Are the Boks a great team or a good team in a mediocre era?
Roar Rookie
By grahamcreid, 11 Sep 2009 grahamcreid is a Roar Rookie
Since 2007, the Springboks have added a Lions Tour victory and an imminent Tri-Nations crown to their Webb Ellis trophy. Yet their team appears to lack the real star quality that has peppered their side down the ages.
Since the professional era, which teams have emerged who could stamp themselves up alongside the 1974 Lions or the All Black Invincibles of the 1920s?
Possibly Gary Teichmann’s ‘Boks, who won 17 tests in a row.
Australia won everything they could at the turn of the millenium, and England’s dominance in the years up to 2003 means that they can also be considered in that league.
The players that played in these teams defined their era: Willie John McBride, Teichmann, John Eales, Martin Johnson – greats in great teams.
And where do the 2009 ‘Boks stand in this?
Victor Matfield and John Smit are two players who stand out, but after that, the team is flawed. Burger is fantastically talented, but blighted by a summer ban. Fourie du Preez can boss a game, but can drift out of the reckoning when under the cosh. Pierre Spies is a man-mountain, who can get a good speed up, but does he possess any real ball skill?
When people look back at this team, they will struggle to remember why they really did so well.
They were exposed by a British and Irish Lions side, who ran them ragged and could have won with a change of wind.
Australia, just last week, had the better of them, with a team that is regularly beaten and is currently in transition. Even the All Blacks, who should traditionally be peaking about now (mid-RWC) are having a serious look at themselves.
The South Africans can only beat what is in front of them, but to be truly considered great, they must win a truly great struggle.
Now it is time for the mediocre nations to buck up their ideas.
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
- Waratahs romp to 83-5 trial win over Samoa A (2)
- Quade Cooper’s return to the Reds goes up a gear
- Chiefs continue to wait for SBW (7)
- 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)
fox said | September 11th 2009 @ 9:05am | Report comment
Queue ranting South Africans who take offense at your comments and who will accuse you of not accepting the greatness of their team, even though the results are on the board. I must say I have some sympathy for their feelings in this matter.
You say “they must win a truly great struggle” yet I would argue in their defense that they have just done that by defeating the British & Irish Lions. It was an amazing series. It doesn’t matter that you think they were “exposed” by the Lions, what matters is that in an almight struggle, they were the victors.
As much as I find it difficult to overcome certain inherent shortcomings of South African rugby to argue they are not a great side is short changing them and their fans. I am certain to find fault with the Boks somewhere, but this will probably be more in tactics, in certain players’ disposition and their coaching staff’s gaffs. In terms of questioning their greatness, enough is enough. Let them have their time in the sun.
Jerry said | September 11th 2009 @ 9:34am | Report comment
Nah – they’ve not done enough to be called great. Good, but not yet great.
When they’re good, they’re very good, but when they’re bad they get thrashed. Great teams may lose the odd one, but not by much.
JamesB said | September 11th 2009 @ 9:12am | Report comment
A great side has to win test matches away from home on a consistent basis. The AB’s are the only team who consistently achieve this. It’s far too early to categorise this Boks team, after all they haven’t even won the Tri-Nations yet. If they beat the AB’s at home, and take home the title, then they are well on the way to being a great team. At the very least they are a very good team.
Lee said | September 11th 2009 @ 9:22am | Report comment
As a Saffa, I would not call the Boks a great team – a good team but not great, I think they have the potential but that all depends on this year. If they win the Tri Nations and go unbeaten on the end of year tour then they will be on the way. If they win the Tri Nations next year then on the verge. But then again it is such a subjective criteria. I would say that if they hadn’t finished last in last years Tri Nations I would say they are alot closer but losing to the ABs in Cape Town and Wallabies in Durban have put a stain on the “great” tag – and delayed(if they reach it) that status.
If we ignore last years Tri Nations, then to be consistent we ignore the World Cup in 2007 as well – you can’t just remember the victories when deciding on greatness. So by that logic, if we take it from this year, then the Boks need to win this Tri Nations and probably the next before I would class them as “great”.
