By Biltongbek
Since 1992, Springbok rugby has struggled to gain consistency in performance. At times it felt like trudging through mud while those around you are driving around in four wheel drives.
There was a brief period under Nick Mallett when South Africa swept all before them, including the All Blacks; sadly it lasted but a mere moment in time.
Since those days the Bulls Super Rugby franchise under Heyneke Meyer and the Springboks under Jake White had embraced a brutal forward, set piece and kick-and-chase game.
It is uncanny when you look at the tries scored by South Africa in this period; the main contributors for scoring tries were mauls and turnover errors under the high ball.
For the best part of a decade the South Africa tries came from one-pass-movements. This in itself was very evident in the past few years prior to Heyneke Meyer taking over.
Under Peter de Villiers, the South African attack became utterly predictable and stale, and there were no surprises as to what they would bring to the table.
If you were good enough, you could beat them, and in no uncertain terms, Australia and New Zealand were good enough.
In 2009, the kick-and-chase game put New Zealand under such pressure that they lost three matches in succession to South Africa.
Immediately a major shift occurred in the back three for New Zealand, with players such as Joe Rokocoko and Sitiveni Sivivatu being dropped in favour of players with better aerial capability.
I also believe it was at this pivotal point that kicking as an exit strategy was formulated and the use of tactical kicking introduced as a necessary evil in the New Zealand make up.
It is no surprise that New Zealand took the best of the Boks’ kicking game and adapted it to suit their style.
Graham Henry, one year out from the 2011 Rugby World Cup, recognised the problem area and made the necessary changes without any hesitation.
Pieter de Villiers in contrast did nothing. (these are state secret documents - I wonder who leaked them to Biltongbek?)
Since then the results have gone one way for the Springboks, not only against New Zealand, but against Australia as well.
After the 2009 Tri-Nations series there were concerns about the limited and focused approach South Africa had taken and it came back to bite them in the backside.
People like me at the time pointed out these concerns, but to no avail. At times I was ridiculed by fellow South Africans on a South African blog site and told I was simply stupid.
The mindset of South Africans was to believe that their team would still just be able to power their way through opposition defences, regardless of the fact that it was now a professional game.
It was no longer farmers with natural strength taking part in rugby union, but rather professional athletes who had the best facilities, equipment and coaches available.
This mindset was like hiding their heads in the ground and being blissfully ignorant that professional rugby had brought with it the era of the super athlete.
Suddenly their physical characteristics were no longer an advantage, intelligent play would become the pre-requisite in the modern era.
I was very critical when Heyneke Meyer was appointed, and for good reason I believe.
It was his Super Rugby franchise that influenced much of the kick-and-chase game plan at the time, and even during the highs of the Bulls franchise, there were plenty of examples that the plan only worked effectively against teams who could not match the physicality of the Bulls.
As soon as they met a team capable of dealing with their physicality, they would run out of ideas and lose many games due to their inability to deviate from their forward-bashing game plan.
Since 2010, watching Springbok rugby became agonizing to say the least.
The biggest problem with playing a defence-minded game is that you allow your opposition more than their fair share of possession, and eventually the possession stats would count against you. (no surprises at all what the Sharks gameplan will be next year - 2013 Brumbies Part II)
After all, for how long can you keep a quality team out when you allow them to attack your line time and time again, and with each probe they are looking for the gap or frailty in your defence? There is an inevitability about such a mind-set.
A lab rat in a controlled experiment will eventually find a hole to get the food.
Truth be told, being a Springbok supporter, witnessing the talent and skills available in our domestic rugby setup not carried through to our international team made for much astonishment.
Last year Meyer took a pragmatic approach to his team building process; he virtually had to rebuild a forward pack as only the front row remained. A few changes to the back line was a necessary evil, but sadly due to injuries Johan Goosen played less than 100 minutes of international rugby before retiring for the season.
There were some basics that needed fixing, in particular the breakdown, an area which cost South Africa a semi-final berth against the eventual champions New Zealand at the World Cup in 2011. (hear that Beeno? )
Slow-ball is the death of any attack.
I don’t want to go into too much depth regarding set pieces and other technical issues, but rather want to address the mind-set of the Springbok team.
However, the breakdown is part and parcel of the attitude needed to become relentless on attack and successful in the professional era.
Richie Gray seems to have done wonders for the Springbok breakdown; true this past weekend there were a few too many turnovers, but when you consider the average Springbok team would run less than 400 metres in a single game, running 958 metres at Ellis Park was surely going to come at some cost.
The point is, the little technical issues can all be sorted; spending more time on tackling technique, tactical kicking, etc is part and parcel of the evolution of every team.
It is not something that is discussed in a team meeting and then forgotten about for the rest of the season.
What is vital though, perhaps even the most important aspect that Heyneke Meyer can address during his tenure, is to make a paradigm shift in the manner South Africans play rugby.
If Meyer can succeed in changing the way we play the game, he will build a legacy that will be remembered and lauded and he will rightfully be seen as the saviour of South African rugby.
We have been playing expansive, wide rugby since June this year, a mere four months. The results have been astounding.
We doubled our try count in this year’s Rugby Championship; mistakes were plentiful, at times we should have continued our approach of embracing the ball-in-hand approach.
Newlands was a perfect example, where after blowing Australia off the park in 15 minutes, the Springboks crept back into their shell (as most Teams do at RWC and feed off other Teams mistakes - what a negative way to play rugby - Brumbies III)
It was only after Willie le Roux scored South Africa’s third try in the 71st minute, that we did go all out on attack with renewed belief, albeit a bit too late.
So it is a work in progress, defensive structures will now need to be overhauled; when you play more with ball-in-hand, you open up the potential of being turned over more often, it causes players set up for attack not being in the defensive line quick enough, so these adjustments must be made.
Scramble defence will now be as important as structured defence, but again, all technical issues that can be addressed, you aren’t going to get it all perfect after just four months of overhauling your attacking play.
It will take time, but the progress shown thus far in just four months has been remarkable.
It is now Meyer’s responsibility to continue on this path for the sake of South African rugby.
The team will grow in confidence, the more they play with ball-in-hand; in the beginning their subconscious self will fight it, but it will become easier and easier with every game.
Even a hunter after slaying his first lion with his bare hands will be less afraid the next time he finds himself in the same predicament.
He might even become smart enough to take his rifle the next time he goes for a slash in the wild. Preparation will become part of affirmation, and in turn will lead to belief and confidence.
