Do Springboks deserve mantle of greatness?
By James Mortimer, 21 Aug 2009 James Mortimer is a Roar Pro
- Tagged:
- All Blacks, Rugby Union, Springboks, Tri Nations, wallabies
Related coverage
- Rugby Union news
- Wallabies news
- Tri Nations Tournament news
- New Zealand All Blacks news
- South Africa Springboks news
- 2011 Wallabies squad news

Springboks Bryan Habana looks to get a pass away as the Wallabies Matt Giteau tackles him to the ground during the Australia v South Africa Rugby test at Telstra Stadium, Sydney, Saturday, August 5, 2006. AAP Image/Dean Lewins
This is a very good South African team. You could not defeat the All Blacks and Wallabies on consecutive weeks and not have a certain essence of quality. But there is evidence in the last year that they still have a lot to do
And there are other indicators that need to be achieved.
If they are indeed a great team, then the winning of the Tri Nations must be a fait accompli.
It certainly is a heady mix of experience and rising talent that the Boks wield, with the challenge for Peter De Villiers in the coming years on whether the evolution of their team from the 2007 World Cup winning vintage can be maintained through to the first ever successful Rugby World Cup title defence.
While some soothsayers would say that victories over two mixed All Black and Wallaby teams may not prove much, especially while basking in the comfort of their daunting coliseums in South Africa, there is no such thing as weak SANZAR teams.
And they were convincing wins. Maybe not so convincing for fans of the game as a spectacle.
But the reality is that the Springboks are playing the game to win, adjusting to the laws of the game better than their Tri Nations opponents, and playing to the strengths that they have in abundance.
But are they truly great?
They boast some of the best players in world rugby, with Victor Matfield and Fourie Du Preez unchallenged as the preeminent players in their positions, and John Smit, Bryan Habana, Bakkies Botha and Jean De Villiers candidates for a World XV.
They have a squadron of flankers, with new caps such as Morne Steyn and Heinrich Brussow making dramatic impacts.
The cattle is there, and for now, so is the game plan.
However, De Villiers is hardly the most humble of coaches, and while winning is the greatest feeling, the sweet smell of success can breed complacency and comfort of a routine.
For all of their success against their Tri Nations opponents, the series against the Lions showed that their brutally pragmatic game-plan can be countered. While the Springboks have been coy, almost suggestive that they will eventually play an expansive style, there is nothing in evidence to suggest that they can easily make that adaptation.
As for their reputation as bully boys on the field, it has been their opponents that have struggled with their discipline whereas the Springboks have conceded fewer penalties in their last three matches than any other run in modern history.
While there may be the ordinary and almost expected off the ball niggle from the Springboks, it occurs from any international side.
The South Africans tactical approach is itself pressure building. But sooner or later the question will come whether they can win a match without kicking penalties.
However, it is the Springboks off-field demeanour that may be the only hindrance to their tag of greatness, although this may be somewhat moot.
After all, history books remember winners above all other things.
But the South Africans blatant and almost arrogant protesting of Botha’s ban – in which the Springboks wore “Justice for Bakkies” armbands – was not becoming of a team that has the opportunity, as World Cup holders and currently the IRB’s number one side, of being the leading ambassadors for the game.
Whether Botha’s act was worth a ban, or that the ban was unfair, isn’t relevant to the final act of protest.
This is not a political piece, and for some South African rugby or sporting supporters to believe that they are sufferers of victimisation isn’t germane or unique to their mighty rugby team.
Negativity, insults, dislike or even the hating of a team is common to all sporting psychology. The Springboks must act the part of a team that, like it or not, is currently the best rugby team on the planet.
This, for mine, is what will cement their status as a truly great side.
Enjoy sports? Enjoy a bargain? All Sports Online has your favourite sporting brands at up to 70% off. Online only, premium quality sporting goods and merchandise at discounted prices. Get a deal now.
Do you have what it takes to become a sports writer? Write for the roar
Rugby Union articles
- Will Super Rugby crowds continue their slide? (201)
- Will South African rugby force a Super 21 by 2018? (173)
- The real story of how John O’Neill turned Manchester City down (70)
- Dan Parks and the unsolved questions of expat rugby (65)
- Australian teams at Super disadvantage (58)
- Pocock set to be named new Force skipper (56)
- Can the ‘Tahs win the battle after losing the Waugh? (51)
- France turns to Parra and Trinh-Duc
- Rebels look to lift for formidable Blues in rugby trial
- Mr Fix-It Lucas wants to nail down No.10
- Force roost loses ‘Mother Hen’ Sharpe
- Victory beat Mariners with Kewell winner
- Waratahs romp to 83-5 trial win over Samoa A
- Quade Cooper’s return to the Reds goes up a gear
- Wales show Southern Hemisphere how to play running rugby (29)
- What opening matches of Six Nations taught us (19)
- Will Super Rugby crowds continue their slide? (202)
- Clinical Chiefs cost rusty Rebels in Corio (9)
- Six Nations shows rugby is a parochial game at heart (5)
- Goose’s Super Rugby up-and-comer XV for 2012 (29)
- What does the future hold for the Six Nations (50)
- Explore:
- All Blacks, Rugby Union, Springboks, Tri Nations, wallabies

Frank O'Keeffe said | August 21st 2009 @ 3:13am | Report comment
Nah they don’t deserve a mantle of greatness because the All Blacks and Wallabies have played badly more than the Boks have played well.
