After a few days of intense contemplation and severe heartbreak, I have mustered the courage, the strength and necessary zen to finally tackle the keyboard and give my account of what has been the most painful game of Springbok rugby I have ever witnessed (which hasn’t been many, I have only been watching the game since 2012.) .
First things first however, the most important point to this entire article. Well done Ireland. Bloody well done. It was a game worthy of praise and admiration from both hemispheres in the rugby world.
I don’t believe that sufficient credit has been given to the Irish, especially from South African supporters. The reality is that the fifth-ranked team pitched up and obliterated the second best team in the world in complete style and finesse in front of a passionate home crowd.
In my view I firmly believe that Conor Murray has cemented his place as the best scrum-half in the world and his partner in crime, Jonathan Sexton wasn’t too shabby either and deserved his man of the match accolade.
Many teams have beaten the Springboks in the past, but this game was extremely special. The feat was only enhanced by the fact that Ireland demanded respect from the Boks, respect I am fairly certain the Springboks did not give them when they ran out onto the pitch.
The old saying goes that respect is earned and you have definitely earned ours.
Now, the painful part comes.
There is a reason why I’ve waited until now to write an article about this morbid game and the reason is absolutely simple. I was hurt, angry and frustrated. Boys, the weekend could not have gone worse for me. Western Province got thumped by Saracens, the Springboks lost to Ireland and the Proteas messed up against Australia. There were no silver linings for me.
I know myself because I live in here. Writing an article when as frustrated as I was was never going to be a good thing. I confess it would have stunk of denial. The Roar is no place for pieces of utter brain implosion.
I have thought and I have reached the state of zen and now I can calmly evaluate my team’s current state of affairs.
Firstly, I have noticed that some of the comments on various articles have concluded that it is both shameful and irrelevant losing to the Irish. I disagree with both. Losing comprehensively to Ireland is not shameful because that would strike with arrogance and complete disregard for the respect earned by a beautiful, proud rugby nation like Ireland.
Neither is it irrelevant. There is no such excuse as “We’ll you have to lose up north sometime.” Downplaying the hammering we received would again be absolutely unfair to the Irish rugby fraternity.
What was this loss then if not shameful or irrelevant? I can only pin it down to disappointing. I confess myself disappointed and I accept it as rightfully so. Last month I witnessed my team beat the very best team in the world, the ever incredible All Blacks. I admit that, for me, it meant that we are in cruise mode until we meet them again.
After the dominant first century of Springbok rugby our team, our culture has been formed around the goal of success and excellency, not unlike the All Blacks themselves. This doesn’t mean that teams like Australia and England do not have these ideals, or that they can’t achieve it, but we have built an empire striving for it and have achieved it in the past. During the history of rugby union only the All Blacks overreach us in this regard.
This Springbok team strives to do its predecessors justice. It is our goal to become the best team in the world. No, not only the best team in the world, a dominant best team in the world.
Losses like the one on the weekend cannot be tolerated with these goals in mind. Being beaten by the Irish is not shameful, but losing them in that vein is not acceptable.
Now to be clear I am not wielding the axe here. What’s done is done. I am not going to call for Meyer’s head and I will not demand the axing of any player in the team.
After intense evaluation I am only going to throw a few suggestions around and make a few points of consideration.
Let’s start by asking a question. Have the Boks gone soft? It’s a question that I have been asking myself a lot throughout 2014. While I understand that every country has unearthed massive physical specimens of their own, I know that rugby brutality does not necessarily mean that bigger is stronger and stronger is not always the best.
The truth of the matter is that since our beginning, the Boks have always been known for their physicality. This physicality has probably won us the majority of our games throughout history.
The Boks are synonymous with big, strong, angry men. Where have they gone? A change in game tactics does not mean you lose your aggression. It was never the point in discarding our physicality when we aim to play more expansively.
I remember the Springbok versus England at Ellis Park in 2012 as though it were only yesterday. I have never seen a game quite like it to this day. It was not full of skill, neither was it flashy. It was a bloodbath and the most physical game I had ever seen the Boks play.
