Is Willem worth the risk?

Written by Rob Otto (robdylan)

Posted in :Original Content, Sharks, Super 14 on 8 Feb 2010 at 12:43
Tagged with : , , , ,

When you’re facing a side that builds so much of its play around the go forward created by Sione Lauaki, the temptation to add big Willem Alberts to your side must be hard to resist.

The Sharks face up to last year’s finalists, the Chiefs, in their Super 14 opener on Saturday evening and the ongoing legal (and political) machinations around the availability of Alberts will be causing Sharks coach John Plumtree no small amount of headaches. As things stand right now, SARU have asked Koos Basson to investigate the matter of Alberts’ much-talked-about off-season move to Durban. The Lions maintain he’s still contracted to them, although they’re not paying him. The Sharks reckon he’s theirs fair and square, since he has no valid Lions contract. SARU, to date, haven’t indicated which way they are leaning and you would have to be very optimistic indeed to believe that a ruling will be forthcoming in time for Plumtree to include Alberts in the team for this weekend’s game.

Nobody’s really sure, at this stage, what the repercussions could be should Plumtree and the Sharks opt to field Alberts in the Super 14. Picking him for a meaningless warmup was one thing, but there is every possibility that docked log points could be on the table and the Sharks will have a hard-enough making the semis this year without losing points over something like this. The impact on the player himself would huge, as well – imagine how he would look in the eyes of his team mates if his very presence in the side was considered detrimental to the team’s overall progress? Simply not fair to do that to the guy, would be my call.

So it looks like we’ll probably have to make do without “Big Vic” this weekend, which will be fine, because Jean Deysel will look after Lauaki for us. Ryan Kankowski has just been stung by the blow of not receiving a Bok contract as well, so my gut feel is we’ll see a big performance from the talented number 8. Jacques Botes should be fit to take his place too and with the Sharks tight five that did so well last year retained, I expect to see a very strong performance from the forwards.

The backline permutations are still wide open. I understand that Rory Kockott has been struggling with injury, so don’t be too surprised to see Charl McLeod start at 9, with Monty Dumond earmarked to start at flyhalf – and take the kicks at goal.

Possible Sharks team:
15 Terblanche, 14 Ndungane, 13 Jacobs, 12 Swanepoel, 11 Pietersen, 10 Dumond, 9 McLeod, 8 Kankowski, 7 Deysel, 6 Botes, 5 Muller, 4 Sykes, 3 Smit (capt), 2 B du Plessis, 1 Mtawarira
16 Burden, 17 J du Plessis, 18 Mostert, 19 Daniel, 20 Kockott/R Cronjé, 21 Meyer, 22 Murray


  • @robdylan:no andries strauss in your match 22?

  • Comment 1, posted at 08.02.10 12:49:10 by bergshark Reply
  • @robdylan: won’t they only deduct us points if the ruling goes against the sharks?

  • Comment 2, posted at 08.02.10 12:51:29 by bergshark Reply
  • @bergshark (Comment 2) : nobody knows what they’ll do… you want to bet log points on the fairness of SARU?

  • Comment 3, posted at 08.02.10 12:52:53 by robdylan Reply
    Competition Winner Administrator
  • @bergshark (Comment 1) : BWAHAHAHAHA!!! Andries Strauss got a demotion to VC and he might be a bit out of his league there . . .

    I feel we should play Alberts if we can. That`s what we got him for right? To stop their big guns. No use trying to save the guy we need it now and if worst come to worst at least we tried.

    Surely everything can`t continue to go wrong for us?

  • Comment 4, posted at 08.02.10 12:55:19 by Original Pierre Reply
    Original Pierre
  • @robdylan:tough one to call .. But if the sharks management believe they have a valid case,then why not?looking at the rulings made in the jp joubert and jaque fourie sagas ,it seems as if a precedent has been created.

  • Comment 5, posted at 08.02.10 13:00:11 by bergshark Reply

  • @Original Pierre (Comment 4) : look, all other things being equal, I would pick him to start in this game and bring Kanko on later. But if there’s any chance of being docked points as a result, we can’t risk it.

