as they were inspirational in the way that they played. They were an example to all students of the game, etc. Fact: THEY LOST. THEY ARE LOSERS!!!! Why do I have to accept it?
When I was young, it was all about competition. It was a race to the line in everything we did. From having the highest marks in a test to playing for the school’s team to scoring the most points in sports event. We would see who could run the fastest, jump the furthest, fart the loudest, pee the longest, tread water the longest, and so on. It was absolutely all about competition and we did everything in our power win, to be the best. If you were not on top, you tried hard to outsmart your opponent or at least him in something else so that the score could be one all. That taught us to fight for the top and strive to be on top as there was an acknowledgement and acceptance of winners. It was every kids dream to make it to the top.
Now we changed it around. We still let the kids play, but praise them if they don’t win and tell them it is great to end in the middle or loose, as long as you enjoyed it. We also look down on the winners as it is not cool to beat other kids as they may be from underprivileged backgrounds or do not have a stable home environment like you. If they win, it proves that they would have been great if they had the same opportunities as you! To be mediocre is fine, to win bad. That is the message we are now trying to give our kids, our leaders of the future.
This is not something that changed suddenly; I have been seeing it happening over a few years. In the line of business I am, I used to have a number of new employees every year that were fresh out of school. I was in this position for about four years and I could see the standards of them drop every year. It is really slow poison that started many years ago and is now finally reaching its climax. We now have a bunch of losers that enter the market and then we wonder why they do not perform in the real world.
The reality is that when they enter the real word it is all about competition. The top salesman gets the good commission; the hard working employee gets the rewards, etc. We have now taken a generation to teach our kids at school that it is OK to be half useless and praise them for participation – just to nail them when they enter the real world, because they are not performing up to the required standards!
Maybe it is about time we relook all these things we do to be “nice” and get real.
Thursday, March 08, 2007
Does size matter?
I am sure I got your attention with this title. It is one of those probing questions your read about in many magazines and it is normally the men who keep on asking it. Have you ever sat back and wondered why this is such a hotly debated issue? Why is this so important in life? Is it a matter of pride? Is it really a case that men stand around measuring against a wall? Do men really know what the size of other men are? Is it not just a fact that they don’t really know? All they – except if you are gay – really see is a little peek when men are standing around at the urinals. Is that the whole story you are seeing or is it only an introduction into something much more that is hidden somewhere else? This is of course only a man thing. Women do not stand around in the showers and compare the size of their parts or laugh at the shape or size of their breasts. To them this is not important. The only things they may admire are hairstyles!
There is also a saying that it is not the size that counts, but rather the motion of the ocean. Maybe that is the important thing to remember rather than the actual size of the member! The reality of it is that if any man thinks that size is so important in life, they do not understand the chemistry of a woman at all. If they think that is what is important to a woman, they may need to go play in porno movies as it is the only place it really makes a difference with the right camera angle. It is all about the difference between making love and plain sex. If a man wants to satisfy a woman, he needs to understand the difference between the two. You have sex with a prostitute or a one night stand and yes, maybe the size makes the difference as enjoyment is difficult when you try stirring a dustbin with a teaspoon. But then again, in that case you probably paid for it so who cares a crap about size. Money talks!
Getting together with the partner in life should not be sex, but rather the art of lovemaking and in that process size makes no difference. When it really comes down to the time when the actual member has to be used, a pencil size should be enough to satisfy your partner. If it is not, maybe you need to think carefully about your love life!
That is not actually what I want to write about, but rather the fixation that men, yes mostly men, have with size. It is something that is inherently part of the makeup of a man. I have seen men argue about big and small things all my life. It is a case of your car that needs to have a better performing engine than your buddy’s car. Even your petrol tank needs to be bigger. Your cell phone must be smaller, your house bigger, your palm tree higher, your TV bigger, your CD/DVD writer faster, your laptop smaller, your gut smaller, your feet bigger, your watch more expensive, your dad better, your wife prettier [ or is it smaller?], your brother taller, your sister shorter, your mother a better cook, etc, etc.
Is it that men are just so more competitive in nature? I suppose it started in the Stone Age already. There where you had to be strong enough to kill for survival. Only the strong men found men found wives –or rather club wives! In the old days men were the protectors of their territory and woman and if your horse was not run faster or your club was not harder you were not going to survive. In those days very little clothing was worn and there were not closed bathrooms where you bathed or relieved yourself. It was in a communal area where all – men and women were open for all to see. I am sure none sat around and giggled at the others’ size or the size or shape of the women’s breasts. That was not important. Women were breeding machines who had to produce offspring and the only thing that was important was for the male to ensure that his bloodline is continued into the future. The same applies to nature. I can promise you that no animal really cares about size as it is not important at all. It is only the offspring that is produced.
As man became more developed – not bigger, but modernised(!) - the old survival instincts were still there. The need to be better was still there and men started looking at other avenues to beat their opponents. As modernization increased, so did the way people clothed and where they started doing things that we do in private now. That started hiding things away that used to be no issue in the past and as nature will have it, the more they wondered the more they wanted to compare. This did not stop there and through the ages carried on into the world we have today, where everything still gets compared between men – as indicated in the examples above.
That is my theory where and how this size fixation started. Just as a final word on this; medically there is a huge difference between relaxed states, but once the snake is provoked, that big relaxed member becomes the same average as the small relaxed member. There are exceptions to rule both ways, but they are way in the minority. Boys will, however, always be boys!
There is also a saying that it is not the size that counts, but rather the motion of the ocean. Maybe that is the important thing to remember rather than the actual size of the member! The reality of it is that if any man thinks that size is so important in life, they do not understand the chemistry of a woman at all. If they think that is what is important to a woman, they may need to go play in porno movies as it is the only place it really makes a difference with the right camera angle. It is all about the difference between making love and plain sex. If a man wants to satisfy a woman, he needs to understand the difference between the two. You have sex with a prostitute or a one night stand and yes, maybe the size makes the difference as enjoyment is difficult when you try stirring a dustbin with a teaspoon. But then again, in that case you probably paid for it so who cares a crap about size. Money talks!
Getting together with the partner in life should not be sex, but rather the art of lovemaking and in that process size makes no difference. When it really comes down to the time when the actual member has to be used, a pencil size should be enough to satisfy your partner. If it is not, maybe you need to think carefully about your love life!
That is not actually what I want to write about, but rather the fixation that men, yes mostly men, have with size. It is something that is inherently part of the makeup of a man. I have seen men argue about big and small things all my life. It is a case of your car that needs to have a better performing engine than your buddy’s car. Even your petrol tank needs to be bigger. Your cell phone must be smaller, your house bigger, your palm tree higher, your TV bigger, your CD/DVD writer faster, your laptop smaller, your gut smaller, your feet bigger, your watch more expensive, your dad better, your wife prettier [ or is it smaller?], your brother taller, your sister shorter, your mother a better cook, etc, etc.
Is it that men are just so more competitive in nature? I suppose it started in the Stone Age already. There where you had to be strong enough to kill for survival. Only the strong men found men found wives –or rather club wives! In the old days men were the protectors of their territory and woman and if your horse was not run faster or your club was not harder you were not going to survive. In those days very little clothing was worn and there were not closed bathrooms where you bathed or relieved yourself. It was in a communal area where all – men and women were open for all to see. I am sure none sat around and giggled at the others’ size or the size or shape of the women’s breasts. That was not important. Women were breeding machines who had to produce offspring and the only thing that was important was for the male to ensure that his bloodline is continued into the future. The same applies to nature. I can promise you that no animal really cares about size as it is not important at all. It is only the offspring that is produced.
As man became more developed – not bigger, but modernised(!) - the old survival instincts were still there. The need to be better was still there and men started looking at other avenues to beat their opponents. As modernization increased, so did the way people clothed and where they started doing things that we do in private now. That started hiding things away that used to be no issue in the past and as nature will have it, the more they wondered the more they wanted to compare. This did not stop there and through the ages carried on into the world we have today, where everything still gets compared between men – as indicated in the examples above.
That is my theory where and how this size fixation started. Just as a final word on this; medically there is a huge difference between relaxed states, but once the snake is provoked, that big relaxed member becomes the same average as the small relaxed member. There are exceptions to rule both ways, but they are way in the minority. Boys will, however, always be boys!
Monday, February 26, 2007
Selfmoord; Gesinsmoord = Depressie – soek die dokter!
Ek lees elke dag in die koerant van moord en doodslag. Een van die dinge wat egter opval is hoeveel selfmoorde daar is. Bykans elke dag is dit of ‘n kind wat selfmoord pleeg oor die een of ander probleem, of ‘n man of vrou wat in depressie verval het en selfmoord pleeg. Verder is daar ook gereeld ‘n artikel oor ‘n gesinsmoord. Dit is hier waar die groot probleem kom – depressie.
Ons lees baie maklik van mense wat aan depressie ly. Die storie is gewoonlik iets as volg: Sannie het van St 8 af tekens van depressie getoon en was onder behandeling. In matriek, twee weke voor die eindeksamen, toe hang Sannie haarself. Haar ouers is so geskok. Sannie se ma vertel aan die pers dat dit die afgelope tyd so goed gegaan het dat sy nie meer haar medikasie nodig gehad het nie. Hulle kan nie verstaan wat gebeur het nie…
Die ander variasie op die tema is waar Jannie ‘n taai werk in die koorporatiewe omgewing het. Hy sukkel die afgelope paar jaar met depressie en is geneig om gereeld te veel te drink. Hy is kortaf met die famillie en dit het sy vrou hom dokter toe laat vat. Sy het die situasie aan die dokter verduidelik en die dokter het depressie gediagnoseer. Hy het aan hom ‘n anti-depressant voorgeskryf en dit gaan baie beter met Jannie. Ses maande later kom Jannie eendag by die huis en “crack” heeltemal. Hy haal die haelgeweer uit die kas en skiet sy vrou en kinders dood. Daarna vlug hy na ‘n ou afgelee plaas en blaas homself ook. Sy suster vertel later dat alhoewel hy depressie gehad het, het dit soveel beter met hom gegaan dat hy met die medikasie opgehou het. Hy was “genees”.