For instance, both the Wallabies and the All Blacks have had line-outs that haven’t performed well. They’ve become so shakey to the point that they’re even conceeding line-outs to the Boks. That’s just one of many examples I could use of areas where the All Blacks and Wallabies are suffering right now! There was a lot wrong with the way the Blacks p[layed the Boks last time, but I’d go so far to say that I think the Blacks could have won had they had a solid line-out. As I was it was the furtherest thing from solid. It was shakey to the point that they stopped contesting line-outs where they didn’t have the throw.
This Boks side… they’ve got a good forward pack, although they’re vulnerable at scrum time. The Wallabies thrashed them in the scrum when Robinson (was it Robinson) and Polota-Nau came onto the pitch. But in general play they’re very organised at the breakdown and they’ve got a very balanced backrow. I’m still not convinced the Boks can win without other sides giving away penalties. In the backs the Boks are horrible, really bad!
Like I said in another thread, this has been the worst tri nations I have ever seen. The quality of rugby is terrible and the games are a bore. People who blast the Northern Hemisphere for playing boring rugby should be watching this tri nations and try to explain how this is any better, because I have no idea how it is.
The Lions series, the Welsh v France game this year, and the England v France game (because of England’s great performance) were all far superior spectacles to anything that’s being dished-out in this tri nations.
I think it was a great shame for rugby that the British Lions lost to South Africa. They were more impressive and skillful and played proper rugby. Injuries killed them in that 2nd Test. The Boks tight five were tired and then uncontested scrums came about. When players like O’Driscoll got injured their backline became a ruins. The Lions dominated 4 of the 6 halves. Even sader is neither the Wallabies or the Blacks have learned how to beat the Boks from that series.
The Lions played proper rugby and should have won that series. Had that Lions side showed some composure at important points (something O’Gara lacked) I’d use them as an example of an excellent side because they played rugby in a positive attractive style. They should have been able to slaughter the Boks. I know people will say the Boks won the series and hence you can’t say one style is superior to the other, but it just a compsure thing.
I wouldn’t call that a great Lions side because they fell away at crucial moments, but when they played well they were very impressive and showed how inferior the Boks style of rugby was. They showed the world how to beat the Boks. They weren’t better than the Boks because the Boks showed more composure and character, but the Lions were more skillful.
That series loss was a pretty bitter pill to take really. One side played better rugby, but they switched off at crucial times.
Frank O'Keeffe said | August 21st 2009 @ 3:22am | Report comment
Sorry re-reading my post I don’t think I’ve conveyed my feelings the right way.
All I’m really saying about the Lions was they clearly had a gameplan that can beat the Boks. I have no doubt the Lions were better coached in that series. They knew how to attack the Boks with the ball in hand and played some beautiful rugby, especially through the centres. They weren’t a better side than the Boks because the Boks won. But it was more of a composure thing – the Lions let themselves down at crucial points.
It’s for that reason that you really can’t laud the Boks style as this great winning formula. With the exception of the Lions they’ve been playing two teams in this tri nations with holes here and there in their game.When they played against the Lions this style of rugby was clearly inferior.
Again I want to emphasise that the Boks were the better side. To sum it up, they won more via a force of will than by playing a superior style of rugby.
denver said | August 21st 2009 @ 4:18am | Report comment
we are the greatest team in the world
south african rugby is harder,faster and
stronger than any other in the world
pothale said | August 21st 2009 @ 4:55am | Report comment
I think KO can take the night off after all that Frank. :0
Knives Out said | August 21st 2009 @ 5:42am | Report comment
denver has spoken for me, Pothale. I have no intention of getting involved in this debate, not until after the 3N, anyhow. I’m currently saving my passion for Tuesday night.
pothale said | August 21st 2009 @ 7:14am | Report comment
Mrs Knives taking you out to dinner, then?