  • Comment 6, posted at 08.02.10 13:00:13 by robdylan Reply
    Competition Winner Administrator
  • @robdylan (Comment 3) : Can’t take the chance. Our draw is kak enough already.

  • Comment 7, posted at 08.02.10 13:01:37 by catfish Reply
  • @robdylan:radiosondergrense just reported that the sharks have suffered a setback- albert vd berg is leaving the team.if they watched sharkbite last year,they’d have known that already. Media(blue bulls dominated?)trying to create the illusion of unhappiness in the squad? Maybe the media is trying to sink the sharks with?or trying to create suspicion among the players concerning personal agendas?want to destroy team cohesion,team spirit?want to destroy us from the inside out?

  • Comment 8, posted at 08.02.10 13:13:23 by bergshark Reply

  • @robdylan: could be orchestrated by wp supporters in the media?jaque fourie did approach the sharks … Maybe habana did ,too ?which is why plums congratulated
    Wp management on acquiring those 2players,and adding ‘they must have cost a lot of money’. Guess the sharks is still the next choice for many players?

  • Comment 9, posted at 08.02.10 13:19:52 by bergshark Reply

  • Test

  • Comment 10, posted at 08.02.10 13:21:06 by wpw Reply
  • @bergshark (Comment 8) : just slapgat and haven’t been doing their homework.

    Anyone who bothered to find out would have known that van den Berg’s contract was not renewed. This was well known in Durban in December already. Just like the guys who all write about Monty Dumond being “recalled” from the Cheetahs. He never went in the first place. Nobody (except me) bothered to check the facts.

  • Comment 11, posted at 08.02.10 13:23:17 by robdylan Reply
    Competition Winner Administrator
  • @robdylan (Comment 6) : Correct me if I’m wrong, but is’nt the ruling body of the S14 SANZAR? Even thou SARU is part of SANZAR does not mean they have the right to deduct points from the Sharks without the consent of NZL and AUS. And would NZL and AUS really want to get involved in something of this nature?

  • Comment 12, posted at 08.02.10 13:23:56 by Farlington Reply

  • @wpw (Comment 10) : what are you testing, chap? The site’s been live for over two years. I promise it works :mrgreen:

  • Comment 13, posted at 08.02.10 13:23:57 by robdylan Reply
    Competition Winner Administrator
  • @Farlington (Comment 12) : I reckon if SARU wants to do something that damages the chances of a South African team, the Aussies and Kiwis aren’t going to get in their way!

  • Comment 14, posted at 08.02.10 13:24:43 by robdylan Reply
    Competition Winner Administrator
  • Robdylan, you realy think they’ll start with Dumont at fh, I realy hope not, nothing personal, but he struggles a bit with ‘tjietah mantality’, just unable to crack it in the big league.

    Rather have Meyer work for his money of the bat…btw, what’s the news on Ruan, is he available, if so I’d play him of the bench for FH barring any injury SH. Drop Jacobs to the bench as impact and Murray in the starting line-up.

    McLeod is actualy quite good at giving the backline quick ball so having himn in place of Cocket might not be all bad…I like both however.

    I would drop Burden for Michael Rhodes if available…and that’s my 5cents for the moment.

  • Comment 15, posted at 08.02.10 13:30:06 by FireTheLooser Reply

  • @Farlington (Comment 12) :

    You are correct.

    @robdylan (Comment 14) :

    If anything, a huge fine but they cannot deduct points. No-where in the SANZAR particpation agreement does it make provision for this.

    All SANZAR as a body require is that SA teams field legally registered SA player – whether they play for the Sharks or Lions is irrispective.

  • Comment 16, posted at 08.02.10 13:41:34 by Morné Reply
  • Anycase.

    Simple call to be made by SARU here.

    Tell the Sharks they are not allowed to play the guys until the issue is resolved – then run the risk of Sharks actually claiming damages if they win the case.

    Tell Sharks play them, but if they lose they will bear any financial brunt that comes with it, i.e. legal fees and penalties incurred to Lions rugby.