Daar is natuurlik baie ander stories, maar almal eindig min of meer dieselfde. Almal is net variasies op die tema. Wat het dan nou verkeerd gegaan? Hoekom gebeur dit so gereeld en meer as in die verlede? Kyk na die twee scenarios wat ek geskep het. Daar is drie dinge wat hierdie twee – en baie ander gevalle – in gemeen het. Depressie, medikasie en stop van medikasie.
Depressie is ‘n baie ernstige toestand. Dit is ‘n siekte toestand en nie bloot iets in iemand se kop nie. Dit maak nie van jou ‘n slegte persoon as jy depressie het nie. Elke mense, groot en klein, jonk en oud, lei op ‘n stadium aan depressie. Dit is net baie erger by sekere mense as by ander. Ek weet daar is allerhande verduidelikings, maar dit is nie hier ter sprake nie. Die feit is dat mense aan depressie lui en dit ernstige gevolge kan inhou – soos hier bo verduidelik.
Nou kom ek keer terug na die eintlike probleem. Dit is waar daar ernstig gekyk woet word na hoe dokters in die situasies optree. Hieroor voel ek baie sterk. Veronderstel ek begin die tekens toon van depressie. Ek sal aankarring op ‘n manier totdat my vrou nou mooi gatvol raak om elke dag uitgevreet te word en die kinders moeg word vir my knorrigheid. Ek word dan half verplig om na ‘n dokter toe te gaan, wat ek dan ook doen. Die huisdoktor kyk my so en doen die gewone en besluit dat ek wel depressie het. Hy skryf daar en dan ‘n anti-depressant voor. Ek word huistoe gestuur met die opdrag om een of twee of wat ook al van die piiletjies per dag te drink. Ek skop nie meer die hond nie, byt nie meer die kinders nie en skel nie meer die vrou nie. Almal is gelukkig en almal dink die dokter is wonderlik om die probleem op te los. Die realiteit is dat dit die grootste fout is wat gemaak kan word.
Depressie is nie ‘n siekte soos verkoue wat jy met ‘n pilletjie kan behandel nie. Vir verkoue kan jy ‘n antibiotika ingejaag word en sewe dae later is die verkoue behandel en weg. Depressie werk nie so nie. Depressie is ‘n geestestoestand wat deur die een of ander sneller (trigger, aktiveerder) veroorsaak word. Medikasie onderdruk net die simptome! Deur medikasie vir die problem te gooi, veroorsaak dus slegs ‘n onderdrukking en nie ‘n genesing nie. Wat dus verder is die storie gebeur is dat dit vir ‘n tyd baie goed gaan met my en die famillie. Dit gaan so goed dat, of ek besluit om op te hou met die medikasie; of die dokter herhaal nie die voorskrif nie. Dit vat nie lank nie en ek strip myself heeltemal en iemand betaal dalk tot die hoogste prys. Daardie dokter behoort van moord aangekla te word!
Jy kan nie depressie behandel sonder om die persoon vir berading/behandeling deur ‘n sielkundige ook te laat gaan nie. Dit is die behandeling van depressie en nie die medikasie nie. Die medikasie is slegs om simptome te onderdruk. Die trigger wat die depressie veroorsaak het, moet gevind en behandel word. Dit is waar die sielkundige inkom. Dit kan in ligte gevalle seker deur iemand anders ook gedoen word, maar kom ek hou by die sielkundige. Die dokter moes dus in dieselfde tyd toe die medikasie voorgeskryf is, ook behandeling voorgeskryf het. Dit is die oplossing.
Depressie gaan deur vier of vyf fases. Ek gaan nie uitbrei daaroor nie, maar dit is belangrik om te onthou dat jy deur die prosesse moet gaan om deur die depressie [of hoe word dit genoem: oor die ding] te kom. Die medikasie stuit die proses deur simptome te onderdruk, maar as die trigger nie gevind word en behandel word nie, gaan jy net aan met die proses die oomblik toe jy ophou met die medikasie. Dit is waarom vrouens hulle mans skiet, kinders selfmoord pleeg, gesinsmoorde plaasvind, ens. Die depressie is nooit korrrek behandel nie.
Wat is die oplossing? Ek dink daar is twee dinge. Ten eerste wil ek elke dokter van nalatigheid of moord aankla wanneer daar anti-depressante voorgeskryf word. Jy kan dit nie doen nie. Ten tweede moet daar ‘n wet ingestel word dat slegs ‘n sielkundige anti-depressante mag voorskryf of die goedkeuring gee dat dit gedoen kan word. Hy moet saam verantwoordelikheid aanvaar! Dink en lees dus mooi as jy die volgende keer van so tragedie in die koerant lees en onthou wat ek jou vandag hier vertel het.
Ons lees baie maklik van mense wat aan depressie ly. Die storie is gewoonlik iets as volg: Sannie het van St 8 af tekens van depressie getoon en was onder behandeling. In matriek, twee weke voor die eindeksamen, toe hang Sannie haarself. Haar ouers is so geskok. Sannie se ma vertel aan die pers dat dit die afgelope tyd so goed gegaan het dat sy nie meer haar medikasie nodig gehad het nie. Hulle kan nie verstaan wat gebeur het nie…
Die ander variasie op die tema is waar Jannie ‘n taai werk in die koorporatiewe omgewing het. Hy sukkel die afgelope paar jaar met depressie en is geneig om gereeld te veel te drink. Hy is kortaf met die famillie en dit het sy vrou hom dokter toe laat vat. Sy het die situasie aan die dokter verduidelik en die dokter het depressie gediagnoseer. Hy het aan hom ‘n anti-depressant voorgeskryf en dit gaan baie beter met Jannie. Ses maande later kom Jannie eendag by die huis en “crack” heeltemal. Hy haal die haelgeweer uit die kas en skiet sy vrou en kinders dood. Daarna vlug hy na ‘n ou afgelee plaas en blaas homself ook. Sy suster vertel later dat alhoewel hy depressie gehad het, het dit soveel beter met hom gegaan dat hy met die medikasie opgehou het. Hy was “genees”.
Daar is natuurlik baie ander stories, maar almal eindig min of meer dieselfde. Almal is net variasies op die tema. Wat het dan nou verkeerd gegaan? Hoekom gebeur dit so gereeld en meer as in die verlede? Kyk na die twee scenarios wat ek geskep het. Daar is drie dinge wat hierdie twee – en baie ander gevalle – in gemeen het. Depressie, medikasie en stop van medikasie.
Depressie is ‘n baie ernstige toestand. Dit is ‘n siekte toestand en nie bloot iets in iemand se kop nie. Dit maak nie van jou ‘n slegte persoon as jy depressie het nie. Elke mense, groot en klein, jonk en oud, lei op ‘n stadium aan depressie. Dit is net baie erger by sekere mense as by ander. Ek weet daar is allerhande verduidelikings, maar dit is nie hier ter sprake nie. Die feit is dat mense aan depressie lui en dit ernstige gevolge kan inhou – soos hier bo verduidelik.
Nou kom ek keer terug na die eintlike probleem. Dit is waar daar ernstig gekyk woet word na hoe dokters in die situasies optree. Hieroor voel ek baie sterk. Veronderstel ek begin die tekens toon van depressie. Ek sal aankarring op ‘n manier totdat my vrou nou mooi gatvol raak om elke dag uitgevreet te word en die kinders moeg word vir my knorrigheid. Ek word dan half verplig om na ‘n dokter toe te gaan, wat ek dan ook doen. Die huisdoktor kyk my so en doen die gewone en besluit dat ek wel depressie het. Hy skryf daar en dan ‘n anti-depressant voor. Ek word huistoe gestuur met die opdrag om een of twee of wat ook al van die piiletjies per dag te drink. Ek skop nie meer die hond nie, byt nie meer die kinders nie en skel nie meer die vrou nie. Almal is gelukkig en almal dink die dokter is wonderlik om die probleem op te los. Die realiteit is dat dit die grootste fout is wat gemaak kan word.
Depressie is nie ‘n siekte soos verkoue wat jy met ‘n pilletjie kan behandel nie. Vir verkoue kan jy ‘n antibiotika ingejaag word en sewe dae later is die verkoue behandel en weg. Depressie werk nie so nie. Depressie is ‘n geestestoestand wat deur die een of ander sneller (trigger, aktiveerder) veroorsaak word. Medikasie onderdruk net die simptome! Deur medikasie vir die problem te gooi, veroorsaak dus slegs ‘n onderdrukking en nie ‘n genesing nie. Wat dus verder is die storie gebeur is dat dit vir ‘n tyd baie goed gaan met my en die famillie. Dit gaan so goed dat, of ek besluit om op te hou met die medikasie; of die dokter herhaal nie die voorskrif nie. Dit vat nie lank nie en ek strip myself heeltemal en iemand betaal dalk tot die hoogste prys. Daardie dokter behoort van moord aangekla te word!
Jy kan nie depressie behandel sonder om die persoon vir berading/behandeling deur ‘n sielkundige ook te laat gaan nie. Dit is die behandeling van depressie en nie die medikasie nie. Die medikasie is slegs om simptome te onderdruk. Die trigger wat die depressie veroorsaak het, moet gevind en behandel word. Dit is waar die sielkundige inkom. Dit kan in ligte gevalle seker deur iemand anders ook gedoen word, maar kom ek hou by die sielkundige. Die dokter moes dus in dieselfde tyd toe die medikasie voorgeskryf is, ook behandeling voorgeskryf het. Dit is die oplossing.
