Giant Bulls lock Bakkies Botha faced the judiciary on Tuesday for a dangerous tackle on Stormers srcumhalf Dewaldt Duvenage.

Botha was found not guilty, with all charges dropped.

He will thus be available for the Bulls next match against the Lions at Loftus this weekend.

However no doubt he will be warned by his coaches to stay underneath the radar and keep out of trouble!

Bulls lock Bakkies Botha faces yet another judicial hearing in what could be the end of his Springbok playing career?

The giant lock faces a SANZAR judicial hearing after being cited for dangerous play during the Super Rugby match against the Stormers in Pretoria last Saturday.

The hearing, chaired by Advocate Jannie Lubbe (SC), will commence at 11:00AM on Tuesday 22 March, 2011 taking place at Loftus Versfeld in Pretoria.

Botha allegedly breached Foul Play Law 10.4 (e) relating to a dangerous tackle against an opponents neck or head.

The citing followed an incident in the 24th minute of the match in which Botha cleaned Stormers scrumhalf Dewaldt Duvenage at a ruck.

New Zealand referee Keith Brown saw the incident live, but decided further action was not warranted. However the citing commisioner deemed otherwise.

Whilst I am a big fan of the big enforcer, and anyone who know’s him knows he is a gentle giant off the field, he has become a liability.

This is the third incident in less than 2 years where Botha has been cited for dangerous play against smaller backline players. (Botha has been suspended for headbutting Jimmy Cowan, and foul play against Springbok and Western Province fullback Gio Aplon.

Botha swore after the 9 week ban for head butting that he had learnt his lesson and was a changed man.

Enough is enough. Words are hollow. If Bakkies is found guilty, Peter de Villiers and Frans Ludeke can no longer place their trust in Botha, no matter how good he is. For it simply costs his team mates and is not fair to them of the fans. Other players play on the ‘edge’, yet you don’t see them needing a lawyer full time!

Bulls enforcer Bakkies Botha has been cited for a dangerous tackle on Stormers scrumhalf Dewaldt Duvenage following the Bulls 23-13 loss on Saturday.

Whilst I have yet to see the incident, it shouldn’t come as any surprise given Botha’s history with the judiciary.

It’s disappointing to see Bakkies in this (familiar) situation once more, and places the Bulls under even further pressure.

Blood Brothers Victor Matfield and Bakkies Botha visited the Walter Sisulu Paediatric Cardiac Centre on Thursday.

Matfields charity is The Walter Sisulu Paediatric Cardiac Centre for Africa, and this week the 2 paid the centre a visit.

For photos please visit their Blood Brothers facebook page.

Both are tremendous ambassadors for the game, and proud role models for the Bulls and South Africa. Despite Botha’s tough image, he is a gentle giant and these photos prove how much they do off the field.

Keep up the good work guys!

South African rugby prides itself on its physicality and has favoured large, muscular players. The time has come for South African coaches to forget reputation and start judging on results.

With so many large Afrikaners, South African rugby was able to use their tremendous physiques during the amateur era to outmuscle their opponents.

As professionalism has hit, other sides around the world no longer have to take a backward step as players can use science in their training and analysis to compete and in some cases overpower the Boks.

South African coaches still favour large, bulky players, and experience is highly valued.

WESTERN PROVINCE AND THE STORMERS

A good case in point is at Western Province/The Stormers, where Jean de Villiers and Jaque Fourie are the preferred centre combination ahead of the exciting Juan de Jongh.

Both de Villiers and Fourie are big, strong and feared by the opposition. There would not be many critics around the world who would not select the two in almost any given side, but do they really provide a great return to their sides?

Jean de Villiers has often been very quiet over the last 12 months, especially in tight matches. Jaque Fourie is a great organiser of the defence, very strong in the tackle and capable of great runs. However he is also prone to slipping tackles, and making handling errors.

Juan de Jongh very rarely can exhibit the same physicality of Fourie in the tackle, or bust through defenders like his 2 team-mates. But he almost never misses a tackle, sets his backs away, and is capable of line breaks and stepping round defenders brilliantly. In short, he is consistent in the basics and has the ‘x’ factor, despite not having a large physical presence.