  • Comment 17, posted at 08.02.10 13:52:54 by Morné Reply
  • Btw, my money says the Sharks rub their gatte with Alberts’ contract and fields him again this weekend.

  • Comment 18, posted at 08.02.10 13:56:01 by FireTheLooser Reply

  • no ❗

    ok. let me read the arti now 😆

  • Comment 19, posted at 08.02.10 13:56:21 by rekinek Reply
    Competition WinnerCompetition Winner Author
  • @Original Pierre (Comment 4) : strauss is (or was) a captain of Sharks XV.

    I wouldn’t mind them getting Vodacom Cup (at least there would be sth in the cabinet 😈

  • Comment 20, posted at 08.02.10 14:02:57 by rekinek Reply
    Competition WinnerCompetition Winner Author
  • rob, s14 is run by sanzar so i am not sure saru would have authority to dock points, especially if the sharks include alberts in their official squad. remember in past super competitions sa teams have loaned players to other unions eventhough they held the contract. i think the sharks could be in for a hefty fine though from saru for embarassing them though. sharks can only get penalised if alberts had played a game for the lions this season, which isn’t the case.

  • Comment 21, posted at 08.02.10 14:38:50 by try time Reply

  • @robdylan (Comment 3) : i’m sure saru doesn’t have the authority to deduct points. they can fine the sharks, but they don’t run sanzar. we have seen how many times saru have lost against the other two countries in the coalition.

  • Comment 22, posted at 08.02.10 14:41:54 by try time Reply

  • @Morné (Comment 16) : oh i see you beat me to it. i agree with you. sanzar don’t care about contracts, only that players can’t play for more than one union per season.

  • Comment 23, posted at 08.02.10 14:45:11 by try time Reply

  • so it could be in the sharks best interests to play alberts, so even if they lose the case, the lions cannot play him this season.

  • Comment 24, posted at 08.02.10 14:46:17 by try time Reply

  • @Farlington (Comment 12) : aaaah you beat all of us farlington. i am with you here. teaches me for reading from the bottom up.

  • Comment 25, posted at 08.02.10 14:47:24 by try time Reply

  • @robdylan (Comment 14) : no, but they wouldn’t want to be dragged into a petty dispute. they’ll far rather watch while sa rugby shoots itself in the foot again. it helps their teams out the more sa teams bicker amongst themselves.

  • Comment 26, posted at 08.02.10 14:49:40 by try time Reply

  • @try time (Comment 26) : you aiming for some sort of record here? 🙂

  • Comment 27, posted at 08.02.10 14:54:35 by robdylan Reply
    Competition Winner Administrator
  • @robdylan (Comment 27) : i made my life a misery by not reading the comments first. my point had already been covered. i had to give credit where it was due. 😆

  • Comment 28, posted at 08.02.10 14:56:37 by try time Reply

  • Hopefull they will resolve this issue this week. What date dot they meet with SARU

  • Comment 29, posted at 08.02.10 15:39:10 by monster Reply

  • @monster (Comment 29) : Hopefully very soon. But don’t be surprised if this is sorted out without any media coverage. SARU would like to resolve this quickly and quietly IMHO. (Well atleast I hope so)

  • Comment 30, posted at 08.02.10 15:47:24 by Farlington Reply

  • @monster (Comment 29) : when saru gets its head out its…oh never mind. 😆 😆

  • Comment 31, posted at 08.02.10 15:54:04 by try time Reply

  • @try time (Comment 31) : Yeah, and that’s likely to happen sometime soon 🙄

  • Comment 32, posted at 08.02.10 16:12:29 by Greg Reply

  • @Greg (Comment 32) : bwaaaaa 🙂

  • Comment 33, posted at 08.02.10 16:18:12 by robdylan Reply
    Competition Winner Administrator
  • Latest stormers news, a behind the scenes look at the design process for this season’s jersey!