Depressie gaan deur vier of vyf fases. Ek gaan nie uitbrei daaroor nie, maar dit is belangrik om te onthou dat jy deur die prosesse moet gaan om deur die depressie [of hoe word dit genoem: oor die ding] te kom. Die medikasie stuit die proses deur simptome te onderdruk, maar as die trigger nie gevind word en behandel word nie, gaan jy net aan met die proses die oomblik toe jy ophou met die medikasie. Dit is waarom vrouens hulle mans skiet, kinders selfmoord pleeg, gesinsmoorde plaasvind, ens. Die depressie is nooit korrrek behandel nie.
Wat is die oplossing? Ek dink daar is twee dinge. Ten eerste wil ek elke dokter van nalatigheid of moord aankla wanneer daar anti-depressante voorgeskryf word. Jy kan dit nie doen nie. Ten tweede moet daar ‘n wet ingestel word dat slegs ‘n sielkundige anti-depressante mag voorskryf of die goedkeuring gee dat dit gedoen kan word. Hy moet saam verantwoordelikheid aanvaar! Dink en lees dus mooi as jy die volgende keer van so tragedie in die koerant lees en onthou wat ek jou vandag hier vertel het.
Monday, February 19, 2007
Is there another dimension?
This is by no means a scientific article and I am not a scientist. This is something I have been wondering about and is throwing around a little theory around the subject.
There are many unexplained phenomenon in the world. Let me give some examples: The builders of the Egyptian pyramids, Stonehenge, the incredible Maya people and their mysterious disappearance, the lost city of Atlantis, spirits and ghosts, UFOs, where is heaven, what does Riaan Cruywagen look like without his hair piece [just kidding], black holes, teleportation, time travel, doppelgangers, de ja vu, mind readers, levitation, etc, etc. This list can be endless.
Most of these phenomenons cannot be explained, yet there are quite a few of them that have been reported by people. There are people who swear that some of these things have happened to them. Yours truly has also encountered some of them. Scientists cannot explain any of the above with any level of accuracy. I have a theory!
As humans that crawl on this planet’s face, we are two dimensional creatures. We can only see in two dimensions and therefore see everything in a flat surface. We cannot judge depth or height at all. I can hear people growling at me, but it is true. We have taught ourselves the ability to judge length or depth or height by comparing articles with each other. As an illustration I shall give you some examples. We cannot judge how long or high a telephone pole is. Try and then measure it! If you look at a corner of a white wall, you can see it is a corner by interpreting the angle of the floor and the ceiling and then “seeing” it as a corner. Take two pieces of paper and block out the ceiling and floor and if there are no shadows to help you with your interpretation, you will only see a flat white surface, although there is a corner. We measure and judge depth by comparing objects with each other. We see how long something is by comparing it with its surroundings. We judge the length of road by watching the telephone poles and trees or cars on the road. Our brain does a calculation on what it should be by comparing what we know. If you look at a level stretch of road in the desert, you will not be able to judge the length at all. Try experiment by blocking out the surroundings and then measure. You will find startling results. All on this only proves that we can only see two dimensions.
We can however see three dimensional by wearing special glasses in certain movies or look at those funny colour pictures where you have to pull yourself cross-eyed and look like an idiot to see the hidden picture. It is a stunning view. You can see “around” items. That is what the world would have looked like if we could see three dimensional. This has made me think.
Scientists have long been of the opinion that other dimensions exists in the world around us. I think they are totally correct, but due to the fact that we can only see two, we cannot see anything in the other dimensions. There are ghosts and spirits walking this earth. Yes, I believe it. They are just not visible – normally – to the human eye. Is it not a situation where they may exist in a third or fourth or fifth dimension and that we just cannot see them? Are the ones that are seen not just a mistake where they accidentally crossed over to the wrong dimension? The same applies for things like UFOs. We can with relevant certainty say that there are no live in our solar system – or is there? Could it not be that these other life forms live in another dimension, sharing this earth perhaps. Is it not possible that they are advanced enough to cross between dimensions? A sort of flip-flop action?
The Bible refers to heaven as a place above. We have great technology like the Hubble telescope and believe me we have looked at everything around the earth for millions of light years and there is no heaven there. Theologians cannot explain where heaven is. Belinda Carlisle had a hit with a song in the eighties that was called “Heaven is a place on earth”. Was this not closer to the truth than we think? Is heaven not just another state or another dimension on this earth? Does your spirit not just pas from one dimension to another one? Is that not a possibility?
Lets think of the Maya people. They disappeared many years ago. The whole nation just “evaporated” from earth. We know that they were extremely advanced. Did they not find the availability or gate to move between the different dimensions? Remember the movie “Stargate”? What about the pyramid builders? There are many theories on how they were built, but the one is as daft as the other. In some of them they ancient Egyptian would have had to move a dessert full of sand and clear it away to build a pyramid. Crazy notion! What about the fact that they are lined up exactly to Orion’s Girdle (the three kings) in the stars? That proved that they would have been able to do very good astronomical calculations to achieve it. Something we – the modern race on earth – could only really do in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries with any real accuracy. Could these builders not have come from another dimension?
I can carry on with more and more examples of the unexplained, but you get the idea. I am not saying that it is true as I have no means of proving it, but all I am asking you is to think out of the box and try picture the multiple dimensions – all sharing the same planet and some of the unexplained may just be possible.
There are many unexplained phenomenon in the world. Let me give some examples: The builders of the Egyptian pyramids, Stonehenge, the incredible Maya people and their mysterious disappearance, the lost city of Atlantis, spirits and ghosts, UFOs, where is heaven, what does Riaan Cruywagen look like without his hair piece [just kidding], black holes, teleportation, time travel, doppelgangers, de ja vu, mind readers, levitation, etc, etc. This list can be endless.
Most of these phenomenons cannot be explained, yet there are quite a few of them that have been reported by people. There are people who swear that some of these things have happened to them. Yours truly has also encountered some of them. Scientists cannot explain any of the above with any level of accuracy. I have a theory!
As humans that crawl on this planet’s face, we are two dimensional creatures. We can only see in two dimensions and therefore see everything in a flat surface. We cannot judge depth or height at all. I can hear people growling at me, but it is true. We have taught ourselves the ability to judge length or depth or height by comparing articles with each other. As an illustration I shall give you some examples. We cannot judge how long or high a telephone pole is. Try and then measure it! If you look at a corner of a white wall, you can see it is a corner by interpreting the angle of the floor and the ceiling and then “seeing” it as a corner. Take two pieces of paper and block out the ceiling and floor and if there are no shadows to help you with your interpretation, you will only see a flat white surface, although there is a corner. We measure and judge depth by comparing objects with each other. We see how long something is by comparing it with its surroundings. We judge the length of road by watching the telephone poles and trees or cars on the road. Our brain does a calculation on what it should be by comparing what we know. If you look at a level stretch of road in the desert, you will not be able to judge the length at all. Try experiment by blocking out the surroundings and then measure. You will find startling results. All on this only proves that we can only see two dimensions.
We can however see three dimensional by wearing special glasses in certain movies or look at those funny colour pictures where you have to pull yourself cross-eyed and look like an idiot to see the hidden picture. It is a stunning view. You can see “around” items. That is what the world would have looked like if we could see three dimensional. This has made me think.
Scientists have long been of the opinion that other dimensions exists in the world around us. I think they are totally correct, but due to the fact that we can only see two, we cannot see anything in the other dimensions. There are ghosts and spirits walking this earth. Yes, I believe it. They are just not visible – normally – to the human eye. Is it not a situation where they may exist in a third or fourth or fifth dimension and that we just cannot see them? Are the ones that are seen not just a mistake where they accidentally crossed over to the wrong dimension? The same applies for things like UFOs. We can with relevant certainty say that there are no live in our solar system – or is there? Could it not be that these other life forms live in another dimension, sharing this earth perhaps. Is it not possible that they are advanced enough to cross between dimensions? A sort of flip-flop action?
The Bible refers to heaven as a place above. We have great technology like the Hubble telescope and believe me we have looked at everything around the earth for millions of light years and there is no heaven there. Theologians cannot explain where heaven is. Belinda Carlisle had a hit with a song in the eighties that was called “Heaven is a place on earth”. Was this not closer to the truth than we think? Is heaven not just another state or another dimension on this earth? Does your spirit not just pas from one dimension to another one? Is that not a possibility?
Lets think of the Maya people. They disappeared many years ago. The whole nation just “evaporated” from earth. We know that they were extremely advanced. Did they not find the availability or gate to move between the different dimensions? Remember the movie “Stargate”? What about the pyramid builders? There are many theories on how they were built, but the one is as daft as the other. In some of them they ancient Egyptian would have had to move a dessert full of sand and clear it away to build a pyramid. Crazy notion! What about the fact that they are lined up exactly to Orion’s Girdle (the three kings) in the stars? That proved that they would have been able to do very good astronomical calculations to achieve it. Something we – the modern race on earth – could only really do in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries with any real accuracy. Could these builders not have come from another dimension?
I can carry on with more and more examples of the unexplained, but you get the idea. I am not saying that it is true as I have no means of proving it, but all I am asking you is to think out of the box and try picture the multiple dimensions – all sharing the same planet and some of the unexplained may just be possible.
Monday, February 12, 2007
Aids campaigns
Call me anti-patriotic [as I have been called] or ignorant or stupid or whatever you want, but if there is one thing that is really a pain in my backside. It is the constant aids campaigns. I am not talking about any aids awareness campaigns, but rather to the ones that keep on telling me that I should do something to stop the spread of aids.
Hello!? Am I missing something here? I don’t have aids. Yes, I know that for a fact. I don’t have to have myself tested, yet I have done so a couple of times I the past for insurance or for some or another campaign to “show” my commitment to the fight against aids.
What the hell do these campaigns want me to do? Walk around in the street and dish out condoms? I hear them saying that we are all responsible to stop the spread of aids. Please, I ask again, what do you expect me to do. I am not going to march to the Union Buildings to sow that I am for the fight against aids. Apart from getting sun stroke by moving in a slow bunch of people who keep on cramping my personal space – what the hell did I achieve by doing it? I think I am already doing enough by not spreading aids myself.