OTHER EXAMPLES

Francois Steyn and Butch James are 2 examples of players who are highly regarded by their peers (and hence almost guaranteed selection into the Boks) because they have a strong physical presence.

But do they offer more than a Gio Aplon, or a Patrick Lambie?

If players such as Matt Giteau or Aaron Mauger were South Africans, they’d most likely have not even been selected for provincial sides! We’ve got to stop looking at size, and base selections on consistent results, rather than possible potential.

Former Springbok coach and selector Ian McIntosh said you select on “potential to do a job”, but you also have to think of longer term consequences, and not just the next game.

We’ve seen ‘big’ guys like Braam van Straaten and De Wet Barry in the backline who could barely pass a ball, and they were selected for test after test when we could have been developing a longer term prospect.

THE RESULTS ARE PLAIN TO SEE

The Springboks under Peter de Villiers have less than a 65% winninng ration. This is despite having the most experienced squad ever.

The All Blacks have a 85%+ wining ratio over the same period.

If South African sides want to be more consistent we need to select sides based on producing results week in and week out, and that means being able to do a job, not just having the size to be able to do so.

2011 sees Super Rugby extended from 16 weeks to a 21 week season. Throw in the Tri-Nations and World Cup, and player management becomes vital.

We’ve all heard every coach talk about how long Super Rugby is. How it’ll require more depth, greater use of a squad system. But what does that mean?

In 2007, the All Blacks missed the first 6 matches of Super Rugby, whereas the top Springboks were rested for the away leg of the Tri-Nations.

In last year’s Super Rugby season, the Bulls ‘managed’ one of their star performers, Victor Matfield (amongst others) by not requiring him to train on Mondays. I’m not sure that is a strategy for long term success, for the team or the player.

With such an emphasis on squads, and giving younger and other squad members a chance, what have we seen so far?

We’ve seen the Cheetahs risk their lynchpin and as Victor Matfield describes, ‘tower of strength in South African rugby’, Juan Smith in a semi-meaningless game, where he suffered a ruptured Achillies that threatens his World Cup chances.

Almost every side is playing their top lineups, and substituting players late. Will the Bulls for instance give the likes of Francois Brummer a go for Morne Steyn? Should we be phasing some of the younger guys into matches with experienced players around them so the effect on the side is lessened (much like the Stormers have HAD to do).

Nothing I’ve seen so far makes me think that anything will be drastically different. It’s a long season, but the top guys will just play more games than ever.

There’s likely to be more injuries, and potentially less of the star studded players available for the World Cup. Depth will be tested, but for the wrong reasons. I’d rather we gave more opportunities now, and reaped the benefits later. I’d hate to see another ‘Juan Smith’, but then again haven’t we seen this before?

Springbok hardman Juan Smith tore his Achillies tendon in Friday’s match against the Bulls in Bloemfontein, sidelining him for 6-9 months.

Smith had been under an injury cloud in the week leading up to the match against the Bulls, having been ruled out the previous week against the Sharks with the same injury.

He took to the field against the Bulls and limped off in the opening few minutes, with a diagnosis of a ruptured Achillies tendon.

Smith is expected to undergo surgery on Monday to repair the tendon, with the likelihood of a return to rugby in the vicinity of 6-9 months.

Dan Carter suffered the same injury in 2009, and was back playing in 6 months. In such a best case scenario for Smith, it could allow him to go to the World Cup, but it would take a minor miracle.

In all likelihood the talismanic Springbok is not likely to return to rugby this year, severely denting the Springboks chances or a successful world cup defence.

Whilst Smith’s loss will be a massive blow to the Cheetahs, and makes it twice as unlikely they will win a game, it’s his value to the Springboks that hurts South African rugby.

He is the unsung hero of the Bok pack. He is tough as teak, makes a gizillion tackles, and is always a willing ball carrier. When he returned to the Bok setup in 2010, he made an immediate impact on the Boks Tri-Nations home leg as they became competitive once more.

His Springbok team mate Victor Matfield emphasised how important Smith is to the Boks cause, saying it was a ‘sad moment’ for South African rugby.

“It will be very sad if it is a serious injury. Juan is a team-mate of ours and I’ve played more games with him than with some of the Bulls guys. It will be very sad if it is something serious because he is an icon in South African rugby” said Matfield after Friday night’s match.

