Rugby public must make up its mind on what it wants from the Boks

I've never really considered myself much of a candidate for the role of Agony Aunt but that is what it appears I have become for these past few days in London.

South Africans have been crawling out of the woodwork all over London since the 29-9 defeat at Twickenham. They all seem to want only one thing - they want to talk through their hurt at the way the Springboks played and lost.

It is not the first time I have seen the South African expats living in London become an army of lost and bereft souls. It is now four years since the Springboks last won at Twickenham and the frustration of these poor people who have to live in England and put up with the taunts of England fans and the gushing English press is understandable.

No-one takes defeat quite as badly as a South African living in London - well, at least not when England are involved. When the 1998 record sequence of Gary Teichmann's team was ended at Twickenham I can well recall how I overheard a woman talking to her boyfriend/husband on her cell-phone.

"Listen darling, please don't talk to me like that. You just have to understand that I have had a terrible day and the Springboks lost." Whereupon she burst into tears and put the phone down on her partner, who could only have been English if you consider his complete lack of sympathy for her over-reaction to the Springbok defeat.

It was not a pleasant night for South Africans. The fans lining the station platform at Twickenham two hours after the game tested the patience of all of us by singing "Stick your record up your a..e" over and over again.

But it did not compare with the reaction I have witnessed now. It is as if the South Africans elsewhere in the world are finally recognising that the greatness of the Springbok is on the wane. On numerous occasions I heard the lament about South Africa becoming a second rate rugby nation. Invariably it was spoken with the tone you would anticipate if they were talking about something far more weighty than a mere sports team.

It is understandable - those South Africans who live far from home place great stock on the Springbok results simply because sporting success enables them to identify with their homeland.

But there was one comment that I heard on Saturday night that nearly turned this Agony Aunt into a raging bull. Listening to a couple of expats talking about the Springbok performance, I could only agree with their view that the defeat was a case of nothing ventured and nothing gained in that the Boks had not been ambitious enough and had been reluctant to try anything.

There argument fell down, however, when in the next breath they had a full go at Bob Skinstad for the pass that was intercepted by Dan Luger to give England their only try.

Here were a group of people decrying South Africa's reluctance to try anything and yet being highly critical of the one player in the green jersey who did in fact try something.

This may well be the heart of the South African rugby problem. We talk about adventure, we talk about experimentation, we criticise coaches for not having the guts to try new things. Yet when they do make a stab at it and it goes wrong the wrath of Khan comes tumbling down on their heads. Remember the outcry when the coach introduced new faces at this training camp in Plettenberg Bay?

Maybe the real problem for the Boks these past few weeks has been fear of failure. They are a young, developing team who earlier in the year were being groomed to play an exciting new brand of rugby that would make opponents sit up and take notice in the next World Cup.

But they were quickly introduced to the reality of South African rugby - rule number one is that even if you are at the start of a new cycle you have to win, and if it is northern hemisphere opposition you are up against, you have to win in style.

Post isolation statistics will show that those who carp on about how the Boks used to dominate the rugby world and keep muttering about how this or that defeat is unacceptable, are living in cloud cuckoo land.

The fact of the matter is that it has now been several years since the Bok backs last looked decent. The South Africans adopted a safety first approach at World Cup 1999, they have had a safety first approach since I can remember.

Back play has been stifled in our country and it has been going on for too long to be the fault of Harry Viljoen, Tim Lane or, for that matter, previous backline coach Alan Solomons.

There were some appalling selections for the latest tour and some grave tactical errors. If SA Rugby (Pty) Ltd decided to review Viljoen's contract they would be perfectly justified in doing so.

But before we join the lemmings let's just take a closer look at the situation and accept that the problems go far deeper than just the name and identity of the current coach.

And to those who say that the Boks should be more adventurous and then call for the selection of Braam van Straaten so he can kick goals or the axing of Percy Montgomery or Pieter Rossouw because they take too many risks and castigate players for conceding intercept tries, don't for a moment think I will act the role of Agony Aunt to you.

The best thing you can do for yourselves is go and speak to your brain surgeon about the possibility of having it fixed.