I do take a bit of exception when it comes to the no star players: Habana is still a class act, You mentioned Smit and Matfield as would I, and can you name a better half back in the world at the moment than Du Preez? Add to that future stars like Brussow and possibly Bismarck.
Also you wrote, “The South Africans can only beat what is in front of them, but to be truly considered great, they must win a truly great struggle”
Why are the Lions not classed as a truly great struggle? They were a good side, and the first two tests were the two best test matches I have seen in years. Is it because we critise Northern Hemisphere rugby and say the only real barometer to measure a team against is the ABs? I know that everyone thought the Lions would be steam rolled but they proved themselves to be amuch better team than anyone thought.
sheek said | September 11th 2009 @ 9:24am | Report comment
Like most traditional Bok teams, this one abides by the structures of the game almost to the letter. This is what generally makes the Boks so hard to beat – a big, powerful scrum; dominant lineout; aggressive defence; metronome accurate goal-kicker & counter-attacking opportunists.
The Boks aren’t caught up in the romance of the game – winning is king. So what if the play is dull, as long as the win’s in the bag!
Of course, not every Boks team has been like this. The 1937 Boks were an obvious exception, & the Boks of the early to mid-80s had extravagant backs, but shame about the isolation of the time, we never got to see them in full flight.
A backline of scrumhalf Divan Serfontein, flyhalf Naas Botha, centres either Willie of Michael du Plessis, or Errol Tobias, with Danie Gerber, wingers Ray Mordt & Carel du Plessis, & fullback Johan Heunis, would have been worthing paying money to see.
Whatever his critics might say, Botha could run the ball if he had too. It’s just that too often he didn’t see the need to do so. And Gerber was voted the best Bok ever a few years back.
Anyway, what intrigues me about the current Boks side is their weakness in the frontrow. It’s extraordinary they’re willing to stick with Smit at the expense of a genuine, man-mountain tight-head prop.
But I would agree with the second half of your headline -” the Boks are a good team in a mediocre era”. Funny how this is the wall-to-wall era of rugby presentation. We’re getting so much of it. Yet while the quantity’s there, the overall quality is missing.
Personally, I reckon the 1980s was the high-water mark for worldwide rugby quality.
But it’s not that bad. Smit, Matfield, Brossouw (eventually?), du Preez, de Villiers & Habana must rank in the top 5-6 in their positions to play for the Boks. I would definitely like to see de Villiers at 12 in either the Wallas or ABs – he would be even more of a sensation.
Blinky Bill of Bellingen said | September 11th 2009 @ 11:13am | Report comment
I’ve wondered about why they have Smit too instead of as you say “a genuine, man-mountain tight-head prop” to anchor the whole thing. Presumably he’s a wonderful leader and that’s the trade-off the coach is prepared to make for the team.
Personally I’d be replacing him to make that pack even more formidable and putting a (c) after Victor Matfield’s name. Perhaps it’s felt that VM is already busy enough calling the lineout. Who knows?
Lee said | September 11th 2009 @ 9:37am | Report comment
Joseph said | September 11th 2009 @ 9:39am | Report comment
Far from great and far from good – Oz demonstrated last week that the Boks have so so much to work on. Fantastic starting XV granted but SA’s bench are filled with journeymen not impact players as the Lions discovered game 3. Their canter to picking up the 3N trophy laughably hit reverse last week and justifiably so. PDV’s chest thumping banter a month ago is filled with conspiracy theories now as he too see’s his teams failings.
NZ is weak and vulnerable at the moment due to injuries and IMO continued selection of multi-taskers as opposed to position specialists. We are weak in the key halves positions (Carter & Weepu excluded) and for once as long as I can recall the smell of desperation lingers. We now have no clear point of difference in our play / style like Mains, Hart and to a lesser degree Mitchell / Deans installed for themselves. There used to be daylight between us and them but although we were “Once were innovators” we are now simple followers as what will be seen this Saturday in an attempt to mirror the feats of Dingo 7 days previous. IMO Henry & co’s contracts may have annual kpi bonus’s distracting them from building for 2011 planning to transition personnel out and young U20′s in as opposed to poor results dictating his selections. This demonstrates clearly to me they have no plan – expect more of the same come 2011
ohtani's jacket said | September 11th 2009 @ 4:50pm | Report comment
I think you’re being a bit harsh Joseph.
