Some random thoughts on Bok selections and performance

There is nothing quite like a defeat to bring a new sense of perspective.

Whereas a week ago it seemed South African rugby was on the brink of a fresh beginning and the Springboks were poised to ressurect themselves, today it is a different story.

The doom merchants are suddenly out in their droves, pronouncing our rugby to either be dead or dying.

Those who know the South African rugby psyche would not be surprised by this sudden change to a negative way of thinking. A year ago we saw a similar thing when Nick Mallett's new leaf was ruined by the England forwards in Pretoria and Bloemfontein.

What had appeared to those pressmen present at the Plettenberg Bay training camp to be the first step towards redemption following the World Cup disaster suddenly became something different. By the time Mallett took his charges to Australia for the Tri-Nations the mood had become so defeatist that it was summed up by a famous recent Springboks who saw me board a flight in Cape Town at the same time as the Boks were heading overseas.

As he assumed I was heading to Australia too, as I had for the previous four Tri-Nations, I had to point out that myself and my wife were heading instead to a midseason break on the Algarve, Portugal. His reaction was that it was the wisest decision I had ever made - the inference being that the Boks were on a hiding to nothing and that it was, in his words, "the same old story".

Reading through the newspapers and the various internet sites this week, it certainly does appear that it is "the same old story" - and from many different angles and aspects. While the Boks showed no inclination for any new game, the critics have been equally predictable in the way they have panned them.

Make no mistake, Andre Vos and his team were awful last week. But as I was one of the critics who a week ago took the view that the virtue of patience was the key to South African rugby's renaissance, it would be a little inconsistent of me if I now condemned Harry Viljoen's team outright.

As I never criticised the team selection when it was made, how can I turn around and do so now?

There were mitigating circumstances. If you are starting out on a new path, the French, as England were a year ago, are rather tough opponents first up. It would have been far better to play Italy or Canada first up. It is impossible for players to become imbued with the confidence necessary for a new game to come through if they are denied the ball and the opposition spend the evening in their faces.

Having said that, and noting that a botched Comrades attempt last Saturday forced me to watch the game in piecemeal fashion during the course of the week, there are a number of things which, taking a retrospective point of view, were disturbing about the initial selection and about the Bok approach.

Drawing on the exact science of hindsight, here are some random thoughts that have come to me during the course of the week:

1. What was Japie Mulder doing at centre if the role of the player in that position was just to distribute the ball? Mulder has some great strengths, but almost all of them are geared towards a more direct, physical approach. You select Mulder to take the ball back to the forwards and to use his physical strength to get you across the advantage line. You do not select him to provide the silky handling skills of a link man.

2. It is wrong to suggest that the Boks were completely surprised by the French lineout proficiency. Viljoen, in an interview done in Plettenberg Bay, said beforehand that he feared the French forwards. He said he had heard they were particularly strong in first phase play. He also claimed to have received information on the French players. He must have known then that they had picked four locks in the pack, which could only mean one thing. Why then did we have Andre Venter, who is essentially the only player in the squad capable of creating a presence at the back, playing at lock. This not only robbed the Boks of an extra option in the lineouts, but also meant that South Africa's best lineout forward on opposition ball, Albert van den Berg, was left out. On reflection, these selections were quite idiotic given the opposition the Boks were up against.

3. Percy Montgomery played a poor game at fullback, but did anyone notice the lack of support he was getting from his fellow members of the back three. With Vos hardly playing the traditional game of a No8 by dropping back to support the fullback, Montgomery was often left to fend for himself all alone. Breyton Paulse is no longer as good at getting back to cover and support as he was during the 1999 Super 12. Dean Hall plays the old wing game (rather well too), and is also not a factor when it comes to acting as a second or third fullback.

It was a different story when Pieter Rossouw and Stefan Terblanche were on the wings - perhaps it is significant that both those players have played at fullback. On the end of year tour it was a role that Chester Williams carried out with a touch of genius. He is the sort of player that was missed at Ellis Park.

4. When Montgomery went walkabout the situation cried out for a change. But Viljoen had chosen Conrad Jantjes, a player who has hardly seen any Super 12 action, as his bench cover for fullback. In a match this fraught with tension, to bring Jantjes into the action would have been to throw him to the wolves. Had Thinus Delport been there, it would have been a different story.

5. South Africa showed during the Super 12 that the country has more than enough quality tight forwards. Yet the Boks were made to look decidedly mediocre by an average French pack. Much of this, as the players themselves have admitted subsequently, had to do with the differences in the respective northern and southern hemisphere approaches. In the Super 12, a scrum is used as a restart, in the north it is considered far more than that. But my question revolves around how it is we came to be caught with our pants down yet again.

During the past three seasons I have made a habit of interviewing tight forwards before matches against northern hemisphere opposition. They always talk about this difference in approach, yet on match day they still seem unprepared for it.

6. There are now four Sharks players in the new Springbok tight five. Is this an acknowledgement on the management's part that in emphasising the need to play Brumbies rugby, the good old basics of a tight, unified forward pack that can create you a platform were forgotten. The Sharks and the Cats thrived in the Super 12 on the back of solid forward efforts. The quest for a dynamic new approach should not completely obliterate South Africa's traditional rugby strengths.

7. In everything we do in life, we start off relatively slowly and conservatively. Our first bicycle ride is not down the notoriously steep downhill on Kloof Nek in Cape Town. We master the basics first, then we start experimenting after that. In this regard, Viljoen could learn a few things from Sharks coach Rudolf Straeuli, who was criticised for coaching dull, conservative rugby last year but who it has subsequently been proved knew a thing or two about the way a rugby ressurection should be carried out. You get the players to start winning again first, so helping them to restore confidence. Only after that do you start worrying about introducing new things.

8. The start to the international season was similar to the one Mallett experienced last year, but what worries me is that the initial stages of Viljoen's year are even more reminiscent of the Carel du Plessis era, when it was almost impossible to discern a playing pattern or strategy. Of course, after his dynamic role with various Currie Cup teams in the 1990s, Viljoen does boast more coaching experience than Du Plessis when he first took over. But by his own admission the game changed a lot between early 1998 and the current day, during which time he had no hands on experience to talk of. At this stage it is difficult to defend Viljoen from the charge that, like Du Plessis, he is more romantic vision than practical sense. Hopefully Saturday will change that perception.

9. Coaches are criticised for their team's shortcomings, and rightly so. But there are times when they really do have little say over how something will turn out. Those of us who watched the Aussie kicking and catching experts working out with the players in Plett know exactly how they are supposed to approach the fielding of a high kick. Blow me down if Montgomery did not use this technique once at Ellis Park. Instead he was rooted to the spot, as if his mind had been frozen by all the theory that it has had to absorb lately.

10. It did seem for long periods of the Ellis Park match that the players were acting as if they were in an examination room desperately trying to remember things that they had learned by rote. Perhaps as the season progresses they will start loosening up and it will all become more natural and instinctive. But for that to happen, they have to ease the pressure mounting on themselves by scoring the necessary confidence boosting victory.