Stop the Bob bashing

Regardless of how his team does in the first few tests of the 2002 season, you get the impression that somehow Rudolf Straeuli will get through without the criticism that plagued some of his predecessors.

Most of his decisions have been met with universal approval. There seems to be a widespread acceptance that he knows what he is doing. Maybe it has something to do with the fact that for the first time in a long time the Springbok coach is not perceived to be Cape based (even though he actually does base himself in Cape Town during the working week), but there seem to be fewer enemies out there waiting to trip him up at the first opportunity.

It is hard not to like Straeuli. He has been described as inscrutable, but you would have to be completely lacking in perception not to recognise that he is a many of honesty and integrity. Although he is a hard task master and lets the players know in no uncertain terms that he is boss, he also lets them know where they stand.

While his axing of Victor Matfield this week sent out an unambiguous message that no player should feel too comfortable, Straeuli has done more than his predecessors did towards letting his players know what is expected of them.

But there was one decision made by Straeuli that could have invoked the wrath of Khan were it not for the fact that his most recent job was with the Natal Sharks, and not Western Province - the retention of Bob Skinstad as team captain.

Ironically, it was the man the public would have preferred as captain, Corne Krige, who summed it up in an interview this week - people misunderstand Bob Skinstad.

I could add more to that. For some reason the public just don't like him and choose the flamboyant Natal born WP No8 to be the person they like to hate most. Perhaps, as in the case of Percy Montgomery when he wore those white boots, it is an innate South African rugby mistrust of anyone who dares to be different.

The anti Skinstad feeling is unfair and unjustified. It was summed up for me last year after the Twickenham test against England. The South Africans thronged on the railway platforms waiting for their ride back to London were busy chattering away about the patent lack of adventure in their team. Then in the next breath some of them turned on Skinstad's attempt to throw out an adventurous pass which led to an intercept try for England.

"What was that guy trying to do. He is a complete idiot," was the standard lament from the expats.

I found it hard biting my tongue and holding back my preferred response: Maybe he was trying to inject some adventure into his unadventurous team, idiot.

Amidst the post-mortems of last week's win over Wales there was one aspect of the Springbok triumph that was overlooked: Skinstad's role in keeping his players calm when Wales threatened to overwhelm the young side early in the game. All the players spoke about it, but few media people.

The innate dislike of Skinstad was much in evidence in the Bloemfontein press box early in that match. Every time he dropped a ball there were chortles of disgust. When the Boks were behind the general blame seemed to be directed squarely on the shoulders of the No8.

But when he scored his try that turned the match on the stroke of halftime he received little acknowledgement or recognition. Few appeared to appreciate how good a leader the inexperienced Boks must have had at their helm to be able to turn ahead at the break when they could so easily have been 15 points behind.

A few weeks earlier, at the Springbok trials, the anti Skinstad sentiment was at its ugliest, both from the public and sections of the media. Skinstad, lest it be forgotten, was playing his first full game of rugby since last year. By his own admission he had a lot of ground to make up in terms of match fitness.

Yet that did not prevent him from leading from the front. Despite his lack of fitness, he was one of few players who saw out the entire 90 minutes that the trial match endured. He did very well to lead his team to victory in a match where they had trailed by a quite significant margin at one stage.

Was there any acknowledgement of that in the newspapers the next day? No, several reporters ignored the good things he did and instead highlighted his mistakes. Instead of doffing their caps to a player who bravely stuck through 90 minutes, he only received boos from a crowd that eagerly seized on a handling mistake that he made when attempting an elaborate attacking move late in the game.

Why do people not like Skinstad? Maybe it is because his love for the game is misunderstood. He has always "lived the game" as he puts it, and whether winning or losing, he still manages to give the impression he is enjoying himself. Perhaps this does not go down well with the dour people who consider rugby to be a religion and not a sport.

The first time I noticed the anti-Skinstad mood was back in 1998. After a Sharks/Stormers match, the people inhabiting the car park muttered incessantly about Skinstad's ebullience and demonstrativeness after he scored a try.

I sense that Skinstad may have recognised that too much pizzazz sends some South African rugby people up the wrong way. He gives less of himself both to the media and the public than he did a few years back. Maybe he has been hurt a few times too many.

Krige was right in saying that Skinstad is misunderstood. Full marks to Straeuli, who I do not believe wanted to choose Skinstad as his captain initially, for quickly recognising this once he had been able to spend some time with the man himself.

A few weeks ago Krige would have been my choice of Bok captain only because Skinstad, after his injury lay-off, was not a certainty for the starting line-up. There really is not much between Skinstad and Krige when it comes to leadership ability. But if Skinstad is a part of the run-on team there is no denying that he is a good enough leader to captain his country.