In all honesty – I am getting a bit fed-up with all the focus on the dreadful syndrome. Yes, it is not a disease, it is a syndrome. That means you cannot die of aids. Aids cannot kill you. You die of the fact that the syndrome has killed your ability to fight disease. You die of something else – not aids. All you aids activists are welcome to challenge me. If you do, you no bloody nothing.
I am also loosing patience with the fact that more and more people are contracting aids. I can understand if you live out there somewhere where there is no radio, no television, no phone or no newspaper coverage, that you have not heard of aids. If you however live within any place that has coverage of any of those and you contract aid, then I really have no sympathy with you. You were plain irresponsible and did not listen to all the warnings. Why should that be my problem?
Yes, I am also concerned that aids is spreading so fast. Not for any reason that I am scared of contracting HIV, but rather for the possibility that I, or one of my family may be in a serous accident and require a blood transfusion and get infected. I do have sympathy – a lot of it – for people who accidentally contact HIV through some medical treatment or for poor kids who are born with HIV through a mother or father who were infected. They had no control over the contracting of HIV and no expense should be spared to try and find a cure and to treat these people. They had no choice in the matter and we should do what we can for them. That is why I am all for the support of charities who spend there money for these cases. I shall support them wherever I can. I believe that the Lotto – yes the dreaded Lotto – millions should also spend at least 50% of their income for this purpose. For the rest, I could not really care a damn.
I know I may sound heartless and is against all that is preached. That is however my opinion and I promise you that I am not alone.
Why should money be spent to help people who do not want to be helped? I am not going to march or where a damn ribbon for these people!
Hello!? Am I missing something here? I don’t have aids. Yes, I know that for a fact. I don’t have to have myself tested, yet I have done so a couple of times I the past for insurance or for some or another campaign to “show” my commitment to the fight against aids.
What the hell do these campaigns want me to do? Walk around in the street and dish out condoms? I hear them saying that we are all responsible to stop the spread of aids. Please, I ask again, what do you expect me to do. I am not going to march to the Union Buildings to sow that I am for the fight against aids. Apart from getting sun stroke by moving in a slow bunch of people who keep on cramping my personal space – what the hell did I achieve by doing it? I think I am already doing enough by not spreading aids myself.
In all honesty – I am getting a bit fed-up with all the focus on the dreadful syndrome. Yes, it is not a disease, it is a syndrome. That means you cannot die of aids. Aids cannot kill you. You die of the fact that the syndrome has killed your ability to fight disease. You die of something else – not aids. All you aids activists are welcome to challenge me. If you do, you no bloody nothing.
I am also loosing patience with the fact that more and more people are contracting aids. I can understand if you live out there somewhere where there is no radio, no television, no phone or no newspaper coverage, that you have not heard of aids. If you however live within any place that has coverage of any of those and you contract aid, then I really have no sympathy with you. You were plain irresponsible and did not listen to all the warnings. Why should that be my problem?
Yes, I am also concerned that aids is spreading so fast. Not for any reason that I am scared of contracting HIV, but rather for the possibility that I, or one of my family may be in a serous accident and require a blood transfusion and get infected. I do have sympathy – a lot of it – for people who accidentally contact HIV through some medical treatment or for poor kids who are born with HIV through a mother or father who were infected. They had no control over the contracting of HIV and no expense should be spared to try and find a cure and to treat these people. They had no choice in the matter and we should do what we can for them. That is why I am all for the support of charities who spend there money for these cases. I shall support them wherever I can. I believe that the Lotto – yes the dreaded Lotto – millions should also spend at least 50% of their income for this purpose. For the rest, I could not really care a damn.
I know I may sound heartless and is against all that is preached. That is however my opinion and I promise you that I am not alone.
Why should money be spent to help people who do not want to be helped? I am not going to march or where a damn ribbon for these people!
Wednesday, February 07, 2007
Die Afrikaner vernietig homself
Delarey Delarey sal jy die boerevolk lei Delarey………
So lui die woorde van Bok van Blerk se liedjie wat op die radio en televisie golwe lui. Almal is ewe skielik reg om die leier – wat teen die Britte en sy eie mense baklei het – te vra om vorentoe te kom en die boerevolk te lei. Ek wonder egter hoeveel mense weet enige iets van die oorlede general af. Dit is egter nie waaroor wil skryf nie, maar eerder hierdie simptoon wat in die Afrikaner volk ontstaan het.
Steve Hofmeyr loop voor in optogte om die Afrikaner se voortbetaan te verseker. Hy veg vir die taal en word ooral gehuldig vir sy dapper optrede. Is hy die nuwe generaal? Ek moet erken dat ek ‘n groot Steve aanhanger is. Ek hou van sy sang, sy musiek en sy digkuns, maar oo wee, net nie as groot Afrikaner kampvegter nie. Hoe kan hy veg vir die voortbestaan van ‘n taal en ‘n sogenaamde volk as hy die laaste in sy bloedlyn is wat die taal praat. As hy so ernstig was oor die saak, hoekom is sy huistaal Engels en sy kinders vir alle praktiese doeleindes Engelsprekend? Hoe kan ek hom ernstig opvat? Hoeveel van sy front is net ter wille van die verkope van sy plate? Vra maar net.
Daar was ‘n ou grappie wat gevra het wat gebeur as jy twee Amerikaners bymekaar kry. Die antwoord: hulle stig ‘n sosiale klub. As jy twee Engelse bymekaar kry: hulle stig ‘n erntige vereeniging of tradisionele klub en twee Afrikaners: hulle stig af! Dit is die Afrikaner probleem. Hulle vernietig hulle self. Hulle het geen hulp van enige iemand anders nodig nie.
Die Afrikaner is nog ‘n jong volk in wêreldterme. Afrikaans as taal is nog nie eers 100 jaar oud nie. Nee, die Voortrekkers was nie Afrikaners nie. Hulle was Hollanders. Manne wat almal uit Nederland gekom het. Hulle het ook Hollands gepraat en nie Afrikaans nie. Ja, Afrikaans het hoofsaaklik uit die taal ontwikkel, maar dit maak hulle nie Afrikaners nie. My voorsate is van Duitse afkoms wat in die Kaap verNederlands het. Alhoewel my oer-oupa-grootjie Hollands gepraat het, is sy voorsate dus steeds Duits. Ek is geen afstammeling of het geen verbintenis met die manne in die groot trek nie. Hoe moet ek my dus met hulle vereenselwig?
Verder het die Afrikaner die vermoë om ook homself heeltyd belaglik te maak. Ons wil graag hê dat die wêreld en die res van die meerderheidsgroepe in Suid Afrika ons ernstig moet opneem en dan bring ons plate uit soos Stamp en Kielie my Mielie en Kaalgat treffers wat absolute snert is. Die beste van alles ons wys verder ons mentaliteit deur die gemors te koop en gemors soos die Leeuloop om elke hoek en draai te sing. Dit laat my dink aan ‘n kleuerskool mentatliteit wat vra om met grootmense te gesels. Verder wapper ons die vlae van die Ou Transvaalse republiek [Vierkleur] en die ou Suid Afrika by internasionale byeenkomste. Hoe ernstig dink jy moet ons mede Suid Afrikaners ons opvat as daar met die simbole gewys word dat ons nie eintlik deel van die land wil wees nie. Hoekom moet enige iemand anders in die land ons ernstig opneem?
Ek voel ook soos Koos Kombuis wat sy bedanking as Afrikaner ingedien het. Ek wil dit ook doen. Ek wil eerder as ‘n Afrikaanssprekende Suid Afrikaner bekend staan as ‘n Afrikaner of ‘n lid van oorlede Robert van Tonder en Eugene Terreblanche se Boerevolk. Ek wil nie met die bovermelde vereenselwig word nie.
Dit is so jammer dat Afrikaanse musiek so ver van die herlewing af geskuif het. In die laat sewentigs en tagtigs het Johannes Kerkorrel [Ralph Rabie], Koos Kombuis [André le Roux du Toit], Bernoldus Niemand [James Phillips], Gys de Villiers, Marcel van Heerden, ens, ens Afrikaans ‘n relevante taal gemaak. Hulle het tussen hulle drankbottels en daggawalms relevante musiejk gemaak. Musiek wat die establishment begin aanvat het en Afrikaans vir die eesrte keer ‘n taal gemaak wat deur musiek ‘n boodskap gedra het. Hulle het iets voortgebring wat tot die regering laat steier het. Hoe harder die manne in hulle swart en grys pakke probeer het om die herlewing te stop, hoe groter het die ondersteuning en die boodskap geword. Vergelyk Persreën van Kerkorrol met Ek en my Meisie en jy sal self die verskil agterkom. Dankie tog dat daar wel nog van die manne leef wat Afrikaanse taal as medium gebruik om nie meer politieke boodkappe uit te dra nie, maar balades en liefdesliedere. Dankie tog dat uitlanders soos Stef Bos en Hermann van der Veen dit ook probeer doen om ons taal relevant te hou. Met hulle wat nog leef het ek hoop.
Ek sluit af deur net weer te noem dat as ons dink ons gaan ooit ‘n ernstige rol in die land speel terwyl ons gemors soos die Leeuloop navolg, maak die Afrikaner een helse groot fout. Kom ek en jy stig af.
So lui die woorde van Bok van Blerk se liedjie wat op die radio en televisie golwe lui. Almal is ewe skielik reg om die leier – wat teen die Britte en sy eie mense baklei het – te vra om vorentoe te kom en die boerevolk te lei. Ek wonder egter hoeveel mense weet enige iets van die oorlede general af. Dit is egter nie waaroor wil skryf nie, maar eerder hierdie simptoon wat in die Afrikaner volk ontstaan het.
