The 'New Joost' may have similarities with Dolly the sheep

When the world was introduced to cloning through Dolly the sheep the practice should not have come as any surprise to South African rugby followers. The reality is that the game in this country has been trying to get it right for years.

It started in the era when Naas Botha was winning matches on his own for South Africa and Northern Transvaal. Whenever the prodigious match-winner was not around, such as when he went off for his stint with the Dallas Cowboys, sportswriters and selectors started casting around for a "New Naas".

Countless young flyhalves modelled their play on Botha because his style became the requirement of selectors and the expectant critics and public. But it was asking a lot to expect these young players to replicate the Botha talent. As quickly as their names were flashed in lights as the Botha heir apparent so they disappeared back into obscurity.

The problem was that teams were trying to build their games around a Botha type talent and suffering as a result of their inability to bring all the Botha attributes to the team strategy.

Looking back from the vantage point of history, only Naas Botha could play like Naas Botha. Judging from the way that the Bulls battled through most of the 1990s when the post-Naas era dawned, the Pretoria union might have been better off had it encouraged flyhalves to play on their own terms.

It might have required an adjustment to the Northern Transvaal playing style, but then perhaps that was the point.

The cloning madness did not confine itself to Botha. What was Braam van Straaten's biggest virtue when Nick Mallett first spotted him playing for the Falcons in 1998? He was a Henry Honiball who could kick.

And what is Butch James? Ask the older players in the Sharks team and they will all speak about him as the new Honiball. As Honiball was the most recent genuine success as a Springbok flyhalf the modern era seems devoted to finding the next Honiball - or in Chris Rossouw's case, another Stephen Larkham.

But as with the Naas clones, the Honiball and Larkham clones can bring certain of the original model's attributes to their play but not all of them. Van Straaten has that same direct and physical approach but he lacks the ball skills, hand speed or the explosiveness of the Bergville farmer.

James has the physique and the strength. Unfortunately his ability to replicate the devastation of the Honiball tackle has been offset by his inability to use his hands and that has already cost the Springboks dearly. Rossouw has the unpredictability of Larkham but at this stage lacks the Aussie's coolness and unflappability under pressure.

There are countless other examples of South African rugby cloning. For a while it became the rage when Wahl Bartmann was doing so well for Transvaal and Natal for all the other provinces to try and find a Bartmann type loose-forward.

3 The problem was that Bartmann was unique in that he was able to mask certain weaknesses which other flankers were less capable of doing. Wahl lacked pace but he had great positional sense.

In rugby the tendency to get pre-occupied with seeking out clones has more dire consequences for teammates than in other sports.

The latest clone to hit the South African rugby firmament is young Blue Bulls scrumhalf Coenraad Groenewald.

As the television commentators remarked, there is a bit of a physical resemblence to the most-capped Springbok, Joost van der Westhuizen. And when Groenewald zipped around the sides of the scrums and the rucks and mauls to expose gaps in the Griquas defensive system it became inevitable that he would be hailed as "the New Joost".

To my mind this is just the continuation of a tendency that has become all too frequent during the Van der Westhuizen era. Because Van der Westhuizen has been so successful at the base of the scrum it has become unwritten law that the player who eventually replaces him be like him.

Chad Alcock is the obvious example of a player who has absorbed the Van der Westhuizen strength of breaking to an obscene level. Alcock has become so pre- occupied with this aspect of his game that other areas have been neglected and have suffered as a result.

To my mind Alcock was a much better distributor as a scrumhalf when he first arrived on the scene. At a stage of last year even Craig Davidson appeared to have been caught up in the need to become a Joost clone if he was going to make it. Never mind the fact that he just didn't have the same physical attributes and had other qualities that Joost didn't have.

This is not an attack on Van der Westhuizen, but rather just a recognition that he is a unique player who should not be cloned. He has not always been the most decisive or quick passer of the ball but he made up for it with other strengths.

Groenewald played well on Sunday against a back row and inside back combination which seemed completely incapable of tackling. He may well go on to become a great player.

But until he has shown that he is capable of doing the other things necessary from a scrumhalf when the defence around the fringes is more organised, I will treat the odious comparisons with Van der Westhuizen with circumspection. There are apects of scrumhalf play that Van der Westhuizen leaves him standing.

Given the way the game has changed perhaps South Africa should be looking less for another Joost at this stage than for another George Gregan. Maybe if Groenewald can be encouraged to absorb into his Joost approach a little of the Neil de Kock speed of distribution he, and the Blue Bulls, will be better off.

It would be a pity if the promising Frikkie Welsh was to suffer for a pre- occupation with a scrumhalf who does the Joost bit by doubling as an extra loose-forward but who may lack the attributes necessary to create time and space for those outside him.

Pretoria, as the cloning capital of this country, must be careful that it does not become guilty of the same mistakes in the post-Joost era that retarded it post-Naas.