New coach is no mug

Well done to SA Rugby Union president Oregan Hoskins for saying it like it is – Peter de Villiers may not necessarily have been the best candidate for the Springbok job if the selection was based purely on rugby considerations.

This should be self-evident to anyone who has followed who missed out, Heyneke Meyer. If taking a union from the relegation zone to a clutch of Currie Cup trophies and then becoming the first coach to guide a South African team to Super 14 success is not enough, then what is?

But the appointment of De Villiers is not the first time that a Springbok coach may have come to the job when he is not necessarily the acknowledged leader when it comes to strategy and on-field rugby acumen.

Some old timers still hark back to the days of Louis Luyt, yet Luyt presided over the appointment of Andre Markgraaff in 1996 and Carel du Plessis in 1997. Neither of them were a success and there were definitely better candidates around.

At the same time though, the best man for the job is not necessarily the right man for the job. For instance, Ian McIntosh probably should never have been sacked as Springbok coach in 1994, yet Kitch Christie, who was hand-picked by Luyt, was probably the right man at the right time.

The selection of Springbok coaches has always been guided by a combination of politics and provincialism, and if the De Villiers appointment is to be seen as political, at least we must recognise that this did not start this week.

McIntosh’s crime in the eyes of many critics was that he was English speaking, had not played for the Springboks and was born in Zimbabwe. That was why Gerrie Sonnekus, a man who did not boast a record anywhere near as good as Mac’s, was the initial appointment before a controversy over misappropriated funds forced a change of plan.

Doubtless the politics of Afrikaans against English, and Heaven forbid, maybe even Stellenbosch against UCT, played a part in the appointment of Du Plessis, who boasted no coaching experience at the time, over the brash English speaking Nick Mallett.

More recently, Gert Smal withdrew his name from contention for the Bok job when it became apparent to him that the politicos in the SA Rugby administration favoured Rudolf Straeuli. He said he did not want to go through the sham of the interview process if Straeuli had already been earmarked for the job.

Was Straeuli the best man for the job back then? Indeed, was his predecessor, Harry Viljoen, the best candidate to succeed Mallett in 2000? Considering he hadn’t coached for three years and had been out of rugby completely, you would have to answer an unequivocal no.

De Villiers, as someone who has been involved in coaching across many different levels in South African rugby for the best part of a decade and a half, is eminently better qualified to coach the Springboks than most of the names I have mentioned in this column.

He has more than a decade coaching experience than Du Plessis had when he was appointed in 1997, he has been around in the national structures a lot longer than Straeuli was, and unlike Viljoen, he was currently working as a coach when he was appointed.

Players who have worked under De Villiers give him mixed reviews, but if you look at his record, built up over several years, then he cannot be a mug. Fools don’t win world under-21 titles, they don’t guide the Emerging Boks to IRB titles, and remember, like White, he also was a beaten finalist in the under-21 tournament once.

De Villiers has spoken of the need to carry on with the players who won the World Cup under White, and it is believed he will even continue with John Smit as his captain. This is all positive, and the only area where he may lack what White had in 2004 is the experience that comes with being part of a Springbok management. White served under both Mallett and Viljoen.

This shortcoming though can be overcome by wise selection of management, and hopefully, again if the rumours are correct, White himself will be on hand to work with De Villiers as a consultant over the next two years.

All things considered then, the appointment of De Villiers is not reason to don sackcloth. The decision may not have been based purely on rugby considerations, but then if it was, Robbie Deans should have been offered a South African alternative to the option he eventually took up in Australia.

South African rugby has never been prepared to countenance an overseas national coach, and until it does, it is folly to argue that all options are being considered.