Sanjay's Rugby World

All 5 South African Super Rugby teams played in wet conditions over the weekend. With mixed results, what does this mean for the Boks Rugby World Cup chances?

From personal experience I know that even October and November can be wet months and feel like winter in New Zealand! Coupled with some late kick off times where the dew comes into effect, don’t expect a dry World cup.

With all 5 South African Super Rugby sides playing in wet conditions over the weekend, I believe the signs are worrying for the Springboks World Cup title defence.

A WORRYING WEEKEND?

The Sharks were beaten by a more astute Chiefs side in Hamilton on Friday night. Despite having a heavier, more experienced pack of forwards laden with Springboks, the Chiefs were the side that held the ball for longer and changed tactics using the pick and go to good effect (39 v 3) as they found it effective in the wet conditions.

The Cheetahs beat a very disappointing Waratahs side in damp conditions in Sydney. It was a famous victory for the Cheetahs, their first in Australia, but the Waratahs were very disappointing.

A side can only play as well as it’s opposition let’s it however, so we must credit the Cheetahs for the plethora of mistakes the Waratahs made. Whether a Kiwi side would be that poor we don’t know just yet!

The Lions were hammered by the Force, whilst the Bulls and Stormers were both uninspiring in a match that was decided more by mistakes from the Bulls than brilliance from the Stormers. Both sides could only manage 1 try apiece in the conditions.

Both the Lions and Bulls in particular, but also the 3 other South African sides, have a tendency to play too deep in the pocket. It’s not just the flyhalves, because the forwards running onto the ball also start from too deep, to often getting hit behind the advantage line if they don’t break through the first tackle.

This puts immense pressure on the side and does not create any forward momentum for the side, limiting the attack; possibly a reason we saw so few tries from South African sides in the weekend.

I don’t subscribe to the fact that wet conditions are solely to blame as Kiwi sides often score multiple tries in conditions they have to play in often.

The Bulls, like the Sharks and to a degree Stormers, have a side chock o block full of Boks and Super Rugby winning players. They have guys with some of the best boots in the business in Morne Steyn, Fourie du Preez and Zane Kirchner. Yet they struggled to play the territorial game or get their hands on the ball.

Almost all the South African sides had poor handling, and these factors limited their attacking threats.

When the best of what we have to offer come together for the Boks in the Rugby World Cup, how will we fare?

Wet weather rugby does not make me confident for the Boks. Until we develop a bit more nous upstairs, and better handling skills we may struggle to defend our Rugby World Cup! At this stage I’ll be praying for a dry day for the Boks come the knockout matches.

The Springboks have decided not to renew the contract of Springbok legend and scrummaging coach Os du Randt.

Big Os joined the Springbok setup in 2010 to help the Springboks in an area they were struggling with.

He was said to have added value with his technical knowledge, but also provided the intangible quality of being a mentor and inspiration from his legendary exploits as a player.

There had been rumours that du Randt was going to be cut from the Springbok set-up, possibly to make way for other consultants (there is speculation about Eddie Jones and Rassie Erasmus. I seriously doubt Jones would want to work with de Villiers!).

OS DU RANDT SURPRISED

However du Randt appeared to have been surprised with the news that he is surplus to requirements in 2011.

“I am obviously disappointed, especially as Peter (de Villiers) had told me that I have the so-called x-factor that he needs in his World Cup management team. And now the x-factor is staying at home.”

“I had already arranged my life as if I would be involved with the Boks until after the World Cup. I have rented out my farm and bought a house in Bloemfontein.”

On top of that, du Randt has turned down coaching and consultancy roles overseas to help his beloved Boks to World Cup glory.

POOR TREATMENT A SIGN OF THINGS TO COME?

The decision to sack du Randt is allegedly due to money, but you can’t tell me that if the Boks really wanted du Randt that they couldn’t find the money from somewhere, for an expense that will help them win the World Cup.

It’s shoddy treatment for one of the great Springboks, the only Springbok to have won 2 World Cup winners medals, and an icon of the game in South Africa.

Perhaps he was too trustworthy and naive to see what was coming, but a gentleman like Os deserves better, so much better.

Let’s hope this is not a sign of the way the Boks are going to operate in 2011, otherwise our title defence is in serious trouble.

Springbok hardman Juan Smith tore his Achillies tendon in Friday’s match against the Bulls in Bloemfontein, sidelining him for 6-9 months.

Smith had been under an injury cloud in the week leading up to the match against the Bulls, having been ruled out the previous week against the Sharks with the same injury.

He took to the field against the Bulls and limped off in the opening few minutes, with a diagnosis of a ruptured Achillies tendon.

Smith is expected to undergo surgery on Monday to repair the tendon, with the likelihood of a return to rugby in the vicinity of 6-9 months.

Dan Carter suffered the same injury in 2009, and was back playing in 6 months. In such a best case scenario for Smith, it could allow him to go to the World Cup, but it would take a minor miracle.

In all likelihood the talismanic Springbok is not likely to return to rugby this year, severely denting the Springboks chances or a successful world cup defence.

Whilst Smith’s loss will be a massive blow to the Cheetahs, and makes it twice as unlikely they will win a game, it’s his value to the Springboks that hurts South African rugby.

He is the unsung hero of the Bok pack. He is tough as teak, makes a gizillion tackles, and is always a willing ball carrier. When he returned to the Bok setup in 2010, he made an immediate impact on the Boks Tri-Nations home leg as they became competitive once more.

His Springbok team mate Victor Matfield emphasised how important Smith is to the Boks cause, saying it was a ‘sad moment’ for South African rugby.

“It will be very sad if it is a serious injury. Juan is a team-mate of ours and I’ve played more games with him than with some of the Bulls guys. It will be very sad if it is something serious because he is an icon in South African rugby” said Matfield after Friday night’s match.

MEDICAL TEAM TO BLAME?

Having had a claf strain, one has to ask, was Smith right to take to the field for Friday’s match?

