Another ambulance job won't help Boks

A radio journalist sounded a little exasperated the other day when he let me know in no uncertain terms what he thought of my "support" of Springbok coach Harry Viljoen.

My response was that what he perceived to be "support" was just an attempt to be even-handed. Being objective in rugby reporting is however extremely difficult and there will always be someone to accuse you of having some or other agenda.

During my university years I learned that the ideal of journalistic objectivity was no more than a myth. In South African rugby, which attracts so much intense and emotional debate, it is probably even harder to attain than in other fields of the media.

I know this because I myself have frequently transgressed over the line between fair comment and emotional vitriol. I still believe Nick Mallett was misguided to drop Gary Teichmann from his squad before the 1999 World Cup. But it was his decision and seen in the cold light of dawn, some of the invective directed at him from this pen, guided though it was by heartfelt concern for someone who had been done a perceived injustice, was a little over the top.

Four years on and I could also tell you that a biting open letter addressed to the then coach Carel du Plessis and which was run prominently in The Star during the 1997 Lions tour is now regretted.

It is not that the points were not the right ones. In my opinion Sarfu were wrong to appoint a coach that had not coached at any level higher than Cape second division club rugby before the call came.

In spite of the excellent 61-22 win over the Australians in his last match in charge, it was probably also the right decision for Sarfu to drop Du Plessis when they did.

However, I am less convinced about this now than I was in early September 1997. Although the Boks went on to win the Tri-Nations the following year, this was to prove but a small oasis amidst an arid desert.

As with the unforgettable 1995 World Cup winning year, the high was followed by a low every bit as bad than the one that preceded it. For those who continually carp on about Mallett's 17 match unbeaten sequence, perhaps they need reminding of some other unwanted records that cropped up when he was coaching the Boks in 1999.

They read as follows: record defeat against NZ (28-0), record defeat against Australia (32-6, 26-6 and 44-23), first Bok team to lose four on the trot to Aussie under one coach, first ever defeat to Wales.

I am not having a go at Mallett. I did not believe it was right for Sarfu to axe him when they did. Neither did I support the appointment of a replacement who at the time had not coached at any level in the previous three years.

Who was my choice? Alan Solomons, on the basis that he was the most successful Super 12 coach, should have warranted greater consideration than he was, but my first prize was none other than current All Black coach John Mitchell. The former Waikato captain was then between jobs after parting ways with England, where he served as assistant to Clive Woodward.

Rian Oberholzer, after reading my column, told me he would love to take the route I had suggested, but that his colleagues in the higher corridors of power were too conservative to accept a foreigner. Shame on SA rugby for being so blinkered and so xenophobic!

Faced with this sort of attitude, and caught between a rock and hard place due to the dearth of practising coaches who boasted the necessary experience, Sarfu in the end had little option but to go with Viljoen, who during his career as a Currie Cup coach had shown that rare ability to turn nobodies into somebodies.

They could have stuck with Mallett, but let's face it, many of the same people who are now knocking Viljoen were even more negative last year about the previous coach. There is also some validity in the view that an international coach should have a four year window to work with and no more than that. So even if Mallett had stayed on the chances are we would have been looking for a new coach for the most recent end of year tour.

But back to Du Plessis. He was not a successful Springbok coach (three wins in seven starts) and neither did his team show much structure and plan. He was accused of being too romantic and not practical enough - and given his lack of experience those charges were valid ones.

What he did offer, however, was a break away from the accepted traditional Springbok approach and it may not be a coincidence that South Africa's most successful backline of the post-isolation era played under Mallett in the immediate post-Carel era.

I am not sure whether Du Plessis' long-term vision would have realised anything. But the course of time, and the several coaching dilemmas that have followed his axing, have introduced an element of doubt. Maybe if South African rugby had been more patient and been better prepared to accept the odd defeat he would have grown into the job and the Boks might now be reaping the benefits.

Du Plessis is not the only Springbok coach of recent vintage who has been recognised for his contribution belatedly. There are probably many out there who agreed with Louis Luyt when he axed Ian McIntosh but who now look back on the Natalian as the architect of Kitch Christie's triumph at the World Cup.

The benefit of hindsight can do wondrous things and it is for this reason that I am not going to do what I normally do in a situation like the one currently faced by South African rugby and join the those calling for yet another Springbok coach's head.

Viljoen has made some terrible mistakes this year and his switches of direction have brought about diabolical consequences for the green and gold jersey. But he may not be guilty of anything worse than what both McIntosh and Mallett were - he fell pray to the madness which tends to afflict Springbok coaches when the ridiculous pressure brought to bear on them just gets too much.

Again, I talk as one who has helped apply that pressure in the past, and who doubtless contributed to Viljoen's periods of "insanity" in mid-year when he was trying to balance up his drive to bring in new, "special" players and a revolutionised approach with the demands to win each test match.

Those who care to look will find a column somewhere in the archives (late June) where I pilloried Viljoen for forgetting that the World Cup was still two years away and that his immediate job was to win the Tri-Nations.

Yet a glance back through South Africa's post-isolation record (and in particular the try-scoring drought of the past few years) suggests that both Viljoen and Du Plessis may have been right in trying to break the mould. The Springbok failure to live up to the standards of the pre-isolation era pre- dated both of them by some distance.

Only twice in those nine years - in 1995 and 1998 - have the Boks boasted any success to speak of. Both could probably be described as ambulance jobs, but history reflects that these ambulance jobs, which is where South African rugby would be going if Viljoen was to be dropped now, do not bring long-term health and success.

In 1995 we won the World Cup and then in 1996 we were back where we started. It was the same after the Tri-Nations victory of 1998. It is perhaps time for SA rugby to forget about ambulance jobs and look instead at an extended stay in a health farm. It may take longer to come right but the rewards will be more longlasting.

This is not an endorsement of Viljoen. We have yet to see his new dynamic game and so far he has done little more than talk about it - at least on the evidence of the matches themselves. Apart from showing a willingness to appreciate that the introduction of black talent is even more important to the future of South African rugby right now than winning the next test, he has not dispelled my misgivings of 12 months ago.

But after nearly a decade of seeing Springbok coaches come and go, and often myself helping facilitate their fall, don't expect me to join the bloodletting.

Clearly the problems which continually beset the Springboks go far deeper than the identity of the latest person stupid enough to take on the most pressured job in South African sport. We need to go deeper than the current debate in our search for answers.

Those who disagree with this view may like to munch over the following statistics:

Since 1992 our win-loss record against the top four nations is:

NZ: P21: W: 6. D1: L14 = 30%
AUS: P19: W: 8. D1. L10 = 44%
ENG: P11: W: 5. L6 = 45%
FRANCE: P12: W: 7. D1. L4 = 63%

Our record in Australia and New Zealand since 1992 is:

In NZ: P9: W 1. D1. L7
In Aus: P10: W2: D1. L7
Total: P19: W3. D2. L14

Our record in France and England since 1992 is:

In France: P7. W. 5. L2
In England: P6. W.2. L4
In France (against England): P1. W.1
Total: P14. W. 8. L6

Note that Kitch Christie's 14-match winning run from late 1994 to 1995 was mostly achieved at home and always in one-off clashes.