Masters Waterpolo South Africa

The man who kicked the hornet’s nest!

Our own Brett Redelinghuys sits down with Alex Hogg to unpack the state of play at Swimming South Africa, and the journey that turned one man’s challenge to the status quo into a growing movement for cleaner governance, greater accountability and a meaningful voice for athletes.

What began as a fight for water polo has exposed much bigger questions about how South African aquatics is governed, who holds the power, and who the system is ultimately meant to serve.

He fought Swimming SA for years. Finally the world body caught up Brett Redelinghuys was banned for ten years by Swimming South Afric...

A HUGE THANK YOU TO THE SWIM SA “NATIONAL TEAM”

After the hundreds of hours of preparation that must surely have gone into representing South Africa at a World Aquatics event, the multitude of training camps, the tactical preparation, conditioning, combinations, opposition analysis and all the rest, we should perhaps simply stand back and applaud?

Day 4 result, the USA beat Swim SA Ladies 18–1, winning the three sets 7–0, 6–0 and 5–1.

This follows defeats of 23–0 to Russia, 20–3 to Australia and 17–4 to Croatia. After four matches, South Africa has conceded 78 goals and scored only 8.

And yet, apparently, asking questions about that is somehow unfair to the athletes? It isn’t.

Nobody is suggesting that the players deserve abuse, but national representation comes with responsibility. When one accepts selection for South Africa, you are saying that you are ready to represent our country against the best in the world. That naturally invites scrutiny of both the selection process and the preparation behind it.

The real issue is not simply that these athletes lost. It is that Swim SA continues to present teams under the banner of South African Water Polo despite widespread rejection of itself, its selection processes, and despite serious questions about whether the strongest players are being chosen and properly prepared, they persist with the farce.

The tracksuit, the cap and the flight do not in themselves make a credible national programme.

The scoreboard tests that claim.

So yes, respect the athletes. But do not confuse respect with silence. National representation is not a participation medal, and when you step forward to represent the country, accountability comes with the cap.

BE KINDER TO THE ATHLETES.

Follow

We have heard that response to our report on South Africa’s results in Dubrovnik. But please read the report again.

There is no personal attack on any athlete. There is no criticism of an individual’s effort, character or commitment. The report sets out the facts: South Africa lost 0–23 to Russia, 3–20 to Australia and 4–17 to Croatia. Those are the results. They are part of the public record.

So yes, let us be kind. But let us not confuse kindness with the absence of accountability. The real issue is not whether these athletes deserve abuse, they do not.

The real issue is that they accepted nomination through a Swim SA process that much of the South African water polo community has rejected. They were not selected from the best available players. They travelled under a structure that lacks the confidence of the broader water polo community, and without the level of preparation normally expected of national representation.

That is not entirely their fault. But accepting the opportunity was still a choice. Their choice!

For months, players, coaches, clubs and administrators have been asked to endure short-term pain in pursuit of something far bigger: credible selection, proper administration and recognition of SAWP’s right to govern its own sport.

That collective stand only means something if people are prepared to stand together.

If the line is crossed the moment a tracksuit, a cap, an overseas trip or a “South Africa” credential is offered, then what exactly is the rest of the water polo community sacrificing for?

That is the debate we should be having. Not whether athletes should be abused.
They should not.

But whether representing Swim SA, in direct contradiction to the position adopted by the broader water polo community, should carry consequences within SAWP structures.

Of course, any consequences must be guided by rules, due process and proportionality. We cannot criticise Swim SA for arbitrary conduct and then behave in the same way ourselves.

At the same time, participation cannot simply be consequence-free if the community has taken a collective stand against illegitimate processes.

Otherwise the boycott means nothing. That is why the message in this image matters:

With kindness comes accountability.

Respect the athlete. But hold the system, and the decisions that sustain it, accountable.

Swim SA - not the best 4x4 by far!

So far, South Africa’s women have had a very difficult tournament in Dubrovnik (no surprise given the diabolical “organisation” again). After three days of the inaugural World Aquatics 4×4 Open Championships, they are 0 wins from 3 matches, 0 competition points, and bottom of the eight-team women’s standings.

Their results have been:

* Swim SA 0–3 Russia — sets 0–7, 0–8, 0–8. SA failed to score, with Russia winning the overall goal count 23–0.
* Swim SA 0–3 Australia — sets 0–8, 1–5, 2–7 or overall goal count 3 - 20.
* Swim SA 0–3 Croatia — sets 1–4, 3–8, 0–5 or overall goal count 4 -17.

That means across those three matches SA have lost all nine sets, with an aggregate set-score goal tally of roughly 7 scored and 55 conceded.

Their next match is against the USA, who are unbeaten and currently joint top with Russia, so unfortunately it gets no easier.

There is also an important broader point: South Africa entered only a women’s team. The SA men withdrew before the competition, despite initially being announced.

Given all the current debate around Swim SA and high-performance structures, the results are pretty stark.

(fok thats a joke)