Whilst a player can tear a muscle or tendon at any time, even when fully fit, when the musculotendinous unit is under increased stress, from a medical point of view it is important to ensure it is rehabilitated fully. Surely this injury indicates Smith was not fit to take to the field?

One can understand Smith being rushed back for an important game, but the second match of Super Rugby, in a long season where he has to be fit for the World Cup has to leave the question…why?

What were the Cheetahs likely to gain? If under any doubt, Smith should not have been risked. Now the Cheetahs won’t have him all season, and they’ve made the Boks task this year that much harder.

Earlier this year Springbok coach Peter de Villiers expressed his concern about the long season and met with the Super Rugby coaches to ensure they were on the same page.

“It is concerning and it is going to be more intense, which will mean players will suffer from more mental fatigue and everyone knows just how tough it is going to be in New Zealand. I am concerned that it could cause a total exhaustion of the players” said de Villiers.

“We had a meeting with the (Super Rugby) coaches and we know there are certain players who we have to manage differently from others and we will work together to get the best and to be at our best when we leave … for the World Cup.”

“We are banking on the integrity of our colleagues at the franchises and we understand they are also under pressure to produce results. The coaches know what we are expecting from the players. For the first time in the history of South African rugby the conditioning of players has been conducted at the same level at all franchises.”

“Our medical screenings and rehabilitation programmes are also the same and that puts the players in a better position. If we know that players are getting the same treatment at their unions it makes life slightly easier for us. We won’t have to do conditioning in the middle of this competition because we know everything is done at the same level throughout.”

Smith’s absence from the Boks will be felt as he adds balance, leadership and character that cannot be replaced. Let’s hope his selection on Friday has not lost us the World Cup!

Smith is likely to be replaced at blindside flank in the Boks by Schalk Burger or even Willem Alberts. Both are strong ball carriers, but in my mind lack the ‘x’ factor and intelligence Smith brings.

Whilst there are many similarities between the champion Bulls and Boks, the most glaring difference in their fortunes in 2010 came down to the ability to respond under pressure.

Springbok Captain Victor Matfield

In 2009, both sides performed brilliantly, sweeping aside all those before them.

THE DIFFERENCE IS IN THE COACHING

However in 2010, their fortunes were vastly different. In my mind, this highlighted the difference in the coaches of the respective sides.

At the Bulls, the coaches are still heavily influenced by the ‘Heyneke Meyer’ way. This starts off the field, with Meyer a big disciple of personal development, not just physical development.

Each year the Bulls brains trust plan meticulously for their season, and the hard work begins in December in George.

It gives the players the necessary physical conditioning, but more importantly the mental conditioning to know they are free to express themselves on the field and back their ability.

In contrast the Boks go back to their laager with each defeat, following rigid game plans that make their players play like robots and question themselves under pressure.

THEY LIKE TO LEAD

Both the Bulls and Boks like to start strongly. They like to build an early lead, giving them greater confidence to utilise the 15 man game.

Once they have established a lead, they like to produce their best rugby in the first half, before slowly grinding their way to a victory based on physical domination and making their opposition play catch up rugby which leads to mistakes and a supply of penalties to keep the scoreboard ticking over, and maintaining an uncatchable lead.

2010 saw an end to that trend.

THE ABILITY TO RESPOND UNDER PRESSURE

In their first 7 matches, the Bulls fell behind. In almost half of their matches, 1 or 2 further scores from the opposition could have killed their chances of victory very early in the game.

However to their credit, the Bulls were able to bounce back and never faltered in the belief of their game plan or their personnel.

The Bulls were able to secure victory in their first 6 matches (Cheetahs, Brumbies, Waratahs, Highlanders, Hurricanes and Force), before failing to reel in the Blues. To their credit, and on tour, the Bulls regrouped from their first loss to bounce back emphatically in their match against the Chiefs.

And then the Lions, Sharks and Crusaders made the Bulls fight to the end to secure victory too.

Of their 10 victories, the Bulls could quite conceivable have lost 9. What makes a champion side however is winning tight matches, and responding positively under pressure.

COMPARE THIS TO THE BOKS

In the Tri-Nations, the Boks lost 5 out of 6 matches.

Like the Bulls they went behind in every match. They could easily have won 6 out of 6, yet could only post the 1 victory.

We have enough games to show quite different trends between the 2 sides.

10 out of 13 paints a completely different story to 1 out 6.

With so many personnel common to both sides, the only differing variable are the coaching staffs.

THE KEY TO THE BOKS TITLE DEFENCE

To be the best, you have to be able to respond prove you have the best skill, and the best conditioning when it counts most.

To deliver physically, you have to have the mental application and confidence to shine when the going gets tough.

I am sure this year will show the Bulls are once again the best in the business from South Africa in Super Rugby.

The key to the Boks World Cup title defence may lie in just how well the Bok brains trust can emulate their counterparts from the Bulls.

During World Cup years, success or failure is measured by the William Webb Ellis trophy. How then should Springbok coach Peter de Villiers handle his squad in the build up to rugby’s ultimate prize?

In 2007 Jake White provided a rugby masterstroke by resting his key players for the away leg of the Tri-Nations, ensuring they were rested and conditioning for the 2007 Rugby World Cup.

All Black coach Graham Henry had tried a different approach, resting his key players for the first 6 weeks of the Super 14, but playing non-stop from about April until the World Cup.

Just what approach will current Springbok coach Peter de Villiers adopt this year?

With Super rugby occupying 19 weeks, I believe it is vital that the provincial coaches work with the Springbok brains trust to ensure key players are not overloaded.

Many Springboks who had injuries last year won’t need to miss many games, but key players such as Victor Matfield, Pierre Spies, Morne Steyn, Schalk Burger and Juan Smith will need adequate rest. Unfortunately most of them tend to be Bulls, and are vital to their sides Super Rugby success.

