A few home truths about the Bokke

When the Springboks left these shores they were considered favourites for the Tri-Nations title and now return in rags. South Africa has always been a fickle place for sports lovers and this was proven by the rumours, conjecture and very dismal view the public has of the Green and Gold since they stepped back into Mzansi.

It’s very easy to slate a losing team and on the other end of the scale clutch at history as a means of trying to describe what happened. Jake White’s terrible five loss run of 2006 has been under discussion across the interweb and SuperSport this week (no offence to the SABC, but SuperSport’s sheer volume of courage by itself eclipses whatever the national broadcaster has on offer. If Saru wants rugby to go truly national, this is an issue they should attend to). Therefore the logic goes that if Uncle Jake could win the World Cup in 2007 after 2006, Peter de Villiers can do the same in 2011.

The comparison isn’t a reflection of the current situation in the least. In 2006, those five losses helped shed the deadweight in White’s backline. His forward pack was already established and the likes of Jacques Cronje and Pedrie Wannenburg were never starting players anyway, especially if White had his first choice XV available. The majority of the side were at the peak of their powers, and that five-game loss excluded, it was a team White had built from scratch.

De Villiers on the other hand has added another layer upon White’s foundations. Francois Louw, Juan de Jongh, Andries Bekker, Beast Mtawarira, Morne Steyn, Heinrich Brussouw, Flip van der Merwe and Gio Aplon have all made their debuts under De Villiers. Many of the players are direct replacements for what is left of White’s squad. Bekker is destined to follow Matfield, De Jongh looks like a fine choice at No 12 if given time to develop. Flip van der Merwe is surely earmarked for the role that is covered by Danie Rossouw and Bakkies Botha.

Another big difference between White and De Villiers is the latter’s faith in choosing more traditionally orientated ball winners on the ground. In the White era, larger players were favoured so the likes of Louw and Brussouw would’ve barely gotten a look in. A string of poor performances doesn’t make the Boks a bad team. What it does do is raise questions that De Villiers and assistants Gary Gold and Dick Muir need to answer.

One question is how on earth they could keep persisting with Olivier, who runs straight, tackles and that’s pretty much it. He, along with Pierre Spies, thrived off the front football generated by the Bulls’ forward pack during the Super 14. But at international level the margins, all of them, are far tighter. Spies’s continuing anonymity is equally frustrating, since a man of speed and size should be making more tackles then he currently is when he doesn’t have the ball in hand.

The question of what to do with John Smit is far more complicated. The New Zealand and Australian pace have labelled Smit off the pace. That isn’t surprising considering he has played in every Test this year (including the ridiculous adventure to Cardiff), leaving him one short of joining what at the moment is the Percy Montgomery Club. Smit needs to be managed far better and a premium placed on his health. That is because without him South Africa won’t be able to win the World Cup. Many in Pretoria might disagree, suggesting that it was Matfield who led the Springboks to their first victory in Dunedin last year. Yes, that is true, but this Springbok side since 2004 has always been John Smit’s side. To change skippers now would be far too disruptive with the World Cup just over a year away. The course is set in this case, and whether fans like it or not, it needs to be followed through with. What White’s run did do was set a precedent where De Villiers doesn’t have to worry about his position. If White could survive that tour (the government always had it in for him in many ways) then De Villiers’s place is guaranteed.

South Africa will play better at home, and should be seen as favourites against the All Blacks (especially since it is a once-off encounter) and Australia, who they will beat twice. However, if the Springboks show the same lack of direction and application as they did in Australasia, the situation will be different. South Africa didn’t look sure of what style they wanted to play, with many suggesting that their kick and chase game is now obsolete. Perhaps, but we haven’t seen it done properly with 15 men on the field as of yet so how do we really know? The yellow card in itself is something that needs to be addressed, but this has been discussed in previous posts on this forum.

Either way, whatever De Villiers and his charges decide to do, they need to stick to it otherwise you will get a spaghetti everything as we saw in Brisbane. What Brisbane did prove however was that Ruan Pienaar should continue at scrumhalf and Ryan Kankowski moved to eightman to accommodate either Juan Smith or Francois Louw, meaning Pierre Spies should be dropped. Smith is in good shape, and depending on whether he is ready to resume playing for the Boks, would be an asset to the team. Louw brings the mongrel on the floor, very important as has been proved by David Pocock’s manhandling of the rucks in Brisbane. Spies needs to realise that he isn’t untouchable, and if he wants that Bok jersey back, being on cruise control when on defence isn’t going to help his cause.

It will be very interesting to see what sort of side De Villiers picks for the home-leg. All is not lost, and there is still time to work out the kinks before next year. The Grand Slam tour should be treated, ironically, the same way White treated it: send an expeditionary force instead of the home fleet.

Until then, Soccer City (National Stadium? What a kak name) looms large. It’s going to be interesting.

Prediction for this weekend’s clash? Australia 20 — New Zealand 32.