Peter de Villiers is his own worst enemy

Peter de Villiers just can’t stay away from the news. After four years as Springbok coach, culminating in the Springboks’ defeat by the Wallabies in Wellington, the man from Paarl left the international coaching scene. After a few months on the sidelines, De Villiers emerged from his exile to again lambaste the performance of referee Bryce Lawrence in that quarterfinal.

De Villiers described Lawrence as “cocky, arrogant and sly”. He went even further, saying “Bryce Lawrence makes, on average, six mistakes a game, which is a good average for a referee. In that game he made 48 mistakes, six of which were match-costing.”

He also refused to accept Lawrence’s apology about his performance, saying “This means nothing.” De Villiers appears to still be very, very bitter about it all. Clearly Lawrence being replaced on the IRB’s elite panel and shielded from ever refereeing in South Africa again isn’t enough.

Unsurprisingly he wasn’t offered another shot at Springbok glory, and was replaced by new coach Heyneke Meyer. Since then, De Villiers has stated on record that nothing much in terms of job opportunities has come his way. He even went to Saru to suggest that he be deployed to work with club coaches.

The idea certainly has merit. Having experienced the rigours of international rugby, he would have a lot to offer to young and up-and-coming coaches. Gary Bischoff, who forms part of SuperSport‘s Afrikaans commentary team and was a former Saru player, wrote a fine column suggesting as much.

However, from the outside looking in, and as someone who did pour petrol on the fires De Villiers ignited during his stint as Springbok coach (especially the Schalk Burger eye-gouge incident during the British Lions series in 2009), sympathy to his plight can only be felt to a certain point.

As Bischoff said, his passion for the game cannot be called into question, but unfortunately after four years of bad headlines generated by De Villiers’s now legendary quotes to the media, it is not surprising his former employers are treating him like he had the bubonic plague.

De Villiers came to represent the ultimate public relations challenge, or disaster, depending on where you stood, and as much as the public were told after each incident that he had been spoken to and would tone down the rhetoric, almost nothing changed. He is his own man, and for Saru, let alone other rugby organisations, that is a problem.

De Villiers should be let out of the dog box and used for the benefit of South African rugby. However, part of the reason De Villiers has spent his time since being axed in the wilderness is partly because of De Villiers himself. Anywhere he goes, the media will follow in search of that next sound bite.

It is up to De Villiers to change his public image before he can be seriously considered for a return to the top echelons of the game.