Jake White say’s the untimate decision will be a tough one.

“Peter will have to make a decision on how to structure it because there’s no way that these players can play Super 15 and Tri-Nations and still win the World Cup. It doesn’t matter how good they are, it’s just physically impossible to play all that rugby and still win the World Cup” White told RugbyXV.

White has identified South Africa’s opening Tri-Nations match against the Wallabies in Sydney as the Boks most important test ahead of the World Cup, believing the Boks need to gain confidence winning away from home.

Unlike 2007, White suggests de Villiers may be better to rest his top players in the home leg of the Tri-Nations rather than the away leg.

“What he might have to do is play the key men away and play the juniors in the home leg.”

“Watch the Australian game in Sydney and you’ll see whether or not we’re good enough because then there will be no excuse. They would’ve had their time to prepare and we would’ve had our time to prepare.”

“They’re not the top contenders, New Zealand are, but that game will show us whether or not we can play away from home, whether they’re good enough and whether we’re good enough. They’ll have their full-strength team so it’ll be very interesting to see where we match up in that game.”

17 Year old Bok fan Mandy Kotze has reminded all Springbok fans to unite behind the Boks in 2011 with this awesome video she has made.

Regardless of what our opinions were of the Boks, and their coaches, game plans and excuses in 2010, we need to unite behind the Boks as in 2011 as they aim to go back to back!

Whether we like it or not, we can’t change the team or off field staff in 2011, so we need to forget our gripes be the best supporters we can be!

Similar to 2003 when despite a troubled build-up and Kamp Staaldraad, as soon as the Boks took the field we threw our support behind them.

Mandy Kotze has provided an example to us all she explains “I’m a devoted rugby fan and felt the need to make this video…promoting the 2011 Rugby World Cup and my team, the Springboks.”

The question on whether John Smit should captain the Springboks should be determined by whether he is deemed good enough to command a position for the Springboks.

Springbok captain John Smit

He is the most experienced captain in World Rugby, and the most successful of his current international peers.

On top of that he is a model South African, magnificent role model and a damn good guy!

It’s the subject of intense debate, just who should lead the Springboks in 2011?

Just this week his former Springbok coach and past mentor Jake White admitted he believes Smit should retire, although he wouldn’t have the guts to tell him if he was the Bok coach!

“It’s very difficult because I’m really close to him. I told him to retire and he’s very cross with me because I tell people that he should retire, and he would be remembered for a lot more than if he goes (to the World Cup)” said White.

“But, saying that, if I was the coach, I would be begging him to come with, so I’ve explained it to him. I said listen, if I was the coach I would be begging you to play but now I’m begging you to stop.”

IS SMIT GOOD ENOUGH?

In his book ‘Captain in the Cauldron’, Smit states he believes first and foremost he should never be considered for captain unless he is worthy of holding his spot in the team based on his form/performance.

In 2010, I don’t believe Smit would even have believed his form was better than Tiaan Liebenberg or Gary Botha.

The Springbok end of year tour also highlighted how impressive Bismarck du Plessis is. Smit is likely to be the 4th best hooker in South Africa based on the last few years.

THE ‘NEW’ SMIT

Given his premature end to 2010 from a neck injury, Smit has been training hard during the off season and has reportedly lost 7kg. He aims to have lost another 2kg before the start of Super Rugby in late February.

His assistant coach at the Sharks, Grant Bashford, say’s we should prepare to see a ‘new’John Smit this year, with a leaner physique.

It makes one wonder how his Bok coaches could constantly suggest Smit was not overweight, and was at peak condition/fitness. What would they say now?

Will this allow Smit to recapture his form of years gone by? Can he produce one last hurrah and lead the Boks to World Cup glory once more?

THE WRONG SKILL SET

Smit will never give less than 100%. He is a true warrior and has tremendous pride in his country and the Springbok jersey.

He is always a willing ball carrier, and throws well into the lineout. As a captain he commands respect, is more experienced than any other, and galvanises the Boks.

However Bismarck du Plessis is a stronger scrummager, technically proficient in all the set pieces and also a strong ball carrier. It’s the fact he can act as an extra loose forward, and puts pressure on the opposition at the breakdown that sets him apart from his rivals.

His ability to compete at the breakdown contributed enormously to the Boks success in 2009, and could be a huge factor in the Boks defending the World Cup.

John Smit simply does not have the same skill set to be able to compete with Bismarck du Plessis, even in peak form.

WHAT DO WE DO WITH SMIT?

In 2009 the Boks played Smit tighthead. Smit was good around the field in 2009, but suffered in his scrummaging. Smit was not the only culprit, but the Boks can not afford a repeat of a retreating scrum.

Whilst not a big fan of Jannie du Plessis, it appears he is the preferred tighthead selection.

Prior to Gurthro Steenkamp’s stellar season in 2010, I’d have said play Smit at loosehead prop. His scrummaging appears more solid on the loosehead side, and if fully fit he can perform adequately in the tight loose.

With Steenkamp in such great form however, a tough call has to be made.

I’d suggest if we want to retain Smit for his captaincy, he has to play loosehead prop. Otherwise we would be limiting the Boks potential by omitting Bismarck du Plessis.

The current Springbok stance is to value experience, but does that inhibit opportunities for new and in-form talent? Is it harder to play your way out of the Springboks than into it?

Under Rudolf Straeuli in 2002-03, the Springboks used over 40 players in test matches. When Jake White took over as coach, a concerted effort was made to increase the value of the Springbok jersey and not hand out caps willy nilly.

Under Peter de Villiers, this has continued, and his selection policy has been to favour experience (too much). As with most Bok coaches there is also a large premium placed on size.

This is despite the fact that the game has evolved significantly since professionalism first started. A ball in hand approach has generally paid dividends, and the value of fitness has become more important than brute strength as the number of ruck recycles now average 186 whilst the scrums (and lineouts) have
decreased to about 14/24 per game.