MEDICAL TEAM TO BLAME?

Having had a claf strain, one has to ask, was Smith right to take to the field for Friday’s match?

Whilst a player can tear a muscle or tendon at any time, even when fully fit, when the musculotendinous unit is under increased stress, from a medical point of view it is important to ensure it is rehabilitated fully. Surely this injury indicates Smith was not fit to take to the field?

One can understand Smith being rushed back for an important game, but the second match of Super Rugby, in a long season where he has to be fit for the World Cup has to leave the question…why?

What were the Cheetahs likely to gain? If under any doubt, Smith should not have been risked. Now the Cheetahs won’t have him all season, and they’ve made the Boks task this year that much harder.

Earlier this year Springbok coach Peter de Villiers expressed his concern about the long season and met with the Super Rugby coaches to ensure they were on the same page.

“It is concerning and it is going to be more intense, which will mean players will suffer from more mental fatigue and everyone knows just how tough it is going to be in New Zealand. I am concerned that it could cause a total exhaustion of the players” said de Villiers.

“We had a meeting with the (Super Rugby) coaches and we know there are certain players who we have to manage differently from others and we will work together to get the best and to be at our best when we leave … for the World Cup.”

“We are banking on the integrity of our colleagues at the franchises and we understand they are also under pressure to produce results. The coaches know what we are expecting from the players. For the first time in the history of South African rugby the conditioning of players has been conducted at the same level at all franchises.”

“Our medical screenings and rehabilitation programmes are also the same and that puts the players in a better position. If we know that players are getting the same treatment at their unions it makes life slightly easier for us. We won’t have to do conditioning in the middle of this competition because we know everything is done at the same level throughout.”

Smith’s absence from the Boks will be felt as he adds balance, leadership and character that cannot be replaced. Let’s hope his selection on Friday has not lost us the World Cup!

Smith is likely to be replaced at blindside flank in the Boks by Schalk Burger or even Willem Alberts. Both are strong ball carriers, but in my mind lack the ‘x’ factor and intelligence Smith brings.

Bulls and Springbok lock Bakkies Botha will be leaving South Africa at the end of the 2011 to join Toulon for a 3 year contract.

Botha was targeted by Toulon in 2009, but contractual obligations to the Bulls halted a move.

After a crack at defending the World Cup, Botha will be moving to Toulon to secure his future. The deal is rumoured to be worth €700 000 per season.

Botha had been linked to a possible move to the Lions in 2012, but surely they could not compete with the money that a rich club like Toulon possesses.

Botha’s move will be a big blow to the Bulls as he would still have been young enough to continue playing at a high level, but it was probably inevitable he’d move on given his range of accomplishments which include 72 tests, 87 Super Rugby matches, a World Cup, 2 Tri-Nations titles, A British and Irish Lions series victory, 3 Super Rugby titles and numerous Currie Cups.

A LOYAL PLAYER

The Bulls confirmed Botha had discussed the move with them, with Botha addressing his team-mates at a recent team session at Loftus Versfeld, telling them he would be signing for the French club.

Ian Schwartz, High Performance manager of the Bulls said, “Bakkies is a loyal Bull player and has always played open cards with us. He has always maintained that at the end of the 2011 season he wanted to continue his career overseas and we wish him well.”

“We know that he will continue to give his all and remain a loyal and committed player for the Bulls and Springboks until the end of the year.”

With his good friend Victor Matfield’s imminent retirement, 2011 will bring to an end one of the great rugby partnerships that rivalled the likes of Horan-Little, and Marshall-Mehrtens.

But before the blood brothers end their South African careers, there are the small matters of winning another Super Rugby title and Rugby World Cup!

A difference between South African players, and those from Australia and New Zealand is the ability to play multiple positions.

South Africa tend to produce robots, players who need to specialise in one position, and play to a set pattern.

Several top Springboks have even suggested they prefer playing to a set pattern, because they know what to do. When it’s all you’ve ever known what to do, it becomes comforting to go back to the familiar.

The ability to be versatile and play multiple positions does not have to be a negative.

