Publications
Partners
Rob Houwing
Given his known ability at and ongoing relish for cricket, the thought has struck me that there’s a bit of Eddie Barlow-type daredevil in Stormers captain Schalk Burger.
And if that is the case, I am not at all certain it should be discouraged.
Burger is too young to remember the buccaneering heyday of “Bunter”, the late, great South African Test all-rounder and ever-quirky, enterprising first-class captain - Barlow retired from the game in 1983, the very year the Springbok loose forward dynamo was born, and died after a long battle with illness in 2005, aged 65.
But in a top-flight South African sporting landscape where our leading teams at both cricket and rugby are often perceived as stodgy by the outside world - sometimes unfairly, often with good reason - Barlow was seldom anything but a breath of fresh air in his on-the-park philosophy.
In a nutshell, he believed in living by the sword, and if you were going to die by it, then at least you ought to have done so boldly and, by extension, honourably.
He was not one for caution, for the safe haven, for the possible copout.
On Saturday, there was arguably a little flash of Edgar John Barlow about Burger’s decision-making, in the key closing stages of the Super Rugby derby against the Bulls at Newlands - and it so nearly led to the unlikeliest, most famous of pluck-it-from-the-fire victories.
Trailing 19-9 and with some three minutes left on the clock, the Stormers were awarded an extremely goalable penalty that would have almost certainly banked a hugely valuable losing bonus point at 19-12 ... so most hometown jaws, I fancy, would have dropped in anxiety and amazement as he spurned the opportunity to signal a place-kick and opted for the “tap and go”.
The Stormers were awarded another as the play advanced, yet once again he empowered his charges to take it quickly and, as it turned out, Andries Bekker crashed over for a converted try as the stadium breathed again and celebrated at least some tangible return from the surrendered fixture.
Yet the question remained on a multitude of lips: what if the try had not been dotted down?
The consequences could have been particularly severe, with the likelihood that the Stormers might have faced the added pressure of having to register a bonus-point victory over the Cheetahs in Bloemfontein this Saturday to clinch second place on the overall table and a home semi-final, rather than simply win the game (as is the likeliest requirement right now).
I’m pretty sure Burger would have copped an earful for being “reckless”, “impulsive” or just plain “stupid”. And yes, I suppose there is a case for saying all those adjectives might have been applicable.
But the fact also remains that through the Bekker effort, which took the gap to only three points, the Stormers also ensured that not even a further penalty or dropped goal - in a notably cat-and-mouse, try-shy encounter - from the ever-dangerous boot of Morne Steyn could restore the margin to beyond seven points and once again deny the hosts a bonus point.
And have those so quick to castigate Burger over his option-taking in the circumstances conveniently forgotten, too, just how desperately close the Stormers eventually came to pilfering an astonishing win, however dubiously deserved it would have been?
Had Bryan Habana not been hauled in a few metres from the Bulls’ tryline by commendably alert Bjorn Basson after the hooter, wouldn’t there have been a quite opposite case for branding Schalk a genius?
It would have put the Stormers only one point behind log-leaders the Reds and four - rather than one - clear of the third-placed Crusaders, which might well have meant that even defeat to the Cheetahs could have kept the Capetonians safe in second spot after the completion of the ordinary season.
I recorded every minute of the Stormers’ post-match press conference, where Burger was inevitably asked about his “pretty bold” (I am pretty sure the reporter’s inference was far more “madcap”!) decision to go for the try.
And the fiery skipper was almost indignant in sticking to his guns over what had occurred: “No, it’s pretty simple. We weren’t going for a bonus point ... we were going to (try to) win the match.
“We knew we had to score twice, and we ended up scoring once, and on the 80th minute we very nearly did score again. I was never considering just settling for the bonus point; I mean, we entered the game to win the match. Simple as that.”
Boom, case closed!
Somehow Burger’s sentiments, however debatable they may be, only confirmed for me the competitive hunger that characterises the man, both as player for country and franchise, and captain whenever that responsibility comes about.
Yes, I saw some dashing, Barlow-style bravery in what he did.
If you’re busy assembling a mob for any Burger crucifixion over what he did on Saturday night, I guess you’d better count me out.
After all, it wasn’t even costly in the final analysis ...
Rob is Sport24's chief writer
Disclaimer: Sport24 encourages freedom of speech and the expression of diverse views. The views of columnists published on Sport24 are therefore their own and do not necessarily represent the views of Sport24.