Despite these global trends, the Boks have been slow to adapt. If you have bulk, and you have been a member of the Bok squad for some time, you are highly favoured.

I believe that we should be rewarding Super 14/15 and Currie Cup form, but not just flash in the pan performances. Consistent high level performances over a prolonged period should be the norm.

Whilst I understand that there will always be a ‘coaches call’, those players who just possess the X-factor, step up at international level, fit the team’s game plan or need to be played into form, I would rather we rewarded players who have produced results.

Just because a player has been a Springbok does is not a valid reason for selection. Past performances should not be the measure by which players are selected. Sure it holds weight, but they must be capable of producing the results consistently, and most importantly…now!

As an example, a player who has clearly been below his best this year is John Smit. He has looked out of shape, and out of form. When there were 2 outstanding hookers in Gary Botha and Tiaan Liebenberg who had produced explosive performances week after week in the Super 14, surely they should be rewarded.

SIZE IS ALWAYS AN ISSUE FOR SOUTH AFRICANS

At centre, wing and fullback we have had two outstanding talents this year in Juan de Jongh and Gio Aplon. Both have had limited opportunity at the highest level despite proving themselves to be the best option in my view.

They are both supremely dangerous with ball in hand, something the Boks have desperately needed as their try-scoring ability and strike rate has plummeted.
However critics point to their ‘supposed weakness’ on defence due to their lack of size.

Show me any players who are more committed? Both have made plenty of tackles this year, and I cannot recall either missing one. Yet if an experienced 100kg centre or fullback misses one, it’s acceptable and we hear how their previous performances and experience are invaluable.

“Every game I play I have to prove that size is irrelevant and it is how you play that matters. I have accepted that it is something that will stay with me as long as I play rugby” said Gio Aplon on the Grand Slam tour.

Former Free State flank Hendre Fourie left South Africa as he was not afforded enough opportunities due to his size.

“I think South Africa could improve the way they go about identifying talent at an early age. I appreciate that there’s a vast pool of talent in the country but I feel I never got a chance to prove myself and I know there were many others like me” said Fourie in an interview with Gavin Mortimer.

“When I left school I was told I wasn’t big enough to play flank. There’s definitely a trend in South Africa to pick big opensiders. I was delighted to see Heinrich Brüssow break through last season and show what he can do despite being smaller than me.”

Fourie is now part of the England squad. South African rugby can ill-afford to chase away all it’s talent. All we need is a change of mindset.

THE GAME IS CHANGING, SO TOO MUST THE MINDSET

South Africa may be the current World Champions. But rather than living in the glory of past achievements, I’d rather we measured ourselves by our standards and potential.

Part of that requires we be the best we can be, select our best players, and give opportunities to those that deserve it. Provincialism, prior performances and size are no longer relevant criteria.

Form and results are surely better indicators. It’s a simple formula. If we followed it, maybe we’d see the Boks return to their winning ways and scoring tries again!

Springbok coach Peter de Villiers has signalled the limited game plan the Boks intend on employing in 2011, emphasising direct rugby!

Springbok coach Peter de Villiers

“I believe we have the players and the plan on how we should play. The whole world knows how we play rugby, and most think it is boring, but we believe it is the way to go” said de Villiers.

“If you can go through people, why try and run around them?” he asked.

It’s an interesting question. I would have thought 99% of rugby coaches would tell their players to run around the opposition as you are more likely not to get tackled!

I’ve always believed in trying to get players to run into gaps, with the belief you are more likely to get through the opposition defence. Clearly me and Div share differing opinions!

The biggest problem I’ve seen with this approach for the Boks in 2010 is that using channel 1 to bash it up all day is ineffective and easy to counter by any side that determined and can match the physicality of the Boks (e.g Scotland).

It makes the Bok ball movement to slow and predcatable, and selecting players like Gio Aplon, Zane Kirchner and Bryan Habana out wide is pointless. They may as well just stick bigger, bulkier (and brainless) players on the wings and at fullback.

THE PUDDING HAS NOT BEEN VERY TASTY

Has this tactic worked for the Boks in 2010 and the past?

The proof is in the pudding. And this year’s pudding has been tasteless!

During the Tri-Nations from 2005 to 2009 the Springbok backs scored 89% of the Boks tries (41 out of 46 tries).

In the 2010 Tri-Nations this figure was 38% (5 out of 13 tries).

At the 2007 World Cup the Boks leading try scorers were Bryan Habana (8), JP Pietersen (4) and Jaque Fourie (4), all outside backs.

It is worth noting they are all outside backs, and have not been prolific try scorers for the Boks this year (to be fair Pietersen has hardly played, but his replacements have not done well either).

Surely the decreased number of tries, and the players scoring them (or lack of!) is an indication that this (direct) tactic does not work? Shouldn’t we be trying to set up our outside backs according to our (successful) historical averages?

On the 2010 Grand Slam tours, the All Blacks had an average score of 38-16 (150 points scored v 62 against), whilst the Boks played the same sides and had an average of 23-20 (91 points scored v 78 against).

SPRINGBOK DEFENCE LACKS ATTITUDE

Whilst the Boks attack has been limited, and not produced enough points, the defence has possibly more even more of a factor in the Boks poor 2010 results.

Defence is all about attitude, and as World Cups have shown, defence is often the difference between World Cup success and failure.

It does not matter what tactics the Boks have or haven’t used on attack, or what their game plan is, it shouldn’t create massive disruptions to their defence (although it is possible, e.g A highly expansive approach may leave you vulnerable to counter attacks etc).

No matter what coach Peter de Villiers say’s about the Springbok game plan then, it is only half of the equation. There has certainly been no excuse this year for the porous defence!

Looking at the Bok side, it has been the so called ‘smaller players’ who have impressed me most on defence. How many tackles have Juan de Jongh or Gio Aplon missed this year?

