Size does matter

'What’s wrong with our rugby?' If I had R10 for every time I was asked that question recently I would have had enough to play a double-up roulette system at the Nedbank Golf Challenge at Sun City and, who knows? perhaps even break the bank.

It was asked by the whole spectrum of fans – from Gary Player to the youngster who inquired whether I knew that Joe van Niekerk was a KES boy.

Those 50 points against England are hurting and people are searching for answers – not in the angry way of a year ago but with an air of despondency.

From my information, gleaned from any number of sources, there are many reasons but one key cause could be traced back to the end-of-year tour in 1997.

The Springboks, under Nick Mallett, were on a triumphal march through Europe and rode roughshod over Italy (61-22), France (36-32 in Lyons and 52-10 in Paris), England (29-11 at Twickenham) and Scotland (68-10 at Murrayfield). Record-breaking, try-scoring victories.

That was during the that run of 17 straight victories and an article by the former Lions No8 and TV pundit John Beattie in an Edinburgh newspaper caught my attention.

He was pointing out that the northern hemisphere had dropped off the pace and professionalism of the south and by way of illustration he told the story of how shocked the Scots had been at a gym session to discover that Percy Montgomery had started a muscle building session with the same weights with which the Scotland forwards had ended theirs.

Beattie was not alone in noticing that the southern hemisphere sides had jumped ahead in preparation and conditioning… that they were simply bigger, stronger and faster.

He was not alone. Others were noticing; men such as Clive Woodward and Bernard Laporte, respectively destined to take over England and France.

They set out to install efficient management systems, greater concentration on physical training and tougher mental attitudes while all the time scouring their respective countries for players who could match the Tri-Nations nations for size.

Laporte, in particular, moved away from traditional French norms and introduced backs such as Bory, Jeanjean, Jauzion, Marsh and Traille to withstand the pounding they had been taking from the Springboks, All Blacks and Wallabies.

But it is among the forwards that the most dramatic changes took place – especially when it came to the tight five – and it is in this area that the Springboks have come unstuck.

It is my contention the Boks’ poor performances since 1999 have been because we have been eclipsed in the tight five. The big four nations as well as the like of Ireland, Scotland and Argentina are no longer intimidated by our frontrows and at lock they are simply bigger than us.

The old analogy of the good big ‘un comes to mind. England (Johnson, Kay and Grewcock), France (Pelous and Brouzet), Australia (Harrison, Sharpe, Bowman and Vickerman) and New Zealand (Jack and Maxwell) have taller and heavier locks than we do and it is in this crucial area of primary confrontation that we are being dominated.

The Springboks at the moment are going in with the like of Jannes Labuschagne, AJ Venter and Marco Wentzel – all loose forwards converted to lock. Victor Matfield is a fine player but lacks weight... the same goes for Albert van der Berg.

I always remember Kitch Christie harping on about how a lock “has to have legs, strong legs.” We’ve let Mark Andrews go now and may have wasted the best years of Johan Ackermann. Krynauw Otto, in hindsight, was clearly a much more valuable player than he was given credit for.

The problem in the tight five is transferred to the loose forwards, who battle to impose themselves, and the rot then oozes to the halfbacks and the three-quarters.

There are other problems – such as the lack of discipline and a disregard for the basics – but the key concern is that our forwards are being forced backwards by opponents who are bigger than they are.

To put it in plainer language – these guys are not scared of us any more and, frankly, the excesses resorted to on the recent tour (with our captain in the van) were pitiful.

This lack of size is one of the reasons we can beat Australia but battle against the rest. The Wallabies traditionally shy away from a physical game and we are able to compete better but against the All Blacks, England and the Tricolores the imbalance is too big.

There are players returning who might make a difference (Os du Randt) but the biggest worry is that there are so few specialist locks with the build to go up against the like of Martin Johnson or Fabian Pelous and consistently come out on top.

I liked the look of young Geo Cronje of the Blue Bulls while Bakkies Botha certainly has the build but there is not much else. We could take another look at Hottie Louw.

As to the problem at tighthead we had better hold thumbs that Cobus Visagie and Faan Rautenbach, who are unlikely to have their opponents quivering in their size 12s but who do cope, make a full recovery. What I find staggering is that the weakness on the righthand size of the scrum has been with us for some time now but there seems to have been no effort to address it.

Much work lies ahead, but we must start with a solid foundation. Forget about defensive patterns and attacking grids, forget about touch passing and tactical kicking, it all starts up front… and right now, for South Africa, that’s not as easy as one, two, three… four, five.