Viljoen to ensure Loftus win is no false dawn

At the cocktail party following the Springbok victory over Australia in a 1999 Tri-Nations match at Newlands, one of the management members less inclined towards Nick Mallett's way of thinking grabbed my hand and said something that reflected my own thoughts.

"Man, I hope this is not going to prove to be one of those Pyrrhic victories," said the official. The Concise Oxford Dictionary definition of Pyrrhic victory neatly sums up what he was worried about - "victory gained at too great cost, like that of Pyrrhus, king of Espirus, over the Romans at Asculum in 279BC".

In a South African rugby sense a Pyrrhic victory is one that deflects attention away from real problems in the game and leads players and officials to think that all is well when it is not.

The words of the 1999 management member in question did prove prophetic in that the raw guts which had helped his team to victory at Newlands were not enough to win the World Cup semifinal at Twickenham three months later. The Aussies won when it mattered because they came up with a lot that was new in the semifinal while the Boks tried merely to replicate their Cape Town effort.

There have been so many Pyrrhic victories over the past six years (some even believe the 1995 World Cup final may qualify as such) that it was understandable that this thought should have been on some minds as we waited for the press conference following the magnificent 20-15 victory at Loftus.

Just as one swallow does not make a summer, one victory, even if it is against the world champions, does not make a successful test season. It was recalled while we waited for Viljoen that last year's narrow win at ABSA Stadium was Australia's first on South African soil since the first post-isolation clash at Newlands in 1992.

This home dominance over the Australians has generally not been translated into a triumphant season - in 1996, 1997 and 1999 wins over the Wallabies merely prevented the Boks from ending the Tri-Nations with a blob next to their name in the win column.

With two away fixtures awaiting them, there is a strong possibility that the win at Loftus may in time assume the same status. If the Boks are to win on the road they will have to rely on more than just the pack. The backs, who were as unpenetrative at Loftus as they were in Cape Town a week earlier, are going to have to start playing.

Of course, this is a tall order when you consider that Braam van Straaten, by virtue of his successful goalkicks in Pretoria, is probably now going to become a certain starter for the remaining matches.

I am not denying that those goalkicks made a crucial difference in the Loftus test. In many ways it was a complete reversal of Cape Town, where the Boks had been forced by their early misses to play catch-up.

But the feeling persists that Van Straaten is no long-term option for a team which is looking to expand attacking options at the back. As was shown at Loftus, his speed both of foot and hand remains too slow to make him a factor on attack.

So while the importance of this victory and the psychological boost it will give the Springboks justified Van Straaten's inclusion, in the long run we may get a different perspective. For instance, although Jannie de Beer kicked five dropped-goals against England in the 1999 World Cup quarterfinal, it is now generally felt that Henry Honiball should have played ahead of him in the semifinal.

Mallett, along with most critics, had allowed himself to be misled into believing that De Beer could repeat his heroics. De Beer's selection was completely contrary to his view that Honiball was the best flyhalf, and in that sense the win over England became a Pyrrhic victory.

But it would of course be unthinkable to suggest that the victory had come at too great a cost. Had De Beer not dropped those goals, the Boks might not have made the semifinal in the first place.

And the same can probably be said about the most recent win at Loftus. The South African backplay, with or without Van Straaten in the midfield, is still some way short of what it should be if the Boks are to penetrate a well organised defence like that of the Wallabies. With all the ball that the pack won for them on Saturday, it could be argued that the Boks should have been more than just five points ahead at the final whistle.

But after attending the press conference, I can happily inform readers that Viljoen is aware of all these shortcomings. Instead of taking a side-swipe at his detractors as Mallett may have done, Viljoen remained humble and gave the impression that his feet were still firmly planted on the ground.

Even if the Boks lose both their remaining matches and the critics are baying for his head this time next month, Viljoen showed both during the conference and in the match itself that there is no need to fear Loftus being recalled as another of those Pyrrhic victories.

Not for the first time, Viljoen readily acknowledged that he has made mistakes. When asked if there was anything he would change if he could start the season again, Viljoen responded that he would.

Presumably that means Van Straaten would have figured in his initial training squad for Plettenberg Bay. On the evidence of Loftus, he might also have placed greater emphasis on strong forwards who can drive off the lineouts and so suck in the opposing defences. Pretoria was the first time that the forwards were really committed to the driving maul and it played a significant role in their victory.

The point is that Viljoen is prepared to learn from his mistakes and has shown himself ready to adjust to the demands of specific opposition and specific challenges. His "new game" was little in evidence at Loftus, but his recognition of the need to build from a more conservative base facilitated his biggest step yet towards realising his vision.