Given his known ability at and ongoing relish for cricket, the thought has struck me that there’s a bit of Eddie Barlow-type daredevil in Stormers captain Schalk Burger.
And if that is the case, I am not at all certain it should be discouraged.
Burger is too young to remember the buccaneering heyday of “Bunter”, the late, great South African Test all-rounder and ever-quirky, enterprising first-class captain - Barlow retired from the game in 1983, the very year the Springbok loose forward dynamo was born, and died after a long battle with illness in 2005, aged 65.
But in a top-flight South African sporting landscape where our leading teams at both cricket and rugby are often perceived as stodgy by the outside world - sometimes unfairly, often with good reason - Barlow was seldom anything but a breath of fresh air in his on-the-park philosophy.
In a nutshell, he believed in living by the sword, and if you were going to die by it, then at least you ought to have done so boldly and, by extension, honourably.
He was not one for caution, for the safe haven, for the possible copout.
On Saturday, there was arguably a little flash of Edgar John Barlow about Burger’s decision-making, in the key closing stages of the Super Rugby derby against the Bulls at Newlands - and it so nearly led to the unlikeliest, most famous of pluck-it-from-the-fire victories.
Trailing 19-9 and with some three minutes left on the clock, the Stormers were awarded an extremely goalable penalty that would have almost certainly banked a hugely valuable losing bonus point at 19-12 ... so most hometown jaws, I fancy, would have dropped in anxiety and amazement as he spurned the opportunity to signal a place-kick and opted for the “tap and go”.
The Stormers were awarded another as the play advanced, yet once again he empowered his charges to take it quickly and, as it turned out, Andries Bekker crashed over for a converted try as the stadium breathed again and celebrated at least some tangible return from the surrendered fixture.
Yet the question remained on a multitude of lips: what if the try had not been dotted down?
The consequences could have been particularly severe, with the likelihood that the Stormers might have faced the added pressure of having to register a bonus-point victory over the Cheetahs in Bloemfontein this Saturday to clinch second place on the overall table and a home semi-final, rather than simply win the game (as is the likeliest requirement right now).
I’m pretty sure Burger would have copped an earful for being “reckless”, “impulsive” or just plain “stupid”. And yes, I suppose there is a case for saying all those adjectives might have been applicable.
But the fact also remains that through the Bekker effort, which took the gap to only three points, the Stormers also ensured that not even a further penalty or dropped goal - in a notably cat-and-mouse, try-shy encounter - from the ever-dangerous boot of Morne Steyn could restore the margin to beyond seven points and once again deny the hosts a bonus point.
And have those so quick to castigate Burger over his option-taking in the circumstances conveniently forgotten, too, just how desperately close the Stormers eventually came to pilfering an astonishing win, however dubiously deserved it would have been?
Had Bryan Habana not been hauled in a few metres from the Bulls’ tryline by commendably alert Bjorn Basson after the hooter, wouldn’t there have been a quite opposite case for branding Schalk a genius?
It would have put the Stormers only one point behind log-leaders the Reds and four - rather than one - clear of the third-placed Crusaders, which might well have meant that even defeat to the Cheetahs could have kept the Capetonians safe in second spot after the completion of the ordinary season.
I recorded every minute of the Stormers’ post-match press conference, where Burger was inevitably asked about his “pretty bold” (I am pretty sure the reporter’s inference was far more “madcap”!) decision to go for the try.
And the fiery skipper was almost indignant in sticking to his guns over what had occurred: “No, it’s pretty simple. We weren’t going for a bonus point ... we were going to (try to) win the match.
“We knew we had to score twice, and we ended up scoring once, and on the 80th minute we very nearly did score again. I was never considering just settling for the bonus point; I mean, we entered the game to win the match. Simple as that.”
Boom, case closed!
Somehow Burger’s sentiments, however debatable they may be, only confirmed for me the competitive hunger that characterises the man, both as player for country and franchise, and captain whenever that responsibility comes about.
Yes, I saw some dashing, Barlow-style bravery in what he did.
If you’re busy assembling a mob for any Burger crucifixion over what he did on Saturday night, I guess you’d better count me out.
After all, it wasn’t even costly in the final analysis ...
Rob is Sport24's chief writer
Disclaimer: Sport24 encourages freedom of speech and the expression of diverse views. The views of columnists published on Sport24 are therefore their own and do not necessarily represent the views of Sport24.