Steve Hofmeyr loop voor in optogte om die Afrikaner se voortbetaan te verseker. Hy veg vir die taal en word ooral gehuldig vir sy dapper optrede. Is hy die nuwe generaal? Ek moet erken dat ek ‘n groot Steve aanhanger is. Ek hou van sy sang, sy musiek en sy digkuns, maar oo wee, net nie as groot Afrikaner kampvegter nie. Hoe kan hy veg vir die voortbestaan van ‘n taal en ‘n sogenaamde volk as hy die laaste in sy bloedlyn is wat die taal praat. As hy so ernstig was oor die saak, hoekom is sy huistaal Engels en sy kinders vir alle praktiese doeleindes Engelsprekend? Hoe kan ek hom ernstig opvat? Hoeveel van sy front is net ter wille van die verkope van sy plate? Vra maar net.
Daar was ‘n ou grappie wat gevra het wat gebeur as jy twee Amerikaners bymekaar kry. Die antwoord: hulle stig ‘n sosiale klub. As jy twee Engelse bymekaar kry: hulle stig ‘n erntige vereeniging of tradisionele klub en twee Afrikaners: hulle stig af! Dit is die Afrikaner probleem. Hulle vernietig hulle self. Hulle het geen hulp van enige iemand anders nodig nie.
Die Afrikaner is nog ‘n jong volk in wêreldterme. Afrikaans as taal is nog nie eers 100 jaar oud nie. Nee, die Voortrekkers was nie Afrikaners nie. Hulle was Hollanders. Manne wat almal uit Nederland gekom het. Hulle het ook Hollands gepraat en nie Afrikaans nie. Ja, Afrikaans het hoofsaaklik uit die taal ontwikkel, maar dit maak hulle nie Afrikaners nie. My voorsate is van Duitse afkoms wat in die Kaap verNederlands het. Alhoewel my oer-oupa-grootjie Hollands gepraat het, is sy voorsate dus steeds Duits. Ek is geen afstammeling of het geen verbintenis met die manne in die groot trek nie. Hoe moet ek my dus met hulle vereenselwig?
Verder het die Afrikaner die vermoë om ook homself heeltyd belaglik te maak. Ons wil graag hê dat die wêreld en die res van die meerderheidsgroepe in Suid Afrika ons ernstig moet opneem en dan bring ons plate uit soos Stamp en Kielie my Mielie en Kaalgat treffers wat absolute snert is. Die beste van alles ons wys verder ons mentaliteit deur die gemors te koop en gemors soos die Leeuloop om elke hoek en draai te sing. Dit laat my dink aan ‘n kleuerskool mentatliteit wat vra om met grootmense te gesels. Verder wapper ons die vlae van die Ou Transvaalse republiek [Vierkleur] en die ou Suid Afrika by internasionale byeenkomste. Hoe ernstig dink jy moet ons mede Suid Afrikaners ons opvat as daar met die simbole gewys word dat ons nie eintlik deel van die land wil wees nie. Hoekom moet enige iemand anders in die land ons ernstig opneem?
Ek voel ook soos Koos Kombuis wat sy bedanking as Afrikaner ingedien het. Ek wil dit ook doen. Ek wil eerder as ‘n Afrikaanssprekende Suid Afrikaner bekend staan as ‘n Afrikaner of ‘n lid van oorlede Robert van Tonder en Eugene Terreblanche se Boerevolk. Ek wil nie met die bovermelde vereenselwig word nie.
Dit is so jammer dat Afrikaanse musiek so ver van die herlewing af geskuif het. In die laat sewentigs en tagtigs het Johannes Kerkorrel [Ralph Rabie], Koos Kombuis [André le Roux du Toit], Bernoldus Niemand [James Phillips], Gys de Villiers, Marcel van Heerden, ens, ens Afrikaans ‘n relevante taal gemaak. Hulle het tussen hulle drankbottels en daggawalms relevante musiejk gemaak. Musiek wat die establishment begin aanvat het en Afrikaans vir die eesrte keer ‘n taal gemaak wat deur musiek ‘n boodskap gedra het. Hulle het iets voortgebring wat tot die regering laat steier het. Hoe harder die manne in hulle swart en grys pakke probeer het om die herlewing te stop, hoe groter het die ondersteuning en die boodskap geword. Vergelyk Persreën van Kerkorrol met Ek en my Meisie en jy sal self die verskil agterkom. Dankie tog dat daar wel nog van die manne leef wat Afrikaanse taal as medium gebruik om nie meer politieke boodkappe uit te dra nie, maar balades en liefdesliedere. Dankie tog dat uitlanders soos Stef Bos en Hermann van der Veen dit ook probeer doen om ons taal relevant te hou. Met hulle wat nog leef het ek hoop.
Ek sluit af deur net weer te noem dat as ons dink ons gaan ooit ‘n ernstige rol in die land speel terwyl ons gemors soos die Leeuloop navolg, maak die Afrikaner een helse groot fout. Kom ek en jy stig af.
Tuesday, January 30, 2007
What happened to tennis?
When I was a young boy, tennis was one of the hottest sports in the world. When Wimbledon took place, the world came to a halt. I don’t think there was any sport in the world that grabbed everyone’s attention as a match between tennis greats.
I remember the fading of Billy-Jean King and the rise of Chrissie Evert. I remember when the young Romanian teenager named Martina Navratilova grabbed the world by storm by taking on Chrissie and beating the icon. Then again by openly admitting that she is a lesbian and joined the great Billy-Jean as one of the very few sportsmen or –women that openly admitted the big taboo. She did, however, let her racked do the talking and during the eighties specifically she produced some of the greatest performances the world has ever seen.
Jimmy Conners took the world by storm when the old Rod Laver’s and Ken Rosewell’s started moving aside for the young, very different player. Arthur Ashe was the first black player to make any sense out of the top rankings and just as it looked like the world rebel Conners was going to control world tennis, the Swedish star, Bjorn Borg, hit the scene. I wonder if there is anyone who could ever accomplish what this man did it his short career until his shock retirement. Never had the world ever seen such a controlled performance by a player. Every loved him. He was the new machine. Add with that the amazingly fit Guilermo Vilas, the blond Vitas Guiralitis and the ice king Ivan Lendl and the world saw same of the most amazing tennis they could have asked for. The competition was touch and no clear winners of tournaments existed, except for Borg who controlled Wimbledon until…….
Yes, that until came when the world realized that Conners was actually a nice guy as the new brat on the block was the new sensation, John McEnroe. The Brat swore at player and umpires. The world hated him, but he played excellent tennis. He drew crowds everywhere he went and people wanted to se him in action. The game was no longer about the hitting of a ball across the net, but rather about the characters that played it. They put this sport right up on top on the popularity list.
One by one these players started retiring and the new generation of Edberg, Williander, Sampras, Agassi, etc. did not have the profile or presence on the court as these players had. Not even the new generation lead by Federer is grabbing the attention. They may be good players, but co character. Steffie Graff and Monica Seles continued the rivalry in woman’s tennis, but after the stabbing of Seles, people seemed to slowly loose interest in tennis. The men were boring and the woman – although they started looking much better, their rivalry was not as intense and no longer followed to the same extend a tennis was followed during the seventies and eighties.
Today, many very big tennis supporters watch the game on telly if they hit it by accident. In the past I could recite the top ten or even the top twenty in the men and women’s tennis with no problem. Today I am not even sure who the top male and female players are. With the disappearing of the true characters in the world, so did the supporters.
I remember the fading of Billy-Jean King and the rise of Chrissie Evert. I remember when the young Romanian teenager named Martina Navratilova grabbed the world by storm by taking on Chrissie and beating the icon. Then again by openly admitting that she is a lesbian and joined the great Billy-Jean as one of the very few sportsmen or –women that openly admitted the big taboo. She did, however, let her racked do the talking and during the eighties specifically she produced some of the greatest performances the world has ever seen.
Jimmy Conners took the world by storm when the old Rod Laver’s and Ken Rosewell’s started moving aside for the young, very different player. Arthur Ashe was the first black player to make any sense out of the top rankings and just as it looked like the world rebel Conners was going to control world tennis, the Swedish star, Bjorn Borg, hit the scene. I wonder if there is anyone who could ever accomplish what this man did it his short career until his shock retirement. Never had the world ever seen such a controlled performance by a player. Every loved him. He was the new machine. Add with that the amazingly fit Guilermo Vilas, the blond Vitas Guiralitis and the ice king Ivan Lendl and the world saw same of the most amazing tennis they could have asked for. The competition was touch and no clear winners of tournaments existed, except for Borg who controlled Wimbledon until…….
Yes, that until came when the world realized that Conners was actually a nice guy as the new brat on the block was the new sensation, John McEnroe. The Brat swore at player and umpires. The world hated him, but he played excellent tennis. He drew crowds everywhere he went and people wanted to se him in action. The game was no longer about the hitting of a ball across the net, but rather about the characters that played it. They put this sport right up on top on the popularity list.
One by one these players started retiring and the new generation of Edberg, Williander, Sampras, Agassi, etc. did not have the profile or presence on the court as these players had. Not even the new generation lead by Federer is grabbing the attention. They may be good players, but co character. Steffie Graff and Monica Seles continued the rivalry in woman’s tennis, but after the stabbing of Seles, people seemed to slowly loose interest in tennis. The men were boring and the woman – although they started looking much better, their rivalry was not as intense and no longer followed to the same extend a tennis was followed during the seventies and eighties.
Today, many very big tennis supporters watch the game on telly if they hit it by accident. In the past I could recite the top ten or even the top twenty in the men and women’s tennis with no problem. Today I am not even sure who the top male and female players are. With the disappearing of the true characters in the world, so did the supporters.
Tuesday, January 23, 2007
Steroids and the super sportsmen
On the TV program Carte Blanche we saw how young school kids were buying horse steroids to enhance their performance. It just brought the reality of what is happening in the sporting industry back into the news. The fact that kids as young as twelve are already taking creatine to improve their muscle compound is frightening. I know that creatine is a legal substance, but I am sure it will eventually be banned as well. We have not seen the long term effects of it yet. I am however sure that those young kids will somewhere in the future be tempted to use either performance enhancing stimulants or steroids. The competitive nature of sport has become so huge that people are trying their best to invent new substances in order to try and achieve the ultimate success. Just do your self a favour and go and read that international banned substances list. It is huge and still growing.
