Why White would be my call

We often accuse rugby bosses of making a mess of the appointment of Springbok coaches, yet I sometimes wonder if the public would do any better if the decision was based on a vote among South African citizens.

Immediately after the Springbok exit from last year's World Cup, a public vote would probably have installed Nick Mallett as coach. I would go along with that and it is was a gross oversight on the part of the decision makers to leave Mallett and Alan Solomons off their shortlist.

But there were other names that kept cropping up that made little sense - at least not if you believe coaching is a profession that you grow into and only perfect over a period of time.

Make no mistake, Francois Pienaar is a great rugby personality and his leadership ability and rugby acumen should be accomodated somewhere else in the South African game.

But the number of times I have been asked if Pienaar or Naas Botha would be equipped to take over the Bok coaching job is remarkable if you consider that one coached only briefly quite a few years ago and the other has not coached at a top level at all.

I was thinking of this while listening to a presentation in Durban the other day that dealt with the coaching courses offered by the Kwa-Zulu/Natal Rugby Union.

The candidates advance through a number of different levels before becoming fully qualified and certificated, and it is a long and involved process. There is no such thing as an overnight coach.

Yet that is something that is often forgotten by our rugby bosses. And it is not just Sarfu that fall victim to this thinking. If you look around at the unions in the Currie Cup, even some of the top ones, you will spot coaches who have not progressed through the levels and are in a sense still at a very junior stage of their coaching education.

Carel du Plessis, who in 2004 is starting to show his genius, discovered in 1997 that coaching is not something that you can learn on the job if that job happens to be the Springbok job.

I have been told by some top sources that this is the reason Chester Williams will not be installed as Springbok coach when the position is announced on Friday in Stellenbosch. I hope that my source is right.

Williams is one of three candidates of the eight who were interviewed who has at some stage during the past few days been listed as favourite to take the job. The others are Jake White and Rudy Joubert.

There are several reasons why Williams would make an ideal Bok coach and you only need look at what the previous coaching regime were accused of to see why he would make a refreshing change.

Most journalists, if they were selfish and just worried about the media-friendliness of the coach, would probably be happy to see Williams become the Bok coach. Certainly under Williams there would be none of the silliness that has plagued some of the previous Bok managements and those who have read his book would know how hard it would be for us to accuse him of any racial prejudice.

But there are good, logical rugby reasons why it would make little sense for a national coach to be appointed on the basis of what he has learned at sevens, which is a completely different game.

Williams' time will definitely come, but it will do him good to pick up some experience in the 15-man game first otherwise South African rugby might be making the same mistake they did with Du Plessis.

Such a decision would also leave big questions marks over any pretence within Sarfu towards any system of succession planning, something that was supposed to be introduced around the time that Straeuli was appointed.

Surely it makes sense for a coach to rise through the ranks, gaining experience and winning the trust of his overall employers along the way? Which introduces the other candidates, Joubert and White.

Joubert, like Gert Smal, is a current Super 12 coach. On that basis he is an employee of Sarfu. The experience of coaching a Super 12 team, with the pressures that come with it, must surely be seen as a massive plus.

Joubert is also an experienced practitioner of the science of coaching, having been involved in various forms at the top level in this country since the late 1980s. On that basis, he has to be a candidate.

But there are question marks surrounding his suitability that bother me, most specifically the complete dogs breakfast he appeared to make of his job as backline coach of the Bok team at last year's World Cup.

The forwards, which were Smal's field of expertise, were far more impressive, and it was really the backs that let the Boks down in the all-important pool match against England.

You also have to ask whether the improvement of the Bulls in last year's Super 12 was down to Joubert, or whether it was really a result of the hard work done by Heyneke Meyer in the Currie Cup. My view is that the latter deserved most of the credit.

So we come to White. His immediate drawback is that he has not coached Super 12. Indeed, he has not been the head coach of a provincial team. I agree with those who say that the Bok coach should be someone who does more than coach and prepare a team for just one junior tournament a year.

But while that may be the reason why I would appoint Mallett ahead of him, it is negated by the failings of the other two candidates from which the Springbok coach is expected to come.

In guiding his under-21 team to World Cup glory in 2002, White showed that he knew how to put systems in place that would ensure the best players were selected. That was no small achievement.

Added to that is the knowledge that South African rugby is moving now into an era where youth is going to dominate the national team. Most of that youth has played under White, who should be able to get the best out of them.

White is also well-known and respected by the top coaches of other countries. He is up to date on changing trends and will not need to play the strategical catch-up that someone like Harry Viljoen did or someone like Pienaar would.

Noting that, like Williams, someone like Carel du Plessis could probably benefit from a few more years, I would agree with the assessment committee, who apparently have recommended to Van Rooyen that White get the job.

But it remains a great pity that xenophobia and petty politics has prevented him from being weighed up against a much wider range of candidates, including Mallett and Solomons.