The potential Bok solutions

Okay, so I’ve had my say now, we’ve all had our say, and it seems there is widespread and completely understandable unhappiness at the current Springbok coaching set-up, as well as a lot of disillusion at the South African chances of retaining the World Cup.

Taking the last point first in this attempt to be constructive, as parlous as the state of Bok rugby appears to be right now, the team does have a chance of winning the World Cup. Yes, even if Peter de Villiers stays as coach. Some top players will come back next year, and I am not being facetious when I say that the one thing the Boks do have in their favour is their continued ability to win matches where they hardly do any playing.

Right now the game has clearly changed and the teams that are placing emphasis on keeping their hands on the ball and organising their off-the-ball runners hold sway. But rugby is an ever changing game and, who knows, someone might figure out between now and next year a way to stop the attacking teams from playing.

Samoa did it with limited effect this past week at Twickenham. England won comfortably the previous week against Australia, but that was an Australian team that wanted to play “the new game”. It’s not rocket science really – if you get two teams that both play running rugby and width, then clearly a team that plays running rugby with width is going to win.

The first team that doesn’t enter into the spirit and succeeds in closing down the opposition could start a trend, and that is what the Boks are clinging to when they keep going on about the need to execute properly. Their kicking game isn’t nearly good enough when Fourie du Preez isn’t around – but maybe when he is, the old Bok game will be effective again.

But as John Smit himself said during the away leg of the Tri-Nations, if the Boks are so completely dependent on one player (Du Preez), then that is not saying much about the Bok World Cup chances. Who says Du Preez won’t be injured again before next year’s World Cup?

There are too many good players in South Africa, and not enough genuine World Cup contenders, to write off the Bok chances of success in New Zealand next year. So the question we should perhaps be asking is whether under the current regime the Bok chances will be as strong as they should be.

The answer to that is no, which is why regardless of what happens at Twickenham on Saturday, changes have to be made. And while I can imagine many asking if I have lost my marbles, it does need to be stressed – the coach does not necessarily have to be sacked to bring about change.

It wouldn’t be perfect, for having a head coach who is not completely in control and who has to take direction from a bigger rugby intellect would demand an amazing level of ego management and understanding from both parties. But the solutions which the rugby administrators were working on during the hiatus between Tri-Nations and this tour were not necessarily unworkable.

To refresh memories, there were several possible solutions forwarded, most of them involving additions to the management. The current coaching group, with the forward coach also filling the role of defence coach, is just too small. There also isn’t enough experience in the group, which is why at times the delicate balance between the players having enough say and too much say becomes lopsided.

So that is one solution – and we saw it work a charm when Eddie Jones joined up to help Jake White in 2007. The difference in this instance being that back then we all knew that Jake was the boss, whereas in this case that would be fudged.

The other solutions, and if they were at all possible to put into practice I would go in this direction rather than for the window-dressing option of appointing a technical adviser, involve the appointment of one of the several excellent coaches currently doing great things at provincial or franchise level.

Rassie Erasmus, John Plumtree, Heyneke Meyer, Allister Coetzee and John Mitchell, or a combination of these people, could all pull off the ambulance job that is effectively needed to win the World Cup. If the obstacle of all of them being contracted long-term could be overcome, there are enough current Boks who have worked under most of the men mentioned above for their appointment not to be too disruptive.

And there is also enough time before the next Tri-Nations starts in mid-year for a new coach to put the necessary systems into place. Again, far from perfect but then failure to act decisively when it was clearly necessary to do so has forced a situation where we need crisis solutions.

Whatever happens though I would try and keep Gary Gold involved, as there is a need for some form of continuity. Bringing in a completely new management group with no idea of what has gone before could prove disastrous so close to the World Cup and not everything being done by the current management should just be thrown away for the sake of it.