Boks must forget about RWC 2007

Kiwis appear to be accepting their most recent World Cup semi-final defeat more soberly than when the All Blacks were knocked out at a similar stage of the 1999 tournament.

Part of this is due to a change in the New Zealand perspective. This was explained in an article in the NZ Herald, where a writer pointed out that at this World Cup there were four teams that were all equally capable of knocking each other over on a given day and when the bounce of the ball went with them.

Unlike some previous years, when the All Blacks failed at tournaments they should have won easily, this time there were no real grounds to consider them much superior on neutral territory to a team like England or France. After all, the French were the better team in the draw in Paris last year, while England won on New Zealand soil not that long ago.

Sean Fitzpatrick, who arrogantly said there wasn't a single Wallaby who deserved a place in the All Black team, was proved wrong, as have many other over-confident New Zealanders during the course of the last four years. The Aussies have won at least as often as they have lost in Trans-Tasman clashes in that period, so why should the World Cup game have been any different?

But there is probably not an Aussie on the planet who would be prepared to bet his house against last Saturday's result going the other way if the match was played again this week. The Wallabies, playing against a team of roughly equal strength to themselves, simply got it right on the day, just as the Springboks did in the 1995 final. Such is the nature of sport.

At least the New Zealanders weren't left to wonder what might have been had the weather conditions been different. The French, in building up to the event, would never in a million years have imagined they would run into England on a wet day.

The French also copped it from the weather gods in Durban in 1995, where there was also the small matter of a try that was disallowed by referee Derek Bevan but which the French were convinced had been scored by Abdel Benazzi. Had the try been awarded it would have been France, and not South Africa, through to the final the following week.

That there has not been much refereeing controversy at the latest World Cup does not change the central point of this column, which is that four years of buildup and hard work does not guarantee the ultimate prize. Teams are slave to outrageous fortune and the momentary lapses of concentration or split-second mistakes that no amount of planning can insure you against.

Which takes me back to a column written towards the beginning of Harry Viljoen's reign as Springbok coach. At the time, June of 2001, Viljoen was confounding the critics with several decisions which made little sense to those who wanted to see the Boks win whichever test they were to play on a given Saturday.

Viljoen made no secret of the fact his mind was firmly fixed on World Cup 2003, which then was still over two and a half years away. My argument then was that he should just forget the World Cup as there was a lot of rugby still to be played before then.

The World Cup, as we have seen again at this tournament, is really only decided in the two week period that starts with the quarterfinals. And if you get a good draw, like Australia did, it could hinge just on the two weekends which encompass the semi and the final.

At this level all of the teams are talented and all are well prepared, so there is little that can really be done two or three years ahead of time to ensure that victory is secured at the business end of the World Cup.

What you can do though is start consistently winning the big matches to ensure that you are in the mix as one of the top nations when the fortnight of reckoning arrives.

My reaction in August, when Rudolf Straeuli started using fitness and team unity as his excuse for every bizarre little ritual the Boks went through, was to question whether this meant these things weren't in place previously.

Were the Boks not fit for the Tri-Nations games, were they not fit in 2002, were they not a unified squad? And if not, are those poor lemmings who paid a small fortune for tickets to Tri-Nations matches perhaps owed an apology and their money back?

Straeuli kept telling us we should judge him on the World Cup. But as he discovered, you cannot bank on success at a World Cup, where there are teams competing that have performed consistently well over the last four years and have not just thrown all their eggs into one basket (or for that matter given them to the players to take into the bush).

If you look at the identity of the four semi-finalists at this World Cup, it is clear that it is the most consistent teams over an extended period that end up mounting the strongest challenge.

Both France and England have won the Six Nations trophy since the 1999 World Cup, while New Zealand and Australia have won the Tri-Nations twice apiece. As we saw with the Kiwis and the French, this does not guarantee the ultimate prize, but it does significantly increase your chances of being around when the lottery of the final knock-out stage starts.

South Africa never won a significant trophy between 1999 and 2003 and they have also hardly won a big game against meaningful opposition. Should we be surprised then that when it came to the World Cup, the event everyone was building towards, the Boks were caught well short?

If I have one fervent wish for the next four years it is that we keep references to France 2007 to a minimum. The best foundation for a World Cup challenge is to be a successful team, and that means being more consistent at winning the many smaller but nonetheless important battles that are the bread and butter of the game between World Cups.

Before the quarterfinal against New Zealand I argued that even if the Boks won, one victory alone should not be sufficient reason to keep Straeuli on. What was more important was the fact he has only two wins against top opposition to boast about in 12 starts. So for me it is not a debate - he must go.

The one thing his replacement must do at all costs is avoid explaining away defeats by saying he is building to the World Cup.

South Africans should not be judging the coach on one-off matches at the World Cup, but on his record over all matches.

It is only by building up a culture of excellence, which means winning consistently against top opposition over the four year period, that South Africa can gaurantee a strong challenge at the next World Cup. They may not necessarily win it, because that comes down to how everything goes on the day, but at least they will stand a chance.