Time for more ‘real’ and less ‘ideal’

Just months ago those of closely connected to South African rugby used to talk about what it was that caused Nick Mallett to lose the plot. Now we’re getting on to whether Harry Viljoen knows what the plot is.

Naturally the new coach’s problems are not all of his own making. He has his own ideas about what he wants to do with the Springbok team – and I don’t know whether it’s right any one person is given such latitude – but he also has to deal with the myriad of agendas of his masters at Sarfu.

Viljoen has set himself the task of changing the way the Springboks play, but I still think he is going about it the wrong way.

You can’t dramatically change players who have already reached the pinnacle of their careers by becoming Springboks. It is wrong to manipulate the flair and characteristics that made them Springboks in the first place.

If South Africa are to make striking changes it must start at schoolboy level – as young as under 15 – and be managed as a project to bear fruit by the time the players are old enough to be considered for inclusion in the Springboks.

Too often we see players reaching the national squad who can’t pass with their weaker hand; pivots who can’t kick with the ‘other’ foot; props who can’t adapt to a difficult opponent; forwards whose body positions are all wrong.

This is not the fault of Viljoen, or of Mallett, or of Carel du Plessis. It is the fault of the system. We have, for instance, known for some time that we are vulnerable in the frontrow and at flyhalf.

Has the problem been addressed? Has an SOS been sent to schools associations to find promising tighthead props to be sent on national development courses run by the ilk of Hempies du Toit, Os du Randt and Uli Schmidt? Have you read about the like of Naas Botha, Joel Stransky, Hennie le Roux and Henry Honiball being asked to formulate and run master classes for promising flyhalves?

Of course not. Sarfu’s agendas tend not to begin with the heading: “What can we do that will be good for the Springboks?” And, on that subject, the people one must have real admiration for are the Springboks themselves given the level they continue to be able to maintain in spite of the divergent influences they have to put up with.

The like of Mark Andrews and Joost van der Westhuizen have played under seven Springbok coaches – they missed out only on John Williams – while many of the current crop have experience of Andre Markgraaff, Carel du Plessis, Nick Mallett and now Viljoen.

To become a Springbok coach you have to have a strong personality and each one of these gentlemen would, in different ways, have tried to impose his will on the members of the team.

Added to this there is the influence to consider of Ian McIntosh and Rudolf Straeuli on the Natal players, the direction given to Western Province men by not only Gert Smal and Carel du Plessis but also Alan Solomons when they’re with the Stormers, the adherence to a pattern passed on to the Lions by Laurie Mains as well as various other persuasions promoted by other coaches.

By now the heads of the players must be spinning with ideas and theories and it is small wonder the players have recently looked as though they did not know what they should be doing. On top of this they are currently surrounded by a management team from hell that contains divergent cultures and attitudes while being racked by the stresses of having to deal with people whom they either don’t like or who don’t get on with each other. The players have my sympathy and admiration in equal proportion.

The ideal may be a team that can play with the panache of the Brumbies or the Wallabies – who are not quite the same team without Gregan, Larkham, Horan, Little and Finegan – but the reality is that South Africa possesses neither the players nor the rugby culture to move to such a radical game plan.

The truth is that Rod Macqueen coached both New South Wales and the Brumbies before he was put in charge of the Wallabies with the result that is thinking had already been imbedded in the minds of many of the players. For him it has been a process of refinement and innovation rather than the complete transformation being attempted by Viljoen.

Macqueen has also not made the mistake of committing himself to any high ideals, whereas Viljoen is already way out on a limb.

Viljoen has, for instance, committed some serious gaffes in terms of the team’s public representation. He made the mistake of sending the Pumas a signal that he was worried about their pack; the Boks became involved in a completely unnecessary squabble over a training field with the Irish when it appears they may have been partly to blame; while all the whingeing about whether Millennium Stadium’s roof should stay open or not merely told the Welsh that the Boks were nervous of playing them in the wet.

The big examination comes against England on Saturday, and after just three tests in charge the new coach seems to have backed himself into a Catch 22. Does he make the changes that are palpably necessary, and admit that his original approach was flawed, or does he stick to his plan and end up having to deal with the repercussions of a defeat?

Viljoen must weigh up what is “real” against what would be “ideal.” His answer lies in the last 30 minutes of the test against Wales.