In the eighties, I am not going to look up the date – please do not slaughter me if I get a date a little wrong or little errors like that as I write freely without having any reference material close at hand. I express an opinion of what comes to mind during the time I type this blog.
In the eighties, Ben Johnson thrashed the 100m world record at the Olympic games when he was the first athlete ever to break the 9.9s time with a winning time of 9.86s. This was an amazing performance. The great Carl Lewis was second in 9.93s – also bettering the old record. After the games the most famous drug shock hit the world. Ben Johnson tested positive for the use of steroids and was banned by the International Olympic committee out of sport. Carl Lewis was awarded the gold medal and the squeaky clean Americans were all happy. Ben Johnson was now no longer the man who ran the 100 meters the fasted ever. Carl Lewis was now the fastest man alive. That is what was sold to the world, but that leaves me with a question. Is it true that Carl is now the fastest man in the world? Surely Ben was still the fastest man ever – even though he had something that improved his performance.
After that we had the whole drug enforcement in sports sharpened up and people have since been expelled and banned all over all types of sports. There has even been a banning in bowls!
If you look at the number of top athletes that still get caught on an annual basis, it poses an interesting question to me. There is obvious that there are people who do not mind taking these substances although medical evidence has shown all types of side effects. Is it not a question of choice? Just like people smoke as a choice although it is obviously unhealthy? Should these people who want to use enhancing substances not be allowed to compete as well? We all know that bodybuilders have been using it legally in their sport for many years. Should other sports not go the same route?
That brings me to the generation of super sportsman. If you go for a land speed record in a car, you are allowed to mix your fuel in any way you want to get the ultimate power out of the engine. No one disputes the fact hat it is now the fastest car an no one complains because the person did not use standard fuel or that it was not a standard vehicle. Should the same rule not have applied to Ben Johnson? He was the fastest man. He did record the fasted time for the 100 meters that day. We cannot dispute it.
I know that there are many people who complain about the unfairness of using these drugs, so maybe what we should do is have a double competition. One for all the clean athletes and one for all the “druggies”. Why can we not create a match or event where the people who make the choice to use steroids and performance enhancing drug. It is surely their choice and I can promise you that many people will watch. It will be a league of extraordinary athletes who will kick out wonderful performances. A lot of them compete in today’s world in any case without bee caught yet. I for one, would definitely watch them.
To me it is all the case of choices. Personally I would have never thought of using any performance enhancing drugs. Maybe I was too good without any assistance (ha-ha), but it never appealed to me. There are however people who want to use it and I respect their will. Let them compete in their own super league and I promise you that we will have a drug free sport section. That should satisfy everyone.
In the eighties, I am not going to look up the date – please do not slaughter me if I get a date a little wrong or little errors like that as I write freely without having any reference material close at hand. I express an opinion of what comes to mind during the time I type this blog.
In the eighties, Ben Johnson thrashed the 100m world record at the Olympic games when he was the first athlete ever to break the 9.9s time with a winning time of 9.86s. This was an amazing performance. The great Carl Lewis was second in 9.93s – also bettering the old record. After the games the most famous drug shock hit the world. Ben Johnson tested positive for the use of steroids and was banned by the International Olympic committee out of sport. Carl Lewis was awarded the gold medal and the squeaky clean Americans were all happy. Ben Johnson was now no longer the man who ran the 100 meters the fasted ever. Carl Lewis was now the fastest man alive. That is what was sold to the world, but that leaves me with a question. Is it true that Carl is now the fastest man in the world? Surely Ben was still the fastest man ever – even though he had something that improved his performance.
After that we had the whole drug enforcement in sports sharpened up and people have since been expelled and banned all over all types of sports. There has even been a banning in bowls!
If you look at the number of top athletes that still get caught on an annual basis, it poses an interesting question to me. There is obvious that there are people who do not mind taking these substances although medical evidence has shown all types of side effects. Is it not a question of choice? Just like people smoke as a choice although it is obviously unhealthy? Should these people who want to use enhancing substances not be allowed to compete as well? We all know that bodybuilders have been using it legally in their sport for many years. Should other sports not go the same route?
That brings me to the generation of super sportsman. If you go for a land speed record in a car, you are allowed to mix your fuel in any way you want to get the ultimate power out of the engine. No one disputes the fact hat it is now the fastest car an no one complains because the person did not use standard fuel or that it was not a standard vehicle. Should the same rule not have applied to Ben Johnson? He was the fastest man. He did record the fasted time for the 100 meters that day. We cannot dispute it.
I know that there are many people who complain about the unfairness of using these drugs, so maybe what we should do is have a double competition. One for all the clean athletes and one for all the “druggies”. Why can we not create a match or event where the people who make the choice to use steroids and performance enhancing drug. It is surely their choice and I can promise you that many people will watch. It will be a league of extraordinary athletes who will kick out wonderful performances. A lot of them compete in today’s world in any case without bee caught yet. I for one, would definitely watch them.
To me it is all the case of choices. Personally I would have never thought of using any performance enhancing drugs. Maybe I was too good without any assistance (ha-ha), but it never appealed to me. There are however people who want to use it and I respect their will. Let them compete in their own super league and I promise you that we will have a drug free sport section. That should satisfy everyone.
Friday, January 19, 2007
Die euwel van konsultante
In hierdie tyd wat ons leef het dit hoogmode geword om die verdomde goed in elke maatskappy in te bring. Hulle moet die mense kom vertel hoe om hulle besigheid te bedryf sonder ‘n idée waaroor die besigheid eintlik gaan. Hulle kom dan in met allerhande prosesse en vra die base ‘n moerse klomp geld daarvoor. Dink net aan die menslike hulpbron konsultante wat jou kom vertel hoe om jou mense te evalueer en te bestuur. Hulle is baie life daarvoor. Die vangplek is natuurlik dat daardie konsultant nog nooit een mens bestuur het nie en jy doen dit al twintig jaar. Wie kan nou vir wie hier oor mense betuur leer? Wat hulle gewoonlik doen is om prosesse in plek te stel deur gewoonlik net die bestaande prosesse in ‘n nuwe formaat oor te skryf. Of nog beter, hulle laat die mense wat daar werk dit self doen en hulle verdien op die ou einde miljoene deur net toesig te hou dat dit gebeur. Ongelukkig trap elke maatskappy in die slaggat en leer ook ie uit die proses nie. In my beroep het ek al baie met die spul te doen gehad in vele velde en ek kan seker op een hand tel die regtige positiewe dinge wat uitgekom het. Hoeveel van julle het al daardie ondervinding gehad dat julle ure spandeer om dokumente op te stel en nuwe prosesse te formuleer om net binne ses maande na die oues terug te keer, want dit werk nie? Die ding wat ek nog minder verstaan is waar die base die geld uitkrap om dit te doen en hoe hulle daardie uiteindelike voordeel of besparings van miljoene wys. Konsultante weet duidelik hoe om die boeke te laat klop.
Ek twyfel nie dat die konsultante baie goeie teoretiese kennis het nie. Dit laat my net dink aan die ou ding van die verkoopsman wat by die huis aankom en met die man en vrou gesels en hulle dan oortuig om die blink nuwe wonderlike stofsuier te koop. Hy doen die demonstrasie daar op die mat en suig alles van die hondehare tot verlede jaar se kotskol op. Die man en vrou is in ekstase en koop die wonderlike alles-in-een masjien. Daar is net een geheim. Nie een van die twee donders het nog ooit die huis gestofsuig nie! Hulle het geen idée van wat die behoefte is en wat verlang word om die huis ordentlik skoon te maak nie. Daar is net een persoon wat dit weet en dit is die bediende. Sy sukkel dag na dag met die stofsuier en weet presies wat sy nodig het om dit te doen. Om die kol op die mat in die middle van die vloer op te suig is nie ‘n kuns nie. Dit gaan oor hoe die masjien homself tussen die meubels en agter die kaste gaan gedra. Het die man of vrou ooit daaraan gedink om die bediende te vra of dit kan werk?
Dit is dieselfde konsep wat hier geld. Hoekom spandeer die baas nie eerder die miljoene aan sy eie personeel as ‘n wortel vir die mense wat met goeie innoverende idees vorendag kan kom nie. Hulle ken tog die prosesse en slaggate en met die regte motivering sal hulle darem seker ‘n idée of twee vorendag kan bring. Nee, dit werk nie so nie. Die konsultante word miljoene betaal en die werkers word ook aangemoedig om innoverend te wees en word dan vergoed vir goeie idees met …….R500? .....’n ete bewys by die Wimpy? Ek is seker julle weet waarvan ek praat.
Die vraag is natuurlik “hoekom werk die slim mense dan nie?”. Ek het ‘n konsep van hoe dit werk en gaan dit as volg verduidelik. Enige proses het twee helftes. Gestel daar is ‘n sirkel om die proses volmaak te maak.
Om dit te probeer verduidelik wil ek die voorbeeld van ‘n moordsaak gebruik. Piet skiet ‘n man. Hy kom voor die regter en na die verhoor gaan sit die regter om ‘n vonnis te formulleer. Hy kyk na al die getuienis wat voorgelê is en toets die geldigheid daarvan. Dit is duidelik. Piet het die rolwer uit sy kas gehaal en die ander persoon geskiet. Daar is absoluut geen twyfel daaraan nie. Die regter gaan kyk dan wat sê die wet. Na dit alles is dit duidelik dat Piet die man geskiet het en dat die straf die maksimum is. Dit is nou in die geval die doodstraf [ons maak maar asof dit betaan]. Die vraag is nou, gaan Piet hang? Dit voltooi die eerste helfte van die sirkel.