Knives Out said | August 21st 2009 @ 7:51am | Report comment
Nope, Mr West Ham is taking me to see Mr Millwall. Bang! Anyway, Mrs Knives is a vegetarian and Mr Knives isn’t so dinner out is a very rare occasion.
pothale said | August 21st 2009 @ 8:15am | Report comment
Milwalll? Millwall!!!
A friend of mine who lived in London for ten years loved going to their matches to watch the mad ferrets as they all stood up in unison pointing their fingers at the opposing fans chanting:
“What the fookin hell is THAT!?
Or something along those lines. She took great delight in telling me this. I thought she was barking mad.
Colin N said | August 21st 2009 @ 10:24am | Report comment
That’s nothing for Millwall fans, it’s the flying chairs you’ve got to worry about.
And you’ve seen nothing until you go to a Roma-Lazio match, like I did.
I was only 11 at the time, as well.
Ivan said | August 21st 2009 @ 11:30pm | Report comment
They dont serve vegetarian food at the local steak ranch ?
in south africa, they would call that racism.
Ivan said | August 21st 2009 @ 10:46pm | Report comment
you cant order your own food in seperate plates then ?
Knives Out said | August 21st 2009 @ 11:05pm | Report comment
Unless one goes to a vegetarian restaurant then the menu is pretty bland for vegetarians, unless one is huge fan of soup or salad.
Ivan said | August 21st 2009 @ 10:40pm | Report comment
u spending the evening alone at home are you ?
Knives Out said | August 21st 2009 @ 11:06pm | Report comment
No. No I’m not. But thank you for caring.
Andre said | August 21st 2009 @ 6:01am | Report comment
Frank O’Keeffe
Frank, first of all, the BIL team was pretty good and definately provided a very spirited challenge. But I do not agree with you that the BIL tactics were as effective as they are portrayed. I quote Fitzgerald who said that the Springboks are their own worst enemies i.e. in the first BIL test the SA coach made radical replacements off the cuff that really allowed the BIL back in. In the second test the boks scored 2 tries to 1 but missed ALL kicks even in front of the uprights, leaving 11 points on the table. It was a dismal kicking affair which again allowed the BIL in. It was only the late replacement by Steyn that provided the last minute winning kick.
The kicking formula only really cemented with Steyn’s inlcusion in the 3N competition and ALSO Burger’s ban allowed Heinrich Brussouw in that would highlight the Wallaby and NZ players clinging to ball on ground….hence most of the errors.
Stop clinging to ball on ground and stop grabbing ball offside from rucks and we will see more tries and less kicks.
The issue here is that the wallabies rather conceded penalties than allowing turnovers and the threat of tries. A penalty will always be a token concilation to a try.
You seem to forget the role Australia and NZ played in the whole challenge becoming only a penlty kicking spectacle…It takes two to Tango Mate…
Knives Out said | August 21st 2009 @ 7:55am | Report comment
Andre,
I don’t want to get into the Lions debate again but it is worth considering that the Lions were also their own worst enemies. SA won the 1st test due to an awesome forward effort. We saw in the 2nd test how Adam Jones and Simon Shaw reversed that trend thus it is debatable that a different selection would have effected a different conclusion. It’s also worth remembering that Mtawarira and Smit stayed on until the 65th minute in the 1st test, and given that SA earned so much ground and so many points from their scrum it can hardly be said that they let the Lions into the game. Rees and Jones (who entered the fray in the 45th minute) took away the SA scrum advantage and this SA had a much smaller platform which to work off.
bruski said | August 21st 2009 @ 7:12am | Report comment
I think if they do win the Tri-Nations then you could say they are great. The have had the pick of the draw so far playing 3 of their first games at home so that has been a help to them.
And they had the fortune of playing a very tough 3 game series against the Lions who I thought were good too so that has put them a bit ahead of the Wallabies and AB’s in terms of preparation.
People say that the Wallabies and AB’s are not at their best, perhaps, but the SA team can only play what is put in front of them. And the style in which they play is only borne by the lawmakers so again, they are playing to their strengths and winning.
I do hope that the Wallabies pull something out of the hat this weekend as I believe we are pretty close to being great as well, perhaps next year or the world cup year
Bruski.
pothale said | August 21st 2009 @ 8:22am | Report comment
If the Aussies or ABs, on current form, had played the Lions instead of SA, I suspect it would have been worse preparation for them. Either team would have lost the series.
