Problems go much deeper than identity of coach and captain

Watching Nasser Hussain bravely trying to stem the Aussie tide in his second innings of the third Ashes test evoked images of embattled Springbok coach Rudolf Straeuli.

Those South Africans who have followed this Ashes series - having spent most of the past month in Britain, I find it impossible to avoid it - will bulk at the thought that the Springboks can be compared in any way to England's struggling cricketers.

But of course they can. Like the England cricketers, the Springboks were thought to be on an upward graph. And like Hussain, who was described as the best England captain since Mike Brearley during the English summer, Straeuli was quite the man of the moment.

Hussain was leading a winning, rapidly improving team. Straeuli was coaching if not the most successful rugby unit on the planet, certainly the most exciting. And as recently as the latter part of October, both were still popular figures with their media and public.

Here we sit six weeks later and everything has changed. It took just 80 minutes of a hectic match against France in Marseilles to remind everyone that Straeuli's team actually finished last in the Tri-Nations.

Just a few hours later and England were collapsing to 79 all out in their second innings of the first test. Although he could hardly be blamed for some of the loose shots his fellow batsmen played, Hussain joined Straeuli in descending from champ to chump.

The Springboks went from Marseilles to Edinburgh, England's cricketers from the first test into the second one. Promises of a new beginning for both proved no more than hot air - England were beaten by an innings despite a promising start, while even greater calamity was to follow for the Boks as they suffered a rare defeat to Scotland.

By this time what seemed impossible just a few weeks earlier started to become a reality - former players, media and critics back home started to question whether either of them should continue in their jobs.

These criticisms brought a quick response from outgoing England and Wales Cricket Board chaiman Lord MacLaurin. He questioned whether perhaps his countrymen had lost their minds and reminded cricket writers of the praise they had heaped on Hussain during the summer.

South African sports figures did the same with regard to Straeuli. First it was Sarfu president Silas Nkanunu who backed Straeuli (and the SA Rugby chief executive Rian Oberholzer). He was followed by Sports Minister, Ngconde Balfour.

But the question marks hovering above both their heads are not so easily erased and will remain a matter of hot debate until such time as something positive happens that will deflect some of the spotlight.

Is it right that they should be under so much pressure now after their successes earlier in the year? To answer that question, you have to know what they are being criticised for. In Hussain's case, he undeniably made the wrong decision in two of the three Ashes tosses that he has won thus far.

His humour, or lack thereof, has also been under scrutiny in the field. He spends too much time, or so the English writers say, criticising his bowlers and generally behaving like an old granny. But then if you see how some of his admittedly third string attack have bowled, you can hardly blame him.

Straeuli also contributed to the disasters that befell his team in France and Britain. He made too many changes for the second test match against Scotland and he may also have come down too hard on the players after the defeat in Marseilles.

The stories that came back from some of the closed training sessions were redolent of his decision to send the Sharks team on a punishment run the day after they lost a Super 12 match earlier this year.

In the days of Brigadier Buurman van Zyl, that may have been okay, maybe even applauded. These days it is just laughed at by the professional players and coaches of other countries.

Any provincial coach worth his salt will remind you of the folly of messing the players up physically and psychologically in the buildup to an important match. Either Straeuli underestimated the Scots, or he just got it wrong.

I am also of the opinion that he is not quite as clear as some of his predecessors on the thin line that distinguishes controlled aggression from the crude approach which won the Boks so few friends at Twickenham.

But in both the Hussain and Straeuli cases these were mistakes which in the overall scheme of things probably made only a minor difference to the results on tour.

England were always going to get a bunting from Oz, who have hammered far better teams than this England team in recent times. Although we may only say it in retrospect, the same has to be said of the Boks going to Marseilles and Twickenham.

The Boks have battled against northern hemisphere teams for quite a few years now, and on this trip retirements and injuries saw to it that there was more inexperience than usual. Yes, the Scotland defeat was a disaster, but then those who were in Edinburgh that week could tell you that Scottish rugby is far more organised than it has ever been before.

Their teams are starting to win in Europe at last and, thanks in no small part to the influence of Kiwi coaches and players, the general rugby mood is on the upswing.

The Boks played like buffoons at Murrayfield, but if you consider the weather conditions, they might have been hard pressed to win even with their best team on the field. I say this because it has now become obvious that South African forwards have either lost the necessary technique to compete with their northern counterparts in wet conditions, or they never had it in the first place.

And that, as was argued when Harry Viljoen was in a similar position this time last year, is not the fault of the coach of the day, but the system. The most sensible comment made in the past few weeks was Nick Mallett's call in the Sunday Telegraph (reproduced in the SA Sunday Times this past weekend) for a national coaching co-ordinator (he called it a development coach) to be appointed.

This co-ordinator would be responsible for upgrading skills levels, something that can only be achieved by an independent who is not hamstrung by the need to win each Saturday.

But then Mallett made a recommendation along these lines four years ago and this column made a similar call this time last year, when it was argued that the knee-jerk reaction of sacking yet another coach was not the way forward.

It would be naive to suggest that England's current success on the rugby field is just about Clive Woodward or Martin Johnson. Systems have been put in place there that have facilitated the rise, and my hunch is that England are going to be strong for many years to come.

The same has to be said about Australian cricket. Their hegemony in the world game is not just about Shane Warne, Steve Waugh or Glenn McGrath, but the result of their cricketing academies and succession planning.

Maybe it is time for South African rugby to face the same facts that must now be faced by England cricket - inability to compete with the best goes much deeper than the identity of the coach or captain.