  • Comment 34, posted at 08.02.10 16:21:38 by Greg Reply

  • saru presidential elections are around the corner, nothing will be done that has potential to turn an ally into a foe…saru appointed judge lex mpati, who is at the court of appeals in bloemfontein, so the judge is not readily available to deal with crazy saru matters

  • Comment 35, posted at 08.02.10 16:32:38 by Megatron Reply

  • @Greg (Comment 34) : scroll to date 6 Feb!

  • Comment 36, posted at 08.02.10 16:37:17 by Greg Reply

  • @Greg (Comment 36) : the jersey the stormers wore for the warm-ups was their “practice jersey” they wore the same one for the warm up games last year and the funny blue is supposed to be signatures

  • Comment 37, posted at 08.02.10 17:34:29 by war1 Reply
  • and i agree with rob, dont play alberts until this issue is sorted out, make oom bj and oom strools pay a fine, regardless

  • Comment 38, posted at 08.02.10 17:36:11 by war1 Reply
  • @war1 (Comment 38) : why go to all the trouble of poaching players & the grandstanding that came along with it only not to play the players?

  • Comment 39, posted at 08.02.10 18:27:18 by Megatron Reply

  • Some news at last:

    The South African Rugby Union on Monday confirmed that a hearing into a complaint against the KwaZulu-Natal Rugby Union and players Louis Ludik and Willem Alberts would be heard on Wednesday.

    The complaint was brought by the Golden Lions Rugby Union who alleged that the Sharks – the commercial entity of the KwaZulu-Natal Rugby Union – had not secured the necessary clearance certificates required before contracting the players.

    The Lions also charged that the two players remained under contract to them.

    The Lions allege that this constituted a breach of SARU regulations relating to the Movement of Players and asked SARU to investigate the complaint.

    Koos Basson – the former chairman of the SARU disciplinary committee -has been appointed as Judicial Officer and will hear the complaint at SARU’s offices in Newlands on Wednesday, February 10 at 10am.

    from SAPA

  • Comment 40, posted at 08.02.10 18:44:41 by robdylan Reply
    Competition Winner Administrator
  • more good news is ruan, deon carstens, rory and jacques botes are all fit and should all be in the starting 22. apparently ruan won’t start though.

  • Comment 41, posted at 09.02.10 07:25:27 by try time Reply

  • @try time (Comment 41) : Zang (Excellent)

  • Comment 42, posted at 09.02.10 08:29:12 by FireTheLooser Reply

  • I don’t see what there is to risk. If we lose the case we stand to lose both Alberts and Ludik, whether they’ve played for us or not. The worst that can happen is probably a fine and/or compensating the GLRU financially. I reckon we should play Alberts and to hell with the rest.

  • Comment 43, posted at 09.02.10 09:32:53 by rhineshark Reply
    Friend of Sharksworld
    Spirit of Rugby
  • The fine to SARU could be up to a million rand and GLRU could sue for compensation for losses ext.

    My personal feeling (as a lions supporter) is that the contracts of Alberts and Ludick are not valid(same as JF) and the Sharks will aquire there services. The Sharks most probily will pay a fine to Saru for playing Alberts after SARU said he may not play. Worst case scenario is that SARU may tell the sharks that this case must go to arbitration and Willem and louis must sit and wait for a month and a half to solve this problem.

    Penalty to SARU R 1 milj
    Transfer fees LL R 2 milj
    Transfer fees WA R 2 milj
    Legal fees R .3 milj

  • Comment 44, posted at 09.02.10 13:30:22 by monster Reply

  • Here`s a thought! Lets be optimistic, say nothing happens and both LL and WA are cleared to play for us without penalties involved.

    Why stop there then?

    Lets get King Carlos and Jannes Labuschagne here as well, just act quickly before they can do anything else to their contracts and lets face it, we need a quality flyhalf right now and will need some depth at lock soon 😀

  • Comment 45, posted at 09.02.10 13:36:04 by Original Pierre Reply
    Original Pierre
  • @rhineshark (Comment 43) : It’s comments like that that really make my blood boil.

