There is good reason to question the coach selection process

The talk in the corridors of SA Rugby (Pty) Ltd is that a high profile figure had to be turned down the other day after he called in to discuss a possible application for the position of Springbok coach.

It was done with some regret, but the order had already been sent out that no foreigners would be considered for the post. While some would argue that God is a neutral, it has been a fairly open secret for some years now that He has been helping England coach Clive Woodward and has thus lost any pretence at neutrality.

This little tale is probably apocraphyl, but it nonetheless brings home the short-sightedness of ruling foreigners out of consideration for the post.

We may well have the coaching skills to fill the position, but why not spread the search as far and as wide as possible.

You just never know who might end up applying.

The point that if there is a local who is good enough he should be given the job is not a bad one. But if our rugby bosses wanted to be sure of getting the best possible man for the job, surely it makes sense to look at all options.

That the incumbent Springbok assistant coach was not even given a chance to state his case is criminal.

Tim Lane's credentials as a coach have either been lauded or laughed at by the players, with the criterion predictably revolving around whether he rated them or was seen to be instigational in dropping them. But let those credentials be put up for examination, not his nationality.

That SA Rugby were prepared to drop him from their list of possible candidates suggests they had already decided on who should replace Viljoen.

All of which brings me to the apparent disquiet among coaches at the process being used to appoint the new coach.

Last week SA Rugby deputy managing director Songezo Nayo, who is now the official spokesperson for the organisation, did a good job of convincing me that the allegations that Rudolf Straeuli had already been appointed amounted to nothing more than media mischief.

After all, the people who make the decision - namely the six people on the executive of the SA Rugby board - do hail from disparate backgrounds. There is no hint in their make-up of any northern, southern, coastal, inland, English, Afrikaans or Cape cabal.

But one omission on their part this past week has made me take Stormers coach Gert Smal seriously when he alleges that the whole process of advertising the position was no more than a charade.

The omission I speak of is their failure to overlook Smal's reluctance and put him up for consideration anyway. Smal did say he would be happy to negotiate if he was approached.

As he has coached his team to the country's premier domestic title two seasons in a row, you would think that Smal should be considered a must inclusion on any list of prospective candidates.

It is not as if the officials charged with the task of making the big decision can claim that they do not know what he is capable of. His achievements are well known, as is his approach to coaching.

By happily leaving him off their list, SA Rugby appear to be acknowledging that the man they want to take over is among the applicants.

And unless the Cape Times is right and Rudy Joubert is under serious consideration, the composition of the shortlist - one of the four has already been given the under-21 job - leads to only one conclusion. His name is Rudolf Straeuli.

If that were not so, surely SA Rugby would insist that Smal was part of the process. If they are really starting from scratch in their search for a coach, then it stands to reason that the Currie Cup champion coach's omission from their list should have been cause for consternation and a rethink, which was not the case.