The game ended 36-27 in favour of the Springboks in an unusually high-scoring affair. But it was the perfect advert for Springbok physicality at its best. Thirty minutes into the game the Springboks boasted a staggering 78 per cent possession stat and a fantastic 80 per cent territory stat.
The Boks didn’t play expansively but they didn’t kick either. With Willem Alberts, Eben Etzebeth and Bismarck du Plessis carrying like behemoths the Boks stayed parked in England’s territory. What summed the brutality of their game up was Bismarck du Plessis’ excellent try.
Five metres out, the Sharks hooker received the ball and carried up to the try line. No less than four England forwards attempted to hold him but it did not hold. He twisted and put in a powerful leg drive to dot under the posts. The game ended with a fantastic try by JP Pietersen. The week after in review former All Black scrum-half suggested they call du Plessis the Beast instead of Tendai Mtawarira.
Where has this aggression gone?
I believe Meyer to be an excellent coach. He proved this to me by selecting Cobus Reinach and Patrick Lambie against England this weekend. He is a coach who believes in his players and he is a coach who has a plan to build depth. But that does not mean that I don’t question some of his plans.
Former Springbok flyer Ashwin Willemse brought up numerous excellent questions. One of them is where did the decisions come from to keep attempting the rolling maul when they could see it’s just not working?
The players have come out saying that they were the ones calling the shots. So now we should ask what Jean de Villiers and Victor Matfield are thinking?
As Willemse pointed out, Jean de Villiers is the captain but you can’t underestimate the amount of say Matfield boasts. He also pointed out that as de Villiers and Pollard spoke of the decision Matfield came up, had a say and they went for the maul. You could only assume that he declared mauling, but the fault also rests with de Villiers, who should have overruled him.
I was shocked by the poor standard of leadership both these experienced men dished up on the weekend.
Willemse went on to say that if the Boks truly want to play an expansive game then why don’t they play centres who benefit that plan? This is something I have agreed on since the start. I have mentioned it many times this year and grow tired of myself for it. For my own peace this will be the very last time I debate this point.
Neither Jean de Villiers or Jan Serfontein are line-breaking centres. Both of them, especially Serfontein, are very adept in exposing overlaps on the outside, but he is not a centre that can cut through a line. Like de Villiers he tends to only take it up and make yards. Make no mistake, they do this exceptionally well, but when a centre combination lacks any penetration an expansive game will always be difficult to play.
Serfontein is sadly not an outside centre. His defensive organisation is not up to standard and he tends to play rather selfishly. He does not understand the subtleties of inside balls, offloading or exposing space on the inside.
Jean de Villiers, when in top form, can break lines but he has not been of the standard he was in 2013. The midfield is a major concern for me.
Reluctantly I have placed my hopes on Jaque Fourie to save this midfield. Inside centre is not a problem. I would imagine that either of de Villiers, Serfontein or de Allende would do well with Fourie in the midfield.
After intensive research on Fourie’s games, I was astonished by the way he can break lines with fantastic angles of running. Prime examples of this are his two tries against the Crusaders in 2010, his try against Australia in 2009 and numerous times in 2011 for the Stormers as he lead their try scoring stakes.
Another subtle problem I have in the team includes Matfield. I know those of you who have followed my work onThe Roar will say that I’m missing the plot here. In the beginning I was a major detractor of his and then saw his value.
Fear not fellow Roarers, I still see his value. But his annoying tendency to attempt a pick and go at every ruck is heartbreaking to watch. He has been pinged a total of six times in 2014 for being turned over every time he attempts this. Surely he must have worked out it is a liability?
Another is Eben Etzebeth. His form in 2012 and 2013 saw Etzebeth as the best lock in world rugby for a reason. His carries, rock solid defence and amazing pace made him irreplaceable in the previous two years. Now, however he has been unable to impose himself.
Only an impressive win will save this tour from being a disaster. The Boks have been thoroughly beaten the past weekend and must regain confidence going into a World Cup year.
Mourning won’t help their cause. Here’s to hoping for a big Bok backlash.