Om die sirkel te voltooi moet die regter nou na die volgende begin luister. Daar was seker omstandighede wat Piet gedryf het om die persoon te skiet. Die man was besig om Piet se kar te steel en toe hy hom konfronteer ruk die man ‘n pistool uit en trek die sneller. Die pistool het die eerste keer, gelukkig vir Piet, geweier. Piet se rewolwer het nie. Piet het geskiet om sy eie lewe te beskerm. Hy kon dit nie waag om die man nog ‘n kans te gee om die sneller te trek nie. Die regter luister dan na al die feite en gaan dan na ou soortgelyke hofsake om te kyk hoe dit prakties hanteer word. Na dit alles spreek hy sy vonnis uit en sê omonwonde dat dit selfverdediging was en spreek Piet vry om te gaan. Die sirkel is nou voltooi. Piet is terug waar hy begin het as ‘n vry man. Piet het niks gewen nie, aar die regter, aanklaer en prokureur het ‘n helse klomp geld gekry om Piet terug in sy vry status te sit.
Net so werk ‘n konsultant. Hy kom en bring al sy teorieë oor hoe die werk gedoen moet word en voltooi die eerste helfte van die sirkel. Daar los hy jou dan want hy het sy deel gedoen. Hy het Piet gehang. Ongelukkig is daar ‘n praktiese sy aan die teorie wat hy op die tafel geplaas het en die maatskappy se werkers het dan die werk om die teorie te probeer implementer. Hulle gaan dan met alle moeite en kyk na die nuwe verbeterde proses en doen dan aanpassings om by die praktiese wêreld aan te pas. Op die ou einde van die dag is hulle heelwaarskynlik terug by die praktiese werklikheid waar die sirkel begin het. Wat is die eindresultaat – die konsultant het baie geld verdien om jou die volle sirkel te vat tot by die begin!
Ek sê nie vir een oomblik dat alle konsultante so eindresultaat het nie. Daar is seker van die siele wat dit regkry om iets goeds te doen. Ek hou egter steeds van die ou definisie van ‘n konsultant. Dit lees:
“’n Konsultant is iemand wat jou om jou horlosie vra, jou sê wat die tyd is en jou dan geld vra omdat hy dit gedoen het”
Ek twyfel nie dat die konsultante baie goeie teoretiese kennis het nie. Dit laat my net dink aan die ou ding van die verkoopsman wat by die huis aankom en met die man en vrou gesels en hulle dan oortuig om die blink nuwe wonderlike stofsuier te koop. Hy doen die demonstrasie daar op die mat en suig alles van die hondehare tot verlede jaar se kotskol op. Die man en vrou is in ekstase en koop die wonderlike alles-in-een masjien. Daar is net een geheim. Nie een van die twee donders het nog ooit die huis gestofsuig nie! Hulle het geen idée van wat die behoefte is en wat verlang word om die huis ordentlik skoon te maak nie. Daar is net een persoon wat dit weet en dit is die bediende. Sy sukkel dag na dag met die stofsuier en weet presies wat sy nodig het om dit te doen. Om die kol op die mat in die middle van die vloer op te suig is nie ‘n kuns nie. Dit gaan oor hoe die masjien homself tussen die meubels en agter die kaste gaan gedra. Het die man of vrou ooit daaraan gedink om die bediende te vra of dit kan werk?
Dit is dieselfde konsep wat hier geld. Hoekom spandeer die baas nie eerder die miljoene aan sy eie personeel as ‘n wortel vir die mense wat met goeie innoverende idees vorendag kan kom nie. Hulle ken tog die prosesse en slaggate en met die regte motivering sal hulle darem seker ‘n idée of twee vorendag kan bring. Nee, dit werk nie so nie. Die konsultante word miljoene betaal en die werkers word ook aangemoedig om innoverend te wees en word dan vergoed vir goeie idees met …….R500? .....’n ete bewys by die Wimpy? Ek is seker julle weet waarvan ek praat.
Die vraag is natuurlik “hoekom werk die slim mense dan nie?”. Ek het ‘n konsep van hoe dit werk en gaan dit as volg verduidelik. Enige proses het twee helftes. Gestel daar is ‘n sirkel om die proses volmaak te maak.
Om dit te probeer verduidelik wil ek die voorbeeld van ‘n moordsaak gebruik. Piet skiet ‘n man. Hy kom voor die regter en na die verhoor gaan sit die regter om ‘n vonnis te formulleer. Hy kyk na al die getuienis wat voorgelê is en toets die geldigheid daarvan. Dit is duidelik. Piet het die rolwer uit sy kas gehaal en die ander persoon geskiet. Daar is absoluut geen twyfel daaraan nie. Die regter gaan kyk dan wat sê die wet. Na dit alles is dit duidelik dat Piet die man geskiet het en dat die straf die maksimum is. Dit is nou in die geval die doodstraf [ons maak maar asof dit betaan]. Die vraag is nou, gaan Piet hang? Dit voltooi die eerste helfte van die sirkel.
Om die sirkel te voltooi moet die regter nou na die volgende begin luister. Daar was seker omstandighede wat Piet gedryf het om die persoon te skiet. Die man was besig om Piet se kar te steel en toe hy hom konfronteer ruk die man ‘n pistool uit en trek die sneller. Die pistool het die eerste keer, gelukkig vir Piet, geweier. Piet se rewolwer het nie. Piet het geskiet om sy eie lewe te beskerm. Hy kon dit nie waag om die man nog ‘n kans te gee om die sneller te trek nie. Die regter luister dan na al die feite en gaan dan na ou soortgelyke hofsake om te kyk hoe dit prakties hanteer word. Na dit alles spreek hy sy vonnis uit en sê omonwonde dat dit selfverdediging was en spreek Piet vry om te gaan. Die sirkel is nou voltooi. Piet is terug waar hy begin het as ‘n vry man. Piet het niks gewen nie, aar die regter, aanklaer en prokureur het ‘n helse klomp geld gekry om Piet terug in sy vry status te sit.
Net so werk ‘n konsultant. Hy kom en bring al sy teorieë oor hoe die werk gedoen moet word en voltooi die eerste helfte van die sirkel. Daar los hy jou dan want hy het sy deel gedoen. Hy het Piet gehang. Ongelukkig is daar ‘n praktiese sy aan die teorie wat hy op die tafel geplaas het en die maatskappy se werkers het dan die werk om die teorie te probeer implementer. Hulle gaan dan met alle moeite en kyk na die nuwe verbeterde proses en doen dan aanpassings om by die praktiese wêreld aan te pas. Op die ou einde van die dag is hulle heelwaarskynlik terug by die praktiese werklikheid waar die sirkel begin het. Wat is die eindresultaat – die konsultant het baie geld verdien om jou die volle sirkel te vat tot by die begin!
Ek sê nie vir een oomblik dat alle konsultante so eindresultaat het nie. Daar is seker van die siele wat dit regkry om iets goeds te doen. Ek hou egter steeds van die ou definisie van ‘n konsultant. Dit lees:
“’n Konsultant is iemand wat jou om jou horlosie vra, jou sê wat die tyd is en jou dan geld vra omdat hy dit gedoen het”
Thursday, January 18, 2007
Die Herschelle Gibbs insident
Gibbs het in die eerste krieket toets tussen Suid Afrika en Pakistan die groot sonde begaan om iemand ‘n dier te noem. Ja, as ek nou eerlik wil wees, dit is nou seker nie die beste maniere om mense diere te noem nie en fokken diere is seker nog bietjie erger, maar dit is darem nou nie een van die erfsondes nie. Krieket sal nie ten gronde gaan daaroor nie en Pakistan sou ook nie die toets gewen het as hy dit nie gesê het nie.
Die insident het gebeur toe ‘n klomp Pakistanse idiotiese ondersteuners aanmerkings teen oor Paul Harris gemaak het. Ek was van plan om die middag te gaan kyk en is nou jammer dat ek nie gegaan het nie, want ek sou graag die spul self wou aanskou en nie uit ander monde daarvan gehoor het nie. Ek het wel die baie onduidelike opnames van die kommentaar gehoor. Om alles te kroon het die een of ander idioot in Pakistan daaroor gekla en dit is toe na die Internasionale Krieket Raad (IRK) verwys wat op sy beurt die wedstrydskeidsregter, Malcolm Speed, gevra het om Gibbs aan te kla en te verhoor. Speed het toe ‘n twee toets skorsing toegeken. Teen publiseer tyd het Gibbs appél aangetek en ons wag in spanning wanneer dit verder gaan aangaan. Verder moet hy daarna deur die SA krieketunie ook verhoor word. Dit is nou so belaglik as wat die plaaslike landros ook ‘n vonnis moet uitspreek oor iemand wat klaar in die hoogeregshof skuldig bevind is. Die proses laat my amper dink aan die chaos van ‘n munisipale hof. Jy is skuldig al voor jy verhoor word en gee nie om wat jy sê of doen nie, sonder ‘n straf gaan jy nie wegkom nie. Hulle is nooit verkeerd nie.
Kom ek kyk na die ding soos ek dit sien. Daar is die sogenaamde “code of conduct” wat bestaan en basies daarop neerkom dat alle gekontrakteerde persone hulle moet gedra. So as jy vir SA gekies word as daar baie ouens rus en jy is nie ‘n gekontrakteerde speler nie, kan jy dan maak wat jy wil? Vra maar net so terloops.
Die IRK het na die fiasko in Australië (Ntini is daar deur Expats as ‘n kaffer uitgekryt) en die kommentaarflater van Dean Jones (hy het so bietjie lelik van die sub-kontinent spellers gepraat) besluit dat rasisme streng gestraf gaan word. Hulle het wraak gesweer en dit is op die gronde dat Gibbs gestraf word. Ek wonder wat diere name met rasisme te doen het? Volgende gaan hulle seker elke Engelsman wat na sy vrou as “my pet” verwys seker in die tronk gooi? Pas tog op vir troetelnaampies!