Why then do they continually move in and out of the side, whilst the other ‘bigger, more experienced’ players get rewarded with consistent selections even though they fall off tackles which cost the Boks e.g. John Smit’s missed tackle which cost the Boks the game against the All Blacks in Soweto.

WHAT ABOUT PLAN B?

Whilst I can understand the point of view of de Villiers in not wanting to move away from the strengths of South African rugby, I think it is important that the Boks:

1. Try to play to their potential and seek to be world leaders
The Boks of late 1997/1998 are the only Bok side of the modern era I believe has really stamped their authority on World Rugby, and created real fear in the opposition.

2. Have alternate strategies
It’s important to have a Plan B when things go wrong, and also to have the subtelty and variation required to ensure that Plan A works to its maximum effectiveness. When the opposition know your Plan A and don’t have to expect anything else, Plan A is often rendered useless.

CAN THE BOKS WIN THE WORLD CUP?

Yes. There is no doubt the Boks can win the World Cup, even with a limited game plan.

However it’s a dangerous and avoidable strategy.

It places high demand on certain individuals such as Victor Matfield, Fourie du Preez and Morne Steyn. If one of the Bulls trio is injured, it will place undue pressure on the team.

Having had 3 years to develop alternate skills and strategies, Peter de Villiers has highlighted he is not an effective coach, and if the Boks win it will be in spite of his leadership, not because of it.

Dear Santa,

Please can I have a normal, qualified Springbok coach for Christmas! I am sure the majority of Springbok supporters share my Christmas wishlist.

Springbok coach Peter de Villiers

It was not just the fact that we lost 6 test matches, which seems inexcusable considering:
1. We came off the best Super rugby season we’ve ever had with the Bulls and Stormers indestructible as they highlighted the tremendous depth in South African rugby.
2. We fielded our most experienced side ever during the Wellington test, and for the bulk of the season some of the best players on the planet.

No it was the image and reputation of our beloved Springboks that hurt most.

We have one of Santa’s little helpers who has swallowed too much of the helium meant for the celebratory party of the World Cup defence! He is clearly out of his depth, and needs to be replaced.

We’ve seen a total lack of progression from the Boks, excuses after excuses as the world has adapted to the new law interpretations and left us behind, and the running into the ground of our top players who should have been resting for a massive 2011 where they can sweep the World Cup rugby contenders and pretenders away.

If you can give us a new coach, please also throw in some much needed special holiday beverage to repair and rejuvenate our top players (but not the kind someone gave Chiliboy and Bjorn Basson!)

Thank you

The Springboks may have been disappointing in 2010, but they are confident they have the right plan to defend their World Cup in New Zealand 2011.

Springbok coach Peter de Villiers

I’m not sure that such a limited game plan, set in stone is the way to go. The Boks have shown they can play a more expansive game as well, and the 53-6 demolition of Australia in 2008 shows what can happen when you have an attacking mindset.

THE BOK BLUEPRINT

The Boks have revealed they had no game plan, and no idea during the 2010 Tri-Nations debacle, and have gone back to ’10 man’ or traditional Bok rugby as evidenced by the 2010 Grand Sham tour.

After the clash with England at Twickenham, Bok coach Peter de Villiers reflected on the year by saying, “We were between game plans. Everybody was telling us to keep the ball in hand, and we got into trouble trying to play too much rugby.”

“I believe we have the players and the plan on how we should play. We have proved that (against England).”

“We have made major strides since 2008. We have new players to add, we have resolved how we must play in the next World Cup and the players enter next year with confidence and belief.”

“The whole world knows how we play rugby, and most think it is boring, but we believe it is the way to go.”

“Other teams change their game plans every second year, but we will keep going with what we believe is right for us.”

It’s a worrying sign that it’s taken de Villiers 14 tests this year to work out a game plan that has been the basis of Bok rugby for the past century!

And the laws in my mind dicate that a more complete game plan is required to sustain long term success. But obviously de Villiers feels that the 6 losses this season are nothing to worry about!

WORLD CUP HISTORY

History reveals that World Cups are often dominated by defence more so than attack, and a top goal kicker is placed at it’s premium.

With such pressure matches, mistakes can be costly and sides usually play a more conservative brand of rugby. However the fundamentals of the game don’t change.

It’s still important to dominate physically up front, and dominate territory and possession. That allows you to dicate play and either keep it tight or go wider if needed.

While history shows matches are tighter, and you may not want to throw the ball around willy-nilly, for a side that falls behind, the only option to steal a match may be via crossing the line for a try or tries. e.g. the Boks in the 1999 semi-final against Australia.

It may also be the only way to put a side away, as we saw the Boks dominated the 2007 final, yet never got away from England and a try could have thrown the cat amongst the pigeons.

In either case, you need to have the skills to score quick points if and when needed.

It means having the ability to be flexible, adapt to the conditions and state of the game, and most importantly be able to come from behind if you start poorly.

One thing we have seen in 2010 is the Boks falling behind early, and other than the matches against Australia and Wales, being unable to come from behind to secure victory.

THE DANGER OF RELYING ON INDIVIDUALS

In John Smit’s book ‘Captain in the cauldron’, along with the ramblings of coach Peter de Villiers, we hear how the team comes before anything else.

If the team can decide on a pattern, selection becomes easier as you pick individuals who can perform a job for the side. It also means the inevitable injuries are less disruptive, as players can slot in more seamlessly.

However as we saw in 1999 with Nick Mallet’s dropping of Gary Teichmann for Bob Skinstad, and in 2003 when Straeuli was counting on Skinstad and Andre Pretorius to be his playmakers; if you base your game around 1 or 2 individuals who get injured you are in trouble.

Players can get injured, lose form or in the case of the Boks, get suspended or fail drug tests!

In explaining his position on selection for the World Cup, de Villiers said “If we had to choose a side now, there are about five positions we won’t agree on, the others have as good as cast their stones to the World Cup.”

