Traditional Bok rugby doesn't exist

Rudolf Straeuli must be amused by the number of times he has to answer the same questions at press conferences.

Venues and dates change, but invariably it is the same old line that gets thrown up over and over again. Straeuli, unlike some of his predecessors, always gives the same answer, which has the effect of infuriating hacks who are looking for a new angle while comforting those who want to see some consistency in Springbok rugby.

Judging from the copy that has come out of them, one of the questions that has been a constant at the conferences recently has concerned Straeuli's intended playing style.

The speculation was understandable given Straeuli's reasoning for his axing of his former assistant, Tim Lane. When you say you don't agree with someone's philosophy it invites focus on your strategy.

But it was just an extension of what began when the Bulls started to achieve a measure of success with a "traditional South African approach" in the Super 12.

The inverted commas are in place because after 12 years of reporting on the Springboks for various media organisations, I have yet to discover what a "traditional South African approach" is.

Some newspaper writers appear to think traditional Bok rugby is a facsimile of the Bulls approach of the 1970s and early 1980s when Naas was in his prime. In other words strong forwards, a flyhalf who can kick and a 10-man playing pattern.

But while this might have been the pattern of the 1976 team, when Gerald Bosch and Paul Bavel dictated terms with their field kicking against Andy Leslie's All Blacks, it is not one that has been all that traditional.

Even when Naas played flyhalf for the Boks the 10-man game could not have been all that prevalent. How else do you explain that in the first test against the 1980 British Lions, the Boks had to rely on a last gasp try from Divan Serfontein to break a 22-all deadlock in a match where they had scored five tries to one.

It was a similar story in Bloemfontein a fortnight later, with the Boks comfortably outscoring the Lions in terms of tries but only wrapping up the victory in the last minutes.

Exciting running players like Gysie Pienaar and Gerrie Germishuys excelled in that series, which suggests to me that the Boks must have done more than just throw the ball to Naas. Joel Stransky kicked the dropped-goal that won the World Cup in 1995, but it would be unfair on those Boks to say that they played to a 10-man pattern.

Nick Mallett's Tri-Nations winners in 1998 are also remembered for their conservative rugby, but those who remember Henry Honiball's strengths and weaknesses will fall about laughing if any future rugby historian suggests their game revolved around a kicking flyhalf.

Traditional Bok rugby, or so the theory goes, should revolve around a strong forward platform and a safety first approach. But there have been plenty of occasions since the 1974 Lions were here that the Boks have had to find other ways to win and they have managed it. For examples refer to 1980 Lions and even the 1986 Cavaliers series, where it was in fact the backs and loose-forwards who won it.

So faced with such confuddled examples of our "traditional" game, it is perhaps understandable that the current coach, although always issuing the same line, sounds evasive when he answers the question.

"We will be keeping elements of the approach that we followed previously and also take on elements of a Bulls type strategy."

And if you think about it, Straeuli, if his words are to be taken literally, is dead right. Last year's Tri-Nations was not so long ago that we should have forgotten the impact South Africa's exciting backline players made on the tournament.

The fuss was for good reason. The try that Brent Russell scored against Australia in Sydney was a gem, the movement rounded off by Joe van Niekerk against the same Aussies at Ellis Park was nothing short of genius.

As All Black assistant coach Robbie Deans pointed out recently, the Kiwis were also lucky to survive the Springbok attacking onslaught that assailed them in Durban.

But last year's Tri-Nations is also not so long ago that we have forgotten the leaky Bok defensive work that gave away an average of four tries a game. There were other areas where, in the haste to get the Bok attacking approach right, the basics were neglected.

In short, the Boks had the right idea but they were at times too cavalier, and this might have contributed to some of their defeats. In a World Cup year, it is that much more important that matches don't get given away because of silly mistakes.

Maybe the French provide the prototype that the Boks should be following. For years everyone loved them for their romanticism, their ability to win matches from nothing with their Gallic flair.

But they never really contended for any of the top trophies because in amongst all that romanticism, the basics were too often neglected. This led to their rightful reputation for being the most unpredictable yet inconsistent team on the planet.

In the past few years they have dropped some of the romanticism and replaced it with a much bigger emphasis on the basics. Priority number one for the modern French team is for them to win the ball and create a solid platform from the set-phases.

The realisation that without a steady supply of possession no amount of Gallic flair will win them the World Cup was at the heart of their resurgence in 2001.

Significantly, their greater concentration on forward platforms has not led them to lose attacking impetus at the back.

It is the French road that the Boks should be travelling down from Saturday through to the World Cup and I fancy that this is what Straeuli is getting at when he talks of mixing the elements of the different approaches.

While the axing of Lane was rightly interpreted as a switch towards a more conservative strategy (in comparison to last year's), Straeuli's choice of assistant coaches mitigates against the theory that the Boks are headed back to the laager.

They may not be quite as adventurous as Lane, but none of Rudy Joubert, Gert Smal or Ray Mordt are laager type people. Two of them played for provinces and Springbok teams that were renowned for their attacking rugby and all three have tried to coach running rugby since hanging up their playing boots.

If you look at the leadership quartet at the head of the playing contingent, it is a similar story.

So where are the Boks going? Hopefully the forwards will win the ball and the team, all 15 of them, will use it to attack when the attack is on. Sounds so simple, and if the Boks just get the basics right in the battle for both primary possession and in retaining the ball off the breakdown, that is exactly what it is.