IT’S ALL ABOUT ATTITUDE

If you look at the most successful South African province over the last 5 years, the Bulls, you’ll notice how much of their success is based around the right mental attitude.

In 2008 they suffered as they did not want to adapt to the ELV’s (experimental law variations).

However in general, they promote personal development off the field, with Heyneke Meyer and Victor Matfield known to be greatly influenced by the teachings of the great NFL coach Vince Lombardi.

It’s this philosophy that has seen players like Danie Rossouw and Francois Hougaard embrace changing positions.

Rossouw has quite regularly changed between his preferred position of lock with that of flank and number 8.

Hougaard has had a more extreme change, playing between his preferred specialist position of scrumhalf with wing, a position requiring a completely different skill set and positional play.

He has embraced this challenge, welcoming the prospect of first getting game time, and secondly being able to learn from the master in his position, Fourie du Preez.

SELFISH PLAYERS

Compare this with the likes of Ruan Pienaar and Francois Steyn, who both came from the Sharks.

Both were unhappy with their playing positions, and felt they were harming their careers by not playing in their preferred positions.

The one guy at the Sharks who has bucked this trend is Bok captain John Smit who will play anywhere in the front row, or anywhere else he is asked I’m sure!

The difference between the Bulls and the Sharks is simply whether a player is prepared to put the team first.

It surprises me how so many critics heap pressure on the powers that be by constantly suggesting that certain players can only play certain positions.

Take young Juan de Jongh of the Stormers/Western province. We constantly hear how he shouldn’t be playing inside centre because he has played most of his rugby at outside centre.

He’s never looked anything but class at inside centre in my book (where he is currently needed and the best in the country), and has all the skills to succeed anywhere in the backline. What relevance does his age group rugby have on what he can do now? If he’s good enough, put him anywhere he is needed!

TIME TO CHANGE

I don’t believe that playing multiple positions needs to be detrimental to a players career.

Brent Russell is often mentioned in South African rugby as an example of what happens when players are labelled as versatile, but I don’t believe that is justified.

It hasn’t hurt Matt Giteau, Adam Ashley-Cooper, Berrick Barnes, Mils Muliaina, Ma’a Nonu, Jefff Wilson to name a few that have successfully played multiple positions, often week to week depending on the needs of the team.

One could question whether it has more to do with our coaches, and their views given the differences between nations.

However ultimately I believe it is down to the players and their attitude.

The ability to adapt to different positions, their different skill sets etc requires more mental application than physical attributes. Possessing a positive attitude, and being willing to learn and adapt is the key.

It’s not versatility that is the problem in South African rugby, it’s the attitude to succeed!

South Africa has always produced large rugby specimens allowing it to dominant in the amateur era. Now the game has become more professional and tactical, have South Africa struggled to adapt?

South Africa’s proud rugby history has largely been based on big, dominant forwards, with a good kicking flyhalf and pacy wings.

We have almost produced robots at times, playing to a strict game plan, wearing the opposition into submission.

It worked during the amateur era, when South Africa had the best playing record of any nation. It hasn’t worked during the professional era, because I believe it requires smarter players, and the right mental attitude is the difference between success and failure.

Players don’t necessarily play more games than ever before, but they probably play more high profile matches, with important titles and ranking points on the line each time they play. Whilst consistency is always important, this makes it hard to remain unbeaten. More importantly than in the past, it’s the ability to bounce back that is more critical than ever.

WE NEED TO BACK OUR ABILITY

Our SANZAR counterparts grow up learning to back their ability, and trust their judgement.

South African players and coaches need to back their players. And trust their skill levels and decision making, from a younger age.

The Aussies and Kiwis are prepared to play their young talent early on, whereas in South Africa we often hear how a player needs to ‘develop’ before entering the top level.

This is especially the case with props. For instance the Aussies are happy to make 21 year-old James Slipper an international player, whereas we often say guys like Heinke van der Merwe and Coenie Ooshuizen need time to develop and learn their trade as props, and won’t mature until their late 20′s.

The Franks brothers in New Zealand are another example of, ‘good enough is old enough’.

Why is our selection criteria so contrary compared with different parts of the world?

VERSATILITY

Perhaps my biggest gripe however is, “Why can’t South African rugby players play multiple positions?”