Ben J said | August 21st 2009 @ 8:58pm | Report comment
That’s actualy a nice compliment to the Springboks then
Loftus said | August 21st 2009 @ 8:59am | Report comment
Frankie! Very emotional stuff coming from you. Have you ever thought that the reason the All Blacks and Wallabies’ lineouts are so poor is because the Springboks’ lineout is the best in the world? The sign of a great team is to show composure at crucial times in the match and that s exactly why the Springboks are so succesful.The Lions series was a walk in the park for the Springboks as far as I m concerned – they won it after 2 tests with 1 more test to go.
pothale said | August 21st 2009 @ 7:45pm | Report comment
“The Lions series was a walk in the park for the Springboks as far as I m concerned – they won it after 2 tests with 1 more test to go.”
eh you mean when they won the second match of a 3 match series with a last-minute penalty conceeded by the opposition, it was a walk in the park?
Such insightful stuff. You must be a New Zealand fan, right?
Ben J said | August 21st 2009 @ 9:00pm | Report comment
I am a Bok fan and the Lions was no walk in the park by any stretch of the imagination. The Boks had to pull rabbits out of the hat to win both tests. Kudos to both teams.
Hoy said | August 21st 2009 @ 9:07am | Report comment
I would say that the thinking of Bruski is a little faulty. Just cause you win against what is in front of you doesn’t make you a great side. If the opposition was say Romania, does that make SA a great side because they thrashed them? If they play Romania ten times a year, and thrash them every time, does that make them a great side? I don’t think it really does in the general scheme of things. It would mean that at that time, they were winning, but you would definitely need to take the results with a grain of salt. It is no secret the All Blacks are out of sorts this year, and the Wallabies have been for some time. Sure things look up, but there hasn’t been much change in results has there?
I don’t think England in 2003 were a great side, and I don’t think South Africa now are a great side. Yes they opposition give penalties. Yes Steyn kicks them. A great team that does not make. Take Johnny Wilkinson out of England 2003, and would they have won the world cup? Honestly? Not so sure about that. As for Australia, we were just lucky to be there really.
As for the thought that boring rugby is kicking penalties, but the opposition keep getting penalised blah blah blah. Someone else said on this sight on another thread that the Springboks were winning a game comfortably, received a penalty, could have gone for the line, pushed for a try, and chose to kick. Now if ture, that is not inspiring rugby, not good rugby to watch at all.
But then, yes, they keep winning, so Saffas will keep lauding them.
Knives Out said | August 21st 2009 @ 9:39am | Report comment
You can’t compare the two sides, Hoy, and one only has to look at the ability of players like Wilkinson, Greenwood, Catt and Robinson to know that England could play both sides of the game. You probably should recall that after England showed Australia how to play with ball in hand during their win in Aus (a week after winning in NZ, in case you have forgotten). One stuttering WC final does not a bad team make. A superb home and away record, Grand Slam and various accolades does. England proved their ability too many times and in too many stadiums to not be considered great.
Ivan said | August 21st 2009 @ 10:50pm | Report comment
i was going to comment… but i dont feel like restarting the whole greatness debate.
True Tah said | August 21st 2009 @ 12:21pm | Report comment
Hoy
I would consider England from 2001-03 a great side. Winning the world cup was the tip of the iceberg, and it would be foolish to base their gameplan on one game.
They handed out a fair few thrashings in that period, and I can recall a comprehensive defeat of Australia in Melbourne, where they outscored us 3 tries to one, with our one try being scored by Big Dell in the 76th minute.
The week before they were able to grind out a win over the Kiwis on their own soil despite being down to 13 men at one stage. Being a great side means you are able to adapt your gameplan.
bruski said | August 21st 2009 @ 1:07pm | Report comment
That is not what I am saying Hoy. South Africa are playing Australia and New Zealand in the Tri-Nations – We are not talking a world cup here.
Both teams are very good and I would go as far as saying #2 and #3 in the world in my reckoning. This would make the Boks pretty bloody good, you cannot compare a Tri-Nations game against a World Cup pool match because that is the only time you would play Romania!
Again, they are only playing who is in front of them, this happens to be Australia and New Zealand, hardly cannon fodder.
On other matters I think England in 2003 were an awesome side, had the best forward pack and 5/8 in the world and they dominated all that came before them! Remember, the team that gets the penalty kick has often put the other team in the position of giving away the penalty. Penalties are given away for cheating if you want it bluntly!
That is what the English forward pack did back in 2003, the only way you could stop them was to cheat, Mr Wilkinson then said thankyou very much, I will take three. There is more to it than saying a team can only win by sinking penalties and teams should be recognised for this.
Bruski.
JamesB said | August 21st 2009 @ 9:22am | Report comment
Without any doubt a very good team, and fantastic forwards. However, they stumbled past the Lions (some would say they were lucky) and won two home games in the Tri-Nations. If they can produce a clean-sweep and a Grand Slam, then we are talking greatness.
Temba said | August 21st 2009 @ 9:30am | Report comment
Good article better then the saffa bashings that get handed out by Spiro and co.
Time will tell if they are great and they have what it takes to do so.