Springbok backline suffers an identity crisis

If the Springboks arrived in Scotland with any notion of superiority, they don’t suffer any fools now. Murrayfield was where the grit, mongrel and resolve shown against Ireland and Wales simply wasn’t enough. Those with a long view of international rugby would’ve expected this for some time. South Africa were lucky to beat Wales and should’ve beaten a poor Ireland by more. Then, with England’s victory over Australia drawing everyone’s attention, South Africa paid the price for underestimating the Scottish. The All Black massacre the week before, where the Scots were outclassed 49-3, was the cherry on top of the Springboks’ disinterested attitude, which undermined all their efforts last weekend.

That isn’t to say the players themselves are uncommitted, but more towards the mental attitude adopted as the match approached. Hindsight is a perfect science, but it is a science that this Springbok management team has continued to ignore ever since things started going wrong. The symptoms were first apparent during last year’s European Tour, and with the Tri-Nations showing the Springboks’ fragility for all to see, their affliction has left the team a crippled beast, unable to do much beyond what it knows best.

Creativity and ingenuity is an alien creature to this current dispensation, and it is a paralysis that has even spread into Saru’s boardroom. Whether De Villiers stays or goes, Saru has always been ambivalent in the way it treats De Villiers. What are they so afraid of? That uncertainty is ironically reflected in a Springbok performance, which was archaic in its invention, and the flames of passion and flair associated with backline play from the Ice Age.

Their state has fallen so fast that this current Springbok backline, which on paper looks high class when fully fit, is a feeble-minded version of themselves, circa 2007. They seek absolution on a rugby field that from their point of view is barren wasteland, sucked dry by a gameplan that is as evolved today as the dodo was 100 years ago.

Perhaps Bryan Habana’s penchant for running out the defensive line comes from his instinctual nature to run after the ball. I mean, that is what he and most of the Springbok backs do these days, so perhaps we shouldn’t be surprised that he is doing what he was taught. The problem has become so ingrained, from this writer’s perception at least, that the Springbok backs hardly recognise themselves as ball carriers any more.

This current backline is missing the influence of Jaque Fourie, Fourie du Preez and JP Pietersen (with Steyn moved to fullback). Conversely though, all the injuries — added to the mystery surrounding Chiliboy Ralepelle and Bjorn Basson’s positive drug test (an issue that warrants its own separate discussion) — weirdly left the Springboks with probably their most settled forward pack of the season. While good for the forwards, this only continued the backline’s imposed sense of isolation.

Was it really necessary for Zane Kirchner to be chosen at 13 against Ireland? Do Jean de Villiers and Frans Steyn work as a combination? Is De Villiers even fit? Why was Habana brought on tour? Who should start as fullback? Peter de Villiers isn’t wholly responsible, with Gary Gold and Dick Muir also bearing the burden of responsibility for the make-up of the team and the philosophy they employ. Peter de Villier’s reign over the “world champions” (a term used far too much in the press) has been characterised by tremendous highs and comparable lows off the field as much as on it, which as an issue in itself is never fully addressed.

The lot of a modern Springbok coach is one where the ability to work with administrators and politicians is just as crucial as that of being able to mould a squad of individuals into a team. Jake White always experienced his troubles on both sides of the touchline but De Villiers, along with his two accomplices, has wasted much time in trying to figure out which is the best way for South Africa to play, and who are the best individuals to do so.

The year 2008 was spent trying to run the ball with a side that had spent the previous four years learning and becoming masters of pressure rugby. Last year was the year of Total Redux. The team went back to its traditional strengths but even more so than during White’s tenure since De Villiers found someone who, though improbable, kicked even better than Percy Montgomery. Aided by laws that gave the defending side the advantage at the tackle area, territory became the new Jesus. As a result, with the ball constantly being kicked out of hand, the centres defensive side became crucial for the system to work. Perhaps that is why Wynand Olivier, who has never played like a Bulls Super 14/15 player in a Springbok jersey, saw his international career resurrected. He may be one-dimensional, but he sure knows how to tackle.

2010, with revised laws which gave the ball carrier increased protection, has left the Springboks stuck in a reality of flux. No matter how much dominance the forward pack exerts on an opponent, the backs don’t seem to know what to do with the ball in the sense that other sides might or would use the ball differently. Did you see Chris Ashton’s try against the Wallabies? And the fact the Australian commentators still couldn’t say anything which would mark them as media professionals?

South Africa has never been a place where backs run wild, since the strength (literally and figuratively) of the Big Green Machine has always been their forwards’ physicality and versatility. The problem now is a side that knows how to play rugby the way it knows best over decades of South African rugby ideology trickling into the minds of coaches and players. South African backs, no matter how freakish in size or apparent ability, will never be able to play like the All Blacks, Wallabies and most recently England (what now?). It just isn’t the South African way.

What we are left with is a situation where the backs are six of one, and half a dozen of another. Perhaps this is all part of a master plan cooked up by Peter de Villiers and Co into fooling everyone until the World Cup next year. If it meant the Springboks were able to inflict some irreversible psychological toll on the All Blacks at Eden Park on October 16 next year (if we even make it that far draw-wise) then I will gladly admit to being wrong. Until that happens, I just don’t know. And when all the media’s and the management’s double-speak and posturing is boiled away, that has always been the problem.