About the quota coach and his claimed messed up.
Problem is that the guy had little room to mess up. The game did not leave him much room to influence.
Key decision: decision to rotate the line up. In retrospect, a collosal miscalculation.
To his account, though, IT got trashed by AR in the previous game. The guy evolved in an environment that keeps seeing SH rugby as dominant so inclination to take it as an evidence the IT side was weak. Guy may be unable to assess the level of a squad with no reference and even if he is, it probably is not easy to sell the idea that the IT side is dangerous to people who think SH rugby is dominant.
In retrospect, big mistake but one that is easy to explain through a misplaced sense of superiority.
For the rest, the game was good old mud and glory rugby. Very little to take from a coach.
The forward pack started as nearly all white and got manhandled by the IT pack (which may have the same composition)
It hurt feelings as the tale SA forwards best forwards still is alive.
SA rugby players were outdone in departments a coach has little expression. At best, one could tell that the guy did not provide motivation to the players which begets the question SA white players can or not feel inspired playing under a quota coach.
The IT side was enthusiastic, determined, convinced and passionate. They did not play their best rugby, they had troubles organizing themselves and keeping structures.
Nevertheless, the mindset was here, contrary to SA rugby players who lack all of this. In this type of game, the awakening is brutal.
A coach's responsibility runs that far.
Blaming a coach for elements that must come from players, especially during a WC, always come with the question about players relating to their coach.
Usually, this happens when players do not want to play for a coach, they do not support him.