National teams colours

[Hernan14 Profile]

In every sport some countries use colours that are not in their flags, or colours that are in the flag but just as small details. I always wonder the reasons...

Can you help me competing the list and trying to explain the reasons?

Rugby and other sports:


South Africa - Green and Gold (it is the flag, yes, but before the 90s it wasn't) - ?

Actually the dark green was on the old South Africa Republic flag of Transvaal used up to 1902 (which was very tiny but on the 1928 - 1994 flag also.). Perhaps the green symbolises the old heartland of South Africa without the Dutch flag tricolour.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_African_Republic

The 1928 - 1994 flag


You would expect orange really to have been on the jersey but perhaps it was too familiar already for the Netherlands, maybe the gold simply represents the nations wealth in gold mines.

in fact I found this which does seem to confirm the Traansvaal influence.

In March 1903, and in view of Britain's first visit after the Anglo-Boer War, Gerald Orpen on behalf of the Transvaal Rugby Union in the SARVR suggested that South Africa in the next tests in uniform playing performance. His proposal was "olive green jerseys, with gold collar, and on the left breast embroidered in natural color, a springbok, navy blue knickers, dark blue stockings, with green and gold belt on the tops."

The Springboks colours came from his first test match victory against the British Lions in 1896...they play in white or in clubs capitan's colours...his captain was Barry "Fairy" Heatlie, he play in Old Diocesans -Green jersey- & later also in Argentina NT...

Here a article: http://www.angelfire.com/biz4/bigbrian/heatlie.html

[Rowan Profile]

South Africa actually fielded provincial teams in their first "test" series with Britain in 1891 - Eastern Province in Port Liz, Griquas in Kimberley & WP in Cape Town, I believe. Though the matches were billed as SA v Britain "internationals" and the results officially recognized. Was that not also the case in 1896? I thought the 1903 series was the first in which they actually began to bring together a legitimate national squad. Incidentally, they lost the 91 series 0-3 and the 96 series 1-2 (winning the third), but turned the tables in 1903, again winning the final test after the first two were drawn. That set them up for an unbeaten run in test series' that would last until the 1956 tour of NZ.

[Hernan14 Profile]

South Africa actually fielded provincial teams in their first "test" series with Britain in 1891 - Eastern Province in Port Liz, Griquas in Kimberley & WP in Cape Town, I believe. Though the matches were billed as SA v Britain "internationals" and the results officially recognized. Was that not also the case in 1896? I thought the 1903 series was the first in which they actually began to bring together a legitimate national squad. Incidentally, they lost the 91 series 0-3 and the 96 series 1-2 (winning the third), but turned the tables in 1903, again winning the final test after the first two were drawn. That set them up for an unbeaten run in test series' that would last until the 1956 tour of NZ.

Yes, that's partially true.

SA use 27 players in 1891: 12 WP, 10 GRIQUAS, 3 TRANSVAAL, 1 EP & 1 NATAL

1st match Port Elizabeth: 7 WP, 3 GRIQUAS, 3 TRANSVAAL, 1 EP & 1 NATAL.............................provincial local team players: 6,66%
2nd match Kimberley: 9 GRIQUAS (7 new players), 4 WP (1 new player) & 2 TRANSVAAL...........provincial local team players: 60%
3er match Cape Town: 12 WP (4 new players), 2 TRANSVAAL & 1 GRIQUAS.............................provincial local team players: 80%

So, with exception of the first match, clearly the local provincial team are a important part of the team.



In the 4 matches of 1896, SA use 38 players: 12 WP, 11 GRIQUAS, 10 TRANSVAAL, 4 EP & 1 BORDER

1st match Port Elizabeth: 6 WP, 4 EP, 3 TRANSVAAL & 2 GRIQUAS.................................................................provincial local team players: 26,66%
2nd match Johannesburg: 9 TRANSVAAL (7 new players), 4 GRIQUAS (4 new players), 1 WP & 1 BORDER.. .........provincial local team players: 60%
3rd match Kimberley: 7 GRIQUAS (5 new players), 4 WP (1 new player), 3 TRANSVAAL & 1 BORDER..................provincial local team players: 46,66%
4th match Cape Town: 10 WP (5 new players), 3 TRANSVAAL, 1 GRIQUAS & 1 BORDER....................................provincial local team players: 66,66%



In the 3 matches of 1903, SA use 31 players: 14 WP, 8 TRANSVAAL, 8 GRIQUAS & 1 BORDER

1st match Johannesburg: 7 TRANSVAAL , 5 WP & 3 GRIQUAS..................................................................provincial local team players: 46,66%
2nd match Kimberley: 8 GRIQUAS (5 new players), 4 WP (2 new players), 2 TRANSVAAL & 1 BORDER...........provincial local team players: 53,33%
3rd match Cape Town: 12 WP (7 new players) & 3 TRANSVAAL (1 new players)..........................................provincial local team players: 80%



So, if we saw % of provincial local team players of the all the series by match:

1891- 3er match Cape Town: provincial local team players: 80%
1903- 3rd match Cape Town: provincial local team players: 80%
1896- 4th match Cape Town: provincial local team players: 66,66%
1891- 2nd match Kimberley: provincial local team players: 60%
1896- 2nd match Johannesburg: provincial local team players: 60%
1903- 2nd match Kimberley: provincial local team players: 53,33%
1896- 3rd match Kimberley: provincial local team players: 46,66%
1903- 1st match Johannesburg: provincial local team players: 46,66%
1896- 1st match Port Elizabeth: provincial local team players: 26,66%
1891 - 1st match Port Elizabeth: provincial local team players: 6,66%

Say that the 1903 series was the first in which they actually began to bring together a legitimate national squad don't is entirely true...all this was a excuse to put some stats in the forum

[Rowan Profile]

Thanks. Very informative. So it appears geography remained a priority over actual form even at the beginning of the 20th century. Obviously this was due to the vast distances that needed to be coveraged in an age when most people were still getting around by horse and carriage . . .