PAUL CULLY
PHOTOSPORT
TJ Perenara loses the ball after being tackled by Springboks Warren Whiteley and Steven Kitshoff.
OPINION: For all the current Springboks bashing, it is valuable to remember one thing.
In their two games against the Wallabies this year, the Springboks actually won by an aggregate score of 35-33. Sanzaar rugby is in a hole, not just South Africa.
However, there will come a point when South Africa becomes just too much of a basketcase to deal with: when the politics outweigh the benefits: when the shared history becomes less important that self-preservation.
Maarten Holl/ Fairfax NZAs NZ Rugby chief executive, Steve Tew leads NZ's dealings with Sanzaar.
How can New Zealand and Australia reasonably map out a sustainable future - and make no mistake, that future is under threat thanks to Europe's vulture clubs - when one Sanzaar partner is so obviously in crisis?
READ MORE:
* All Blacks the 'Usain Bolt of rugby'
* Reason: Mediocre opponents flatter All Blacks
* Kieran Read unwanted in form XV
* ABs expose crisis in South African rugby
There is no better example of Sanzaar's fallibility than the debate around the number of Super Rugby teams beyond 2017.
Let's say, for argument's sake, that the ARU would like to cut one team, which would not only make financial sense, but would also be a bold and brilliant decision that would immediately strengthen the four remaining sides.
Under the current Super Rugby structure, the ARU cannot make that decision - it has to wait for South Africa to also cut a team because a 17-team competition would apparently create all manner of logistical difficulties.
In other words, a decision that is inextricably linked to the future health of the Australian game is partly in the hands of the South Africans.
With this is mind, Australia is probably more open to entertaining a future without South Africa, but I'd be staggered if both New Zealand and Australia don't already have a shared idea about what an Anzac competition might look like.
It might lack detail but there would be a framework. That's not shocking - to have a contingency plan would simply be good administration.
New Zealand might be the more reluctant of the two when it comes to breaking away from the South Africans but I can't imagine that this patience is inexhaustible.
The rugby argument for playing against South African sides is diminishing. I wouldn't have gone to the back door to watch either the Kings or Cheetahs in Super Rugby this year, the Sharks were a shadow of their former selves, and the Stormers and Bulls never looked like true contenders. When the Stormers eventually were exposed to a Kiwi side, having avoided them during the regular season, the Chiefs ripped them apart in Cape Town.
At Springboks level I look at a player like Warren Whiteley - nice sevens player, good Super Rugby performer - and tell you that even 10 years ago he wouldn't have got within a million miles of the jersey.
This isn't just a quota thing, it's because half of their players are in Europe - enticed by the favourable tax systems among other things - and the ones they do get back (prop Steven Kitshoff for example) look like they've spent their time there eating croissants and cheese.
And as for the financial imperatives of staying bound to South Africa - look, those incentives are real. No doubt the idea of living without them would give Stew Tew and Bill Pulver some sleepless nights. But they can't have missed the increasing number of empty seats at South African Super Rugby grounds this year, or the alarming gaps in the crowd during the Springboks v Wallabies test in Pretoria.
There is another dynamic at play here. Despite Bug-gate in Sydney, New Zealand and Australia know they need each other, and I understand that the relationships at the top of unions are fairly good.
The conditions for change are there. And if South Africa can't show it can emerge from its current mess, a change is no longer inconceivable