After the June Tests it was clear that the All Blacks wouldn’t be that good this season. If Carter and McCaw remain fit, I expect us to improve somewhat, but it takes more than two guys to flick on the switch.
I actually think Ross, Franks and Read are three of the better selections Henry & Co. have made in a while. They’re three guys who actually look like they have a future at the Test match level as opposed to the usual cast-offs.
I would love to see the All Blacks play less conservatively, but let’s face it — being streets ahead of the opposition has not helped the All Blacks achieve their ultimate goal. If anything, we need to learn how to win at the generic style that every team falls back on in knockout competition. That in itself is a concession from Henry who was famously quoted as saying he’d rather lose than play 10 man rugby.
Besides, the Wallabies win over the Springboks wasn’t some feat of coaching genius. The Lions and even the All Blacks provided plenty of tips. Hell, this website was full of good ideas. Executing the game plan is another story altogether, but Deans still has those loses on his coaching record and the Aussies aren’t anywhere near playing their own distinct style.
Eagle said | September 12th 2009 @ 3:52am | Report comment
Let me not pretend to be an expert on the All Blacks resources, but Franks and Read do impress me as well.
Mitch O said | September 11th 2009 @ 1:23pm | Report comment
Imminent 3N’s? Big call.
Sam Taulelei said | September 11th 2009 @ 1:44pm | Report comment
Well the 1987-1990 All Black team could well qualify to the pantheon of greatness as you define it. They dominated all opposition and went on a 50 game winning streak and an unbeaten run of 22 tests. Were it not for the 19 all draw against Australia, they would have set a new world record for most consecutive test wins that was set by the 1967 All Blacks and equalled by the Boks in 1998.
How do you define mediocrity or greatness in any era apart from their results? There were less tests played in the amateur era and greater gaps between them. Does that cheapen or strengthen the achievements of the 1924 Invincibles or any of the other great touring international sides?
You mention the 1998 Springboks and their record equalling achievement, yet your criteria of judging the quality of their opposition would cancel out their claims to greatness as their strongest rival NZ was at their lowest ebb and recorded their worst results since the 1949 4-0 whitewash against SA. Also that 1998 team only qualifies on the strength of one season. How then do you assess a team that won 13 out of 15 tests in one year against all opposition in both hemispheres and in achieving their grand slam conceded no tries to the opposition? Or does one season’s results blur into the other because of frequency and repetition apart from the world cup.
I thnk by highlighting only some teams and individuals that played for them you’re guilty of cherry picking examples to suit your argument which I don’t think is well conceived at all.
johno said | September 12th 2009 @ 3:33am | Report comment
At the same instances how could you then rate the ’87 – ’90 AB’s as the pinnacle since there were no Springboks to really test them against.
Willem said | September 11th 2009 @ 2:39pm | Report comment
I think it is a bit unfair to devalue a great period of south african rugby by nit picking at few bad performences. Also the question has to be asked what makes a team deserving of the mantel of greatness. Is it past performences, is it the strenght of the team at the very momernt or is it the individuals that make up the team.
Lets look at the current situation of the boks, thay have achieved some good results over the last three years, they currently bolster a strong captain, best line out, best lock pair, grat depth in back row players, best scrumhalf in the world, one of the worlds most accurate goal kickers not a bad fly half either, a very strong center combination if not the best going around at the moment, two wingers who know how to get to the try line, a full back that arguably possesses the biggest boot in world rugby and is a strong runner.
In my opinion they are if anything under achieving with a team olding so much amunition thay should not be giving teams the oppertunities they do. In my veiw they have two weaknesses and that is a man playing prop who should not and a weak bench. The weak bench in my opinion is due to bad selection and not due to lack of players, guys like Jacobs and January are there for the wrong reasons and their spots should go to guys like Olivier and Vermaak.
I think that if smith does not lift his game on tighthead soon then sadly thay should let him go and make Matfield captain