“I am looking forward to seeing Fourie du Preez back so that execution on one part of our game can be spot on again.”

“He is not just a rugby player, he gets everybody going around him. His loss was a blow and to come here and win three games without him is a big boost of our confidence.”

Whilst I agree Fourie du Preez is one of the top 3 rugby players in the world, it is dangerous to have to become reliant upon him.

What if he gets injured for the entire season? Or the week before the World Cup semi-final?

Surely without du Preez this year, it was the ideal opportunity to build the depth and at least gain confidence in providing a replacement if need be?

Past experience shows that failure to do so can see it bite you in the bum!

THE BOKS ARE PLAYING WITH FIRE

Whilst I don’t doubt the Boks have the ability to defend the World Cup with this limited strategy, it is a dangerous one.

The Boks will be highly reliant on their key, experienced players to show leadership in the absence of an intelligent coaching staff.

It’ll only require 1 or 2 injuries, or a bad start in the crunch matches, to expose the folly of this strategy.

Like all Bok supporters I’ll be holding thumbs, and praying for the right outcome, but I can’t help feeling the errie similarities to the 1999 and 2003 World Cup campaigns.

The All Blacks have set the benchmark in World Rugby in between World Cups. In comparison with their levels, the Boks 2010 and grand sham tour can only be marked as a failure.

After a horror Tri-Nations, Springbok coach Peter de Villiers stated the Grand Slam tour was all about ‘results’ and regaining Springbok pride.

3 Wins out of 4, and a loss to Scotland were way below par.

In reflecting on the tour, de Villiers said “The success of the tour lies in what isn’t immediately obvious. Results are the temporary successes or failures. The first thing is that we have removed all doubt and believe in one another.”

Once again de Villiers simply justifies his results or lack thereof, and has tried to capture the South African rugby publics’ imagination by highlighting the result against England.

If you want to be the best however, you must measure yourself against the best. And if we compare the Boks’ results with those of the All Blacks, we can only give the Springboks a big F for FAILED, FIZZLED and FLOPPED!

IMPRESSIVE ALL BLACKS

The Boks have not won a Grand Slam in over 50 years, whereas the All Blacks comfortably achieved their 3rd such achievement in the last 5 years.

The All Blacks were never in doubt of winning all 4 of their matches, yet only hitting top gear against Scotland.

They did not win by less than 10 points, showing the difference in class and composure between them and their rivals, despite their goal kickers not being at their best.

They scored numerous tries throughout their tour, easily scoring 30+ points per match.

Even with Ireland playing possibly their best test match in years, the All Blacks finished with a 20 point victory.

BOKS FAILED TO MEASURE UP

In comparison, the Boks scraped home against Ireland and Wales winning by 2 and 4 points respectively. Whereas the All Blacks comfortably disposed of Scotland and put them to the sword, we lost to them for the second time in 8 years.

It provided a big kick up the ass to motivate the Boks to produce a strong forward effort against England, allowing a determined if not polished 10 point victory.

The All Blacks finished with an average winning margin of 22 points per Grand Slam match, whereas the Boks finished at only 4 points!

As World Champions, preparing to defend their crown at next year’s Rugby World Cup, the Boks are someway behind the standards of the All Blacks, possibly falling even further behind than they did in the Tri-Nations.

The Boks probably had worst weather conditions to play in than the All Blacks, but that is no excuse.

It was not the manner of victory (and defeat) that were the biggest concern. It was the lack of constructive rugby on attack, synergy between the players, intelligence in the conditions, a plan B when needed and having the subtleties in attack needed to unlock opposition defences.

In addition the lack of heart and commitment on defence, and being able to sustain an 80 minute performance have not been rectified all year.

If anyone in South African rugby was honest with the SA rugby public, the tour was a failure, the Boks failed to deliver, and once again the coaches need to be more accountable for sub-standard Springbok rugby.

In going down 26-20 to the Barbarians at Twickenham on Saturday, the Springboks showed they have made no progress in 2010.

Springbok coach Peter de Villiers appeared fairly satisfied that the Springboks had gotten close, but for the World Champions to be beaten by a makeshift side (albeit a high quality one) is never a satisfactory result.

It was not so much the margin of victory that left me disappointed but the manner of the Barbarians victory that hurt most.

Peter de Villiers seemed comforted by the fact that the Boks ‘won’ the last 60 minutes 17-7 once they regained their structure. But we saw during the Tri-Nations, a poor start cost the Boks as the Barbarians coasted in for 3 tries.

The Springboks have either failed to put together 80- minute matches, or back up after one good game all year. Why can’t this coach produce a consistent side who performs to their potential more often than not?

The Bok coach has been delusional all season. Once again the Boks looked ordinary on attack and missed to many first time tackles in defence.

The attack was one-dimensional and the Boks did not enter into the spirit of ‘Barbarians’ rugby. There was absolutely nothing to gain by a close loss, but everything to gain by trying new moves, new players and new tactics.

The fact that some of the more promising younger players such as Elton Jantjies and Patrick Lambie were brought into the South African lineup and made to look ordinary, highlights to me the effect our current coaching staff have on our players.

These and other players this season have gone from Super 14 winners, past winners in almost everything else to the most brain-dead and clueless international players.

Whilst I’d like to see us turn it around in 2011, it’s going to take a mammoth effort on behalf of the players to put together a consistent 7 weeks required to defend the World Cup.

I just hope 2011 doesn’t produce the same mistakes that 2010 has delivered!

The Springbok side to take on the Barbarians at Twickenham on Saturday:

The Boks have rung the changes as they look to ensure each squad member gets game time on tour.

Werner Kruger (prop) and Andries Strauss (centre) this week were called up and flew from South Africa to bolster the squad with injuries and non-availability.

