Was that worth it?

The Springbok coaching staff might think they achieved something by making ten changes for the final test at Coca-Cola Park, but in reality it may just once more have exposed their inexperience.

Head coach Peter de Villiers, in justifying the selection decisions that contributed to his team’s humiliating 28-9 defeat, said that it had to be done so that he could be sure that the right players were playing in the first choice team.

“If we don’t try it how will we ever know?” was how De Villiers put it at the post-match press conference. The coach received some sympathy from some media people when he said that, but not from this one. There are many ways to skin a cat, or a Lion, and this was not the way to do it, and almost any experienced coach would be able to tell you that giving new players a chance by making wholesale changes to a team is not the way to go about it.

Indeed, it may be unfair to the players who come in, and probably was on Saturday, when instead of coming into a settled team, someone like new fullback Zane Kirchner found himself playing in a back three that was also new.

Giving Kirchner a chance while first choices Bryan Habana and JP Pietersen, two players familiar with test rugby and the Springbok structures (not that there was much structure in this game), were present would have been fair. It would have conformed to the time-worn tradition of bleeding new players into a settled team, and thus giving them a proper chance of proving themselves.

It was the same story elsewhere. The selection of Jaque Fourie was a good one, but was it wise to start with Chiliboy Ralepelle on a day when the Boks were already going to be without Bakkies Botha and back-up locks Andries Bekker and Danie Rossouw in the tight five?

Bismarck du Plessis came on at half-time at Coca-Cola Park, but by then the Lions had their momentum, and the flow of the game was set. Had he been on from the start, the Boks might have had a better chance of establishing some kind of physical presence against the Lions, something they abjectly failed to do and which played a big role in them losing the match.

Ralepelle, if he had to play, and there was merit in giving him a chance to get game time before the Tri-Nations, should have come on from the bench later in the game. And ditto for Ryan Kankowski, who had not played any rugby since the clash between an SA XV and a Namibian XV in Windhoek at the end of May and suddenly found himself playing against the Lions.

It was right to give Kankowski a chance, but again, maybe it should have been from the bench later in the match, when the game had opened up.

Making ten changes was just too many, and while I agree that the Lions might have won this game anyway such was the passion with which they tackled the dead rubber, the South Africans would have had a much better chance with a more settled team.

And the game did matter if you consider the pre-series expectation from most critics that the Boks would win it 3-0. After all, the Bok camp kept telling us in the build-up week how important it was to win 3-0, how important it was to keep the winning momentum.

The changes suggested disrespect to the Lions, who also had a lot of changes but most of them forced by injury. They also suggested that the Lions series was not as big a thing as suggested in the hype. If it was such a big deal playing against opponents you only meet every 12 years, surely the Boks should have been trying to maximise their performance.

By John Smit’s own admission, the Boks never hit their buttons in either of the previous two tests, and after both they could consider themselves fortunate to win. If they wanted to carry any kind of momentum into the Tri-Nations, they needed to win the last game with a side similar to the one that had won the series.

There are three weeks remaining to the start of the Tri-Nations, so it was not as if the players needed to be rested. In fact, you could say that a four week gap, which is what Habana and Pietersen will have had when they next play, is too long. And there are three rounds of Currie Cup matches before then for fringe players like Jongi Nokwe to pick up any needed game-time.

Newcomers should have been bled into the team. Making ten changes meant an entirely new team, and never gave the players who were tried out a proper chance. If De Villiers is suggesting when he says that he now knows who can and cannot play that the players who played on Saturday were not up to it, maybe he needs to accept that it was because he never gave them a proper chance.

A test match may have been sacrificed in pursuit of something that was never on in the first place. The winning momentum and winning habit that the Boks had was broken. Was it worth it?