In die hele verhoor is daar ‘n paar flaters. Ten eerste, ek het nog nooit gehoor dat die baas aan een van sy betaalde werkers vra om iemand te straf nie. In regskringe is dit tog ‘n “conflict of interest”. Jy maak tog vir wolf skaapwagter hierdeur! Die verhoor moes tog sekerlik deur ‘n onafhanlike party gehou word. Tweedens is dit seker nie mooi om fok op nasionale TV te sê nie, maar as dit is waarvoor hy gestraf word, hoort André Nel voor ‘n vuurpeleton en Shaun Pollock seker in huisarres. Die derde ding is om “animals” as rasisme op te bring. Dit sou seker, weens geskiedenis, sleg gewees het as hy na hulle as bobbejane verwys het, maar hy het nie. Hy praat van diere. Laat ons ook eerlik wees, die spul op die pawiljoen het hulle soos diere gedra. Ek wonder of dit aanvaarbaar sou wees as hy daardie mooi Engelse woord “hooligans” gebruik het? Is daar ‘n verskil?
Ek hoop van harte Herchelle se appél slaag. Nie dat ek nou vreeslik baie van hom hou nie, maar net uit die beginsel daarvan. Kom ons wees eerlik, hy is egter ‘n ongeluk wat wag om te gebeur. Ek kan net nie sien dat hy geskors moet word terwyl die IRK absoluut niks doen aan die twee wat positief getoets is vir die gebruik van verbode middels nie. Hulle het mos net gesê dat hulle nie geweet het hulle neem dit in nie. In geen sport word dit aanvaar nie, net deur die Pakistan se krieketowerhede en die hoogs heilige IRK wat hier so vinnig intrap, doen niks daaraan nie. Dit is darem net so toevallig dat dit twee van die wêreld se vinnigste boulers is wat dit ingekry het. Daardie woema van hulle….wonder net… Miskien moes Gibbs ook maar net gesê het dat hy nie geweet het die mikrofoon is aan nie. Dit sal dus die geraas van ‘n vallende boom in ‘n verlate woud wees. Jy dink dit is hard, maar niemand het gehoor nie….
Die insident het gebeur toe ‘n klomp Pakistanse idiotiese ondersteuners aanmerkings teen oor Paul Harris gemaak het. Ek was van plan om die middag te gaan kyk en is nou jammer dat ek nie gegaan het nie, want ek sou graag die spul self wou aanskou en nie uit ander monde daarvan gehoor het nie. Ek het wel die baie onduidelike opnames van die kommentaar gehoor. Om alles te kroon het die een of ander idioot in Pakistan daaroor gekla en dit is toe na die Internasionale Krieket Raad (IRK) verwys wat op sy beurt die wedstrydskeidsregter, Malcolm Speed, gevra het om Gibbs aan te kla en te verhoor. Speed het toe ‘n twee toets skorsing toegeken. Teen publiseer tyd het Gibbs appél aangetek en ons wag in spanning wanneer dit verder gaan aangaan. Verder moet hy daarna deur die SA krieketunie ook verhoor word. Dit is nou so belaglik as wat die plaaslike landros ook ‘n vonnis moet uitspreek oor iemand wat klaar in die hoogeregshof skuldig bevind is. Die proses laat my amper dink aan die chaos van ‘n munisipale hof. Jy is skuldig al voor jy verhoor word en gee nie om wat jy sê of doen nie, sonder ‘n straf gaan jy nie wegkom nie. Hulle is nooit verkeerd nie.
Kom ek kyk na die ding soos ek dit sien. Daar is die sogenaamde “code of conduct” wat bestaan en basies daarop neerkom dat alle gekontrakteerde persone hulle moet gedra. So as jy vir SA gekies word as daar baie ouens rus en jy is nie ‘n gekontrakteerde speler nie, kan jy dan maak wat jy wil? Vra maar net so terloops.
Die IRK het na die fiasko in Australië (Ntini is daar deur Expats as ‘n kaffer uitgekryt) en die kommentaarflater van Dean Jones (hy het so bietjie lelik van die sub-kontinent spellers gepraat) besluit dat rasisme streng gestraf gaan word. Hulle het wraak gesweer en dit is op die gronde dat Gibbs gestraf word. Ek wonder wat diere name met rasisme te doen het? Volgende gaan hulle seker elke Engelsman wat na sy vrou as “my pet” verwys seker in die tronk gooi? Pas tog op vir troetelnaampies!
In die hele verhoor is daar ‘n paar flaters. Ten eerste, ek het nog nooit gehoor dat die baas aan een van sy betaalde werkers vra om iemand te straf nie. In regskringe is dit tog ‘n “conflict of interest”. Jy maak tog vir wolf skaapwagter hierdeur! Die verhoor moes tog sekerlik deur ‘n onafhanlike party gehou word. Tweedens is dit seker nie mooi om fok op nasionale TV te sê nie, maar as dit is waarvoor hy gestraf word, hoort André Nel voor ‘n vuurpeleton en Shaun Pollock seker in huisarres. Die derde ding is om “animals” as rasisme op te bring. Dit sou seker, weens geskiedenis, sleg gewees het as hy na hulle as bobbejane verwys het, maar hy het nie. Hy praat van diere. Laat ons ook eerlik wees, die spul op die pawiljoen het hulle soos diere gedra. Ek wonder of dit aanvaarbaar sou wees as hy daardie mooi Engelse woord “hooligans” gebruik het? Is daar ‘n verskil?
Ek hoop van harte Herchelle se appél slaag. Nie dat ek nou vreeslik baie van hom hou nie, maar net uit die beginsel daarvan. Kom ons wees eerlik, hy is egter ‘n ongeluk wat wag om te gebeur. Ek kan net nie sien dat hy geskors moet word terwyl die IRK absoluut niks doen aan die twee wat positief getoets is vir die gebruik van verbode middels nie. Hulle het mos net gesê dat hulle nie geweet het hulle neem dit in nie. In geen sport word dit aanvaar nie, net deur die Pakistan se krieketowerhede en die hoogs heilige IRK wat hier so vinnig intrap, doen niks daaraan nie. Dit is darem net so toevallig dat dit twee van die wêreld se vinnigste boulers is wat dit ingekry het. Daardie woema van hulle….wonder net… Miskien moes Gibbs ook maar net gesê het dat hy nie geweet het die mikrofoon is aan nie. Dit sal dus die geraas van ‘n vallende boom in ‘n verlate woud wees. Jy dink dit is hard, maar niemand het gehoor nie….
Wednesday, January 17, 2007
Do expats find happiness......?
One thing that you can be guaranteed of when you read any paper for a month, is that at least one day in that month there will be a day dedicated in the letters column where current South African residents and expats call each other names and have their little tiff in the paper on a public forum. It is normally expats either telling us how nice it is in their new adopted country or expats [and this is mostly true] telling us how bad SA is. The response from the residence is either a bunch who say they are longing to also leave or a number of people who get into a slinging match.
In one's life, all things around you are divided into two areas. In the one area you place all the items that are within your control and the second is the area of items you cannot control. If you can imagine the two as two circles, one will be bigger than the other - you decide which is bigger. Lets put colour to it. The things that you control is green and the things you cannot control red.
In one's life, all things around you are divided into two areas. In the one area you place all the items that are within your control and the second is the area of items you cannot control. If you can imagine the two as two circles, one will be bigger than the other - you decide which is bigger. Lets put colour to it. The things that you control is green and the things you cannot control red.
These two circles represent the balance in your life. In the green circle you find things like your work, your family, your car, your house, etc. In the red circle you will find the petrol price, food prices, exchange rates, etc. If your green circle is big, you will find that that individual is inherently happy as well. If the red circle gets to big, a person becomes unhappy.
The next question is why are there these differences in size between the circles. It is due to the law of attraction. Yes, you read correctly. Our life is controlled by one of the simple laws in nature. The law that says you attract things that are similar to yourself. Have you not found that in life? Just think what is the first question asked if you have a new friend. "Do you have anything in common?". It is a fact. When you only think of positive things, you will have a positive life and your life will be more under control. The green circle will be big. If you are only negatively inclined or go through a rough patch in life, the red circle becomes big and you must be careful that your life does not spiral out of control. The only way to address the red circle, is to concentrate on the things that you can control and get them properly under control.
Lets get back to our expats. The only reason someone will leave your country of origin is when they are unhappy. I am not talking about people who go for professional reasons, but people who emigrate because they do not like South Africa anymore. They are unhappy in this country and will give a number of reasons for it. It may vary from affirmative action to crime to education. They will always find a reason. The problem is that they are unhappy and their red circle is at breaking point. Now they pack up and leave to a new country.
Lets have a look at the reality in this adopted country. They now find themselves in a place, which is not their first choice, in a work which is forced upon them. Their kids go to school in [highly likely] a foreign language [all countries have different ways of doing things - even in English] and you live in a small crummy place in comparison to what you had in South Africa. You drive a crummy car and you have no friends. What a great life!
One thing you will notice in the paragraph above, is that all these items are things which should have been in your green circle. They should have all been well under your control, but moving to the foreign country has suddenly put them right out of your control. That means that your red circle, which was big before you left, has now even increased in size and there is very little in life you now have under control. What do you think does that do for their happiness? The expats - although they will not admit this easily - overall not very happy. They cannot be; the laws of nature can prove to you that they are not. That is why they keep reading SA papers and keep on trying to justify their move to another country. The fact they they constantly try and do it in our newspapers just proves the point about things being out of control. They keep on writing to newspapers to convince themselves that the move is right. Their lives are in turmoil and spiralling out of control and they will do anything eventually to try and get a grip on it. Even if it means packing up and returning to the place where you know how to control most things in your life.
I am not blaming any expat for moving. That is their own personal choice to do it and I respect that opinion. All I am asking is for them to leave us alone and to stop trying to convince us that their decision was right. Rather to try and find justification in SA for their move, they should rather spend their energy in their adopted country to try and move the direct environment around them back into their green circle and become a much more happy group of people.