THE SPRINGBOKS

1. Coenie Oosthuizen
2. Adriaan Strauss
3. CJ van der Linde
4. Bakkies Botha
5. Alistair Hargreaves
6. Willem Alberts
7. Juan Smith (c)
8. Ryan Kankowski
9. Francois Hougaard
10. Elton Jantjies
11. Lwazi Mvovo
12. Andries Strauss
13. Adrian Jacobs
14. Odwa Ndungane
15. Patrick Lambie

16. Bandise Maku
17. Tendai Mtawarira
18. Werner Kruger
19. Flip van der Merwe
20. Keegan Daniel
21. Charl McLeod
22. Gio Aplon

The Barbarians side to face the Springboks at Twickenham (coached by Nick Mallet).

1. Salvatore Perugini (Italy)
2. Stephen Moore (Australia)
3. Neemia Tialata (New Zealand)
4. Anton van Zyl (Stormers)
5. Chris Jack (New Zealand)
6. Rodney So’oialo (New Zealand)
7. Martyn Williams (Wales)
8. Colin Bourke (Chiefs).
9. Will Genia (Australia)
10. Matt Giteau (Australia)
11. Drew Mitchell (Australia)
12. Ma’a Nonu (New Zealand)
13. Adam Ashley-Cooper (Australia)
14. Joe Rococoko (New Zealand)
15. James O’Connor (Australia)

16. Keven Mealamu (New Zealand)
17. John Yapp (Wales)
18. Quintin Geldenhuys (Italy)
19. Daniel Braid (New Zealand)
20. Andy Ellis (New Zealand)
21. Stephen Donald (New Zealand)
22. Seru Rabini (Fiji)

After the Springbok forward pack laid the platform for the important 21-11 victory over England, coach Peter de Villiers praised his side’s scrum, which he believes is world class.

“We worked hard on our scrummaging, and have since 2008 regained our self-confidence” said de Villiers.

“We believe now that we could scrum any team.”

The Bok scrum in 2009 was dismal, not helped by John Smit having to relearn the tighthead role for much of it.

In the 2009 Tri-Nations de Villiers even wrote to IRB referees boss Paddy O’Brien to figure out why the Boks were being penalised so often at scrum time. And on their 2009 end of year tour, the Boks were given a scrumming lesson by the northern hemisphere.

Coach de Villiers obviously now feels the scrum is stable, and even one of the Boks major weapons.

“It feels good when other teams talk about our scrum, because we know it’s something that they fear, but are trying to turn into something positive from their perspective.”

“It wasn’t easy. We did struggle in one or two scrums, but in general this was a very successful aspect of the tour.”

I’m not sure the Bok scrum can be considered the best in the world, regardless of the improvements its made.

Let’s see how strong it is next year, as in New Zealand for the World Cup a strong scrum to enable decent pickups from the eighthman in damp conditions will be imperative.

The Springbok squad for Saturday’s match against the Barbarians at Twickenham will give a chance for many of the grand slam’s fringe players an opportunity in Springbok colours.

The Springbok squad to take on the Barbarians:

Forwards:

Willem Alberts
Bakkies Botha
Keegan Daniel
Jannie du Plessis
Bismarck du Plessis
Alistair Hargreaves
Ryan Kankowski
Bandise Maku
Tendai Mtawarira
Coenie Oosthuizen
Juan Smith (captain)
Adriaan Strauss
CJ van der Linde
Flip van der Merwe

Backs:

Gio Aplon
Francois Hougaard
Adi Jacobs
Elton Jantjies
Zane Kirchner
Patrick Lambie
Charl McLeod
Lwazi Mvovo
Odwa Ndungane


Victor Matfield (broken rib) and Jean de Villiers were both injured against England in Saturday’s test and weren’t considered. Matfield was unlikely to have played anyway.

Pierre Spies, Deon Stegmann and Morné Steyn have been released and also returned back to South Africa.

Francois Steyn (Racing Metro) and Ruan Pienaar (Ulster) have both been returned to their European clubs as the Barbarians match falls outside the November internationals for which they are allowed to play.

Juan Smith takes over the captaincy from Victor Matfield.

The Springbok match 22 will be announced on Wednesday.

It is likely to see Francois Hougaard at scrumhalf, with Charl MacLeod on the bench, Patrick Lambie at flyhalf with Elton Jantjies on the bench and Adrian Jacobs partnered with Zane Kirchner in the midfield.

After beating England 21-11 at Twickenham, the Boks are counting on taking this form forward into 2011.

In 2006 the Boks came off a similarly bad end towards the season and managed to end the season with an important win at Twickenham which probably saved their coach (Jake White) and catapulted the Boks to Rugby World Cup success the following year.

The Boks have probably saved coach Peter de Villiers job, and are hoping this will launch them into a successful 2011 and Rugby World Cup defence.

“It’s a big win for the country, it’s a big win for the team” said de Villiers after the game. “It was important to put a marker down for next year.”

THE CAPTAIN, VICTOR MATFIELD

Matfield echoed the thoughts of his coach after the game, “2006 was not our greatest year, but we turned things around against England in our last game that year and went on to win the World Cup in 2007. Hopefully this win today will be a good omen for next year. It’s a very important year for us and we’re going to New Zealand to defend the World Cup” said Matfield.

“We’re very happy with the way we played and hopefully we can take that confidence into next year which is a big year for the World Cup.”

“Today we got a nice dry pitch and we were able to play some rugby. The guys were hurt after last weekend and they showed the character and the pride in the Springbok jersey the way they came back tonight.”

“The plan was to put England under pressure, which we did very well in the first half. We did miss some chances to score – one of those by me – but we were happy to stick to what we can do and play when we had the opportunity.”

“We were talking about accuracy and I think it was there tonight. There was patience.”

Matfield was happy with the team effort, and praised his forwards for playing more direct rugby, creating the forward momentum for his side to play with more width on attack.

“There was a lot spoken this week in the media about our scrum and our physicality. I think the guys stood up and showed what they can do. And that’s what the Springboks is all about.”

“We played the way we know we can, direct … and then we took it wide.”

