Springboks ride the wave of underestimation

In the fourth season of the American political drama The West Wing, Martin Sheen’s President Bartlet is preparing for the presidential debate against James Brolin’s Governor Ritchie. Apart from Brolin’s southern accent and immaculate white hair, an aspect of the governor’s strategy that Bartlet’s staff is concerned about is that of lowering expectations. The governor has up to the point of the debate run a campaign of being the common denominator, speaking plainly and watering down complicated issues into 10-word answers as a counterweight to Sheen’s Bartlet, an economist of Mensa-like intelligence. Bartlet’s re-election campaign entrenched the divide between the governor and the president, who suggested that Ritchie was stupid during a TV interview.

The problem, as noted by the president’s staff, is they have lowered the public’s expectations of Ritchie so much that if he outperforms the president at the debate it’s game over as far as the election is concerned.

This situation reminds me of the Springboks as they prepare to kick off their campaign at RWC XII in New Zealand. As the tournament has approached, non-South African rugby media and some within our borders have downplayed the Springboks’ chances. They say South Africa won’t defend their title because they haven’t evolved beyond the title-winning blueprint of four years ago, while the likes of New Zealand and Australia have kept pace with changes in the game at the water’s edge. I agree with that assessment, be it deductive reasoning if not the will of the heart.

Warren Gatland, the coach of Wales who face the Springboks in their decisive opening game, has continued this trend and done a Bartlet by saying “they (South Africa) don’t play rugby”. He did clarify his statement saying that while South Africa performs certain aspects of the game to a high level, such as the set piece and physicality on defence, if you dominate the collision you on the right track to defeating the Springboks.

South Africa are entering the tournament, as seen by their opponents, as being too slow and too rigid in their approach for the defending champions to be a threat come the business end of the competition. All the talk has centred around an Australia versus New Zealand final (if there are no upsets) with the Springboks at times seen as an afterthought if they face the All Blacks as they probably will do in the semi-finals come October. The expectations of the Springboks are lower than they were in 2007, to a point where Gatland feels he can barb the South Africans since he feels Wales are definitely in with a chance of topping Group D.

Peter de Villiers has his critics, but what he has done is wage an unintentional or intentional propaganda war of stealth and “underwhelment” — in part via his characterisation in the international rugby press — expectations are at a level where the Springboks are recognised but not feared as immediate World Cup challengers. Sure, all the coaches such as Gatland will tell the media the Springboks are a good side but not before mentioning that they have their weaknesses and they can be beaten. The problem for Wales is that even though they may feel the Springboks are there for the taking, the only European teams that can match them for physicality are England and France. As such, the Dragons are going to be in for a rude surprise.

When Bartlet and Ritchie finally met in the debate, Bartlet let loose and systematically went about dismantling Ritchie’s syntax and choice of words. It proved to be such a rollicking that the president secured his re-election in a landslide victory. If the Springboks do win the World Cup, it won’t be by a landslide but they would’ve surprised their opponents by first meeting their expectations and then surpassing them.

We won’t know how good they are till that first game against Wales has concluded, but as expectations go, shooting for the moon when most think you are looking across the street isn’t the worst way to go about it.