    The attitude ‘We are the mighty sharks, we will do whatever we want, and f*ck everyone else’

    Whatever the merits of the case, on both sides, whether the contracts are ultimately deemed to be valid or not, there is a procedure that needs to be followed. This procedure is detailed in the SARU document entitled Player Movements. It is very specific. Amongst other things the Transferee (the team to which players are moving) may NOT approach any players contracted to another province unless within 120 days of expiry of the contract, without the consent of the Transferor(province from which he is leaving). The player may not participate in ANY game, and it specifically mentions friendly games, until a clearance certificate has been issued. The sharks wanted these two. They should have entered into negotiations with the transferor, paid a transfer fee, and obtained a clearance certificate. If they felt that the contract was invalid, they should have approached an arbitrator. The question is : Why didn’t they?

  • Comment 46, posted at 09.02.10 14:31:38 by Greg Reply

  • @monster (Comment 44) : need help paying Dick’s bar bill already?

  • Comment 47, posted at 09.02.10 14:51:39 by robdylan Reply
    Competition Winner Administrator
  • @Greg (Comment 46) : the way you feel about 43 is about the same way I feel about 44…

    arrogant in the extreme.

  • Comment 48, posted at 09.02.10 15:05:24 by robdylan Reply
    Competition Winner Administrator
  • @Greg (Comment 46) :

    It seems to me that the Lions MUST be the worst employer (read have the worst working environment) there is in the big five unions in SA.

    Either their contracts are kak or their working conditions (read people management) are even worse.

    Why is it ONLY the Lions that are involved with players running away or wanting to run away either to other provinces or just plain not turning up for practice.

    Let me tell you the Lions can thank their lucky stars that there is some sort of regulations because if their weren’t they would probably have no bloody employees (read players)

    Let’s face it their are a kak employer. even the Cheetahs who have a MUCH worse Super rugby record keep their players much easier than the kak Lions do.

  • Comment 49, posted at 09.02.10 15:14:18 by KSA Shark © Reply

    KSA Shark ©
  • @monster (Comment 44) :

    The fine to SARU could be up to a million rand and GLRU could sue for compensation for losses ext.

    What losses, they don’t win anything anyway, with OR without Alberts and Ludik.

  • Comment 50, posted at 09.02.10 15:15:41 by KSA Shark © Reply

    KSA Shark ©
  • @robdylan (Commen 😆 😆

  • Comment 51, posted at 09.02.10 15:44:58 by monster Reply

  • @robdylan (Comment 48) : Agreed, and arrogant supporters, irrespective have the team they support, give true supporters a bad name. I was composing my comment offline, and in the meantime comment 44 was posted!

  • Comment 52, posted at 09.02.10 15:54:23 by Greg Reply

  • @KSA Shark © (Comment 49) : That may well have been the case, there certainly has been a lot of unhappiness within the camp. I am not convinced that Manie is the best choice for CEO, and prof Jannie dragged the union into the gutter. However, I do believe that with Kevin at the helm, that things will turn around, and that the Lions will once again become a union for which players want to play. As for Manie, he will still be there, but despite what I think of him and his management style, I would still rather have him than Rudolf 😀

  • Comment 53, posted at 09.02.10 15:59:20 by Greg Reply

  • @Greg (Comment 52) : fair enough, fair enough.

    Look, we are a little arrogant at times. But we’re not the only ones.

  • Comment 54, posted at 09.02.10 15:59:20 by robdylan Reply
    Competition Winner Administrator
  • @Greg (Comment 53) : Manie and Dolf – two peas in a pod, of you ask me

  • Comment 55, posted at 09.02.10 16:03:15 by robdylan Reply
    Competition Winner Administrator
  • @robdylan (Comment 55) : Yep, now wouldn’t it be nice if they would both just peas off 💡

  • Comment 56, posted at 09.02.10 16:06:03 by Greg Reply

  • @Greg (Comment 56) : with you on that.

  • Comment 57, posted at 09.02.10 16:13:55 by robdylan Reply
    Competition Winner Administrator

Add Comment

You must be logged in to post a comment.