Once again, an overseas rugby writer has declared with absolute authority that the Springboks are not the team of yesteryear because of quotas and because the coach is not allowed to select his strongest team. The ignorance of such a statement irks me.
What of the all-white Springbok team that still has infamy for the longest losing sequence in Springbok rugby history? The giants of yesteryear lost at home to France on July 25, 1964 and then got beaten in Ireland, in Scotland, in Australia twice and then in New Zealand twice, with the seventh successive defeat on August 21, 1965.
The Springboks’ winning record, pre-isolation, was 63%. Currently it is 62% and the overall advantage per match in the history of Springbok rugby is seven points.
What or who represents the best team is very subjective. I have a view of a player and so do you. It doesn’t make either of us wrong because in our view that is the best player. But race and culture should never dictate or determine the definition of best. If you talk quota, then what about those 15 token white players who lost seven Tests in succession in 1964 and 1965?
Back then, it must be argued, the Springbok coach was also not allowed to select his best team. He had to keep it exclusive to whites! And we saw those results - seven successive defeats.
Perspective is very much needed when talking about the Springboks being an inferior team now because of the absolute need to redress the imbalance and transform. The Springboks are not inferior now than at any time in their history. They win and lose the same number of games.
What is different is the Springbok team of today is finally starting to be representative of every kid who plays rugby in this country. The white privilege must forever be challenged as long as it exists when it comes to the way any Springbok team is viewed or analysed.
Players of colour, no matter how good, are constantly in the dock of doubt. Visit any South African-strong rugby social media platform and the vitriol and prejudice are disgusting. These players are guilty of being tokens until their consistently good performances are grudgingly acknowledged. White players, as fact, are from the outset declared good enough.
A year ago when the Springboks lost 57 nil to the All Blacks, the on-field player split during the 80 minutes was 12 white players and three players of colour. I was asked in a New Zealand radio interview afterwards if quotas were killing the Springboks. My response was: “Yes, the 12-white quota.”
The Springboks this year beat England at home with 10 players of colour in the match 23 and they beat New Zealand away with eight players of colour in the match 23. How the hell can there ever be talk that white is right when it comes to the Boks? Again, the reminder of 1964 and 1965.
White privilege is not about wealth and materialistic comforts; it is about unchallenged opportunity and acceptance based on skin colour.
This prejudice has to be highlighted, confronted and challenged until one day it is no longer part of our social fabric.
Springbok rugby this year has made huge advances to transform, but still white privilege on occasion rears its ugly head and undermines those big steps forward. An example is how the young Bulls scrumhalf Ivan van Zyl can be selected to start a Test without any reservation, but his provincial colleague, Embrose Papier, is deemed a quota player making up squad numbers. Come on...
The Springboks, in beating England and the All Blacks this year, are proof that transformation and winning are more allies than enemies. The exclusively white Bok team of 1964 and 1965 is quite the opposite.
Keohane, a multiple award-winning sports journalist, is the head of Independent Media Sport