“By playing hard and direct up front, we created forward momentum which led to space on the outside for our runners.”

Matfield commented how physical the game was, and showed great leadership and courage to see out the game with a suspected broken rib from a knock with English wing Chris Ashton.

“There’s a lot of bruises on their side and our side. My rib has gone. It was a hard game.”

THE BLUEPRINT AND GAMEPLAN

Both Peter de Villiers and Victor Matfield felt the Boks played to their strengths, and don’t necessarily have to play like the other sides who appear to have adapted to the new law interpretations more successfully.

“If you do it the way the guys did it today, then it is very difficult to stop them” said De Villiers.

“It’s all about believing in what you are doing. Although people know how we play and expect it, and it might seem boring to a lot of people, if we keep doing it and we do it well maybe we can get dividends from it.”

“We were all honest about it, we spoke about what our strengths are, what our team does well. We decided to concentrate on that, and what was important was that we all had to have buy-in and believe in it, said the captain,” Victor Matfield.

“This was a victory for our blueprint, it was all about us getting self-belief back in the game that we play.”

“It’s all about execution and accuracy. We have been speaking about that all tour but not getting it right. Today we did get it right and it showed what we can do.”

Just how important was this victory?

And what does it mean in the context of a very poor year? Have the Boks got the right blueprint to defend the World Cup next year?

Matfield summed it up perfectly when he said, “It is a bit premature maybe to talk about this as a turn-around or a watershed, only next year will tell us that.”

The Springbok forward pack won the battle up front to pave the way for a 21-11 win over England at Twickenham on Saturday.

Springboks 21

Tries: Willem Alberts, Lwazi Mvovo
Conversion: Morne Steyn
Penalties: Morne Steyn (3)

England 11

Try: Ben Foden
Penalties: Toby Flood (2)

The Springboks produced a record equalling (matching England’s record) 7 successive wins between the 2 countries in a match where physicality triumphed skill.

There will be many tired and sore bodies as a result of this game, as both sides climbed into each other from the opening whistle as they tried to exert their physical dominance.

In golf there is a saying “You drive for show and putt for dough”. In rugby you can say “the forwards determine who wins, the backs determine by how much”.

And there was the basis for the Bok win. The pack played as a unit rather than individuals, shutting the Poms out of the game.

Like 2009 when the Boks were dominant, it shows that if you win the forward battle, you will win more times than you lose. It’s been the Boks biggest downfall all year, coming second in the tight exchanges, and not getting enough ball to play with.

GREATER TERRITORY AND POSSESSION

In the first half, the Boks enjoyed the greater territory and possession yet couldn’t break through the English defence. The Boks had their chances, but poor option taking and finishing were costly.

On the 20-minute mark Matfield tried to reach for the tryline after a few phases from a 5m scrum but lost possession as he tried to do so.

Soon after turning down a kickable penalty, the Boks coughed up possession once more.

England would have been fairly happy to head into the break 6-6, after the Boks had looked largely ineffectual with ball in hand, especially with their backs.

PRESSURE INTO POINTS

The Boks continued much the same in the second half, but England had their chances. It was the Poms who spread the ball from 1 side to the other, utilising their 15 players but just unable to crack a resolute Bok defence.

A Morne Steyn penalty gave the Boks some breathing space at 9-6 heading into the final quarter, and the pressure was mounting on England.

A lineout drive produced yet more ball for the Boks to attack from, and they moved the ball through the hands well with Morne Steyn and Pierre Spies combining well to put super sub Willem Alberts over in the corner.

In a tight match, the resultant 10 point lead was always going to be a mission to come back from.

Lwazi Mvovo sealed the match with 10 minutes remaining as he ran through 2 English defenders.

The Poms scored a late consolation try to Ben Foden with a few minutes remaining , but the match was effectively over at that stage.

FORWARD MOMENTUM

After the match victorious captain Matfield said that playing more direct had given the side forward momentum which had allowed the Boks to play wider.

The Boks did through the ball slightly wider than their previous grand sham matches, but still looked largely ineffective and hesitant in attack. Their attacking channels are still too narrow, and Aplon and Mvovo were not given many chances.

From broken play the Boks look more dangerous as they use their powerful and skilful ball runners. But when trying to construct attacks they are still fairly conservative.

IS PETER DE VILLIERS JOB SAFE?

Whilst the Boks may have won, it has only papered over the cracks in my opinion.

The victory is likely to see de Villiers remain in charge of the side for next year’s Rugby World Cup, as it’ll be hard to fire him for 3 wins out of 4, despite how ugly the wins may have been.

After the highs of 2009, and the lows of 2010, just what will 2011 bring? With de Villiers in charge, you just never know!

He may have been a liability many times in his career with his discpline, but Bakkies Botha is essential to the Springboks success.

Botha is the enforcer in the Springbok forward pack, and is often relied on to lead the pack into battle.

The Springboks have won 73% of matches when Bakkies Botha has played yet only 36% of matches without him since Botha’s debut in November 2002.

Aside from his physical attributes, it’s the simplicity and hard edge that Botha brings to the table that make him so valuable.

He doesn’t beat around the bush, and he say’s what he means and means what he says.

After the Boks shock loss to Scotland, Botha had this to say on Monday, “We did not play well against Scotland, but it does not help us to take negative energy into the weekend’s game. It’s over and done with. This is a new week, a new day and there are new challenges.”

“A defeat like the one against Scotland hurts. But what matters is how many times you get up, not how many times you fall. That is the way we are looking at it.”

That sums up Botha’s attitude. He is never one to dwell on negatives, and the side will look to him to lead them into battle.

He continued, “It was a difficult weekend for us, but the door is now closed and the focus is on England. A test against England at Twickenham stays something special. It’s a tough and physical test, and one we’re looking forward to.”

“They have a big pack and quick backs. We now want a big performance against England. It will be a great win if we can pull it off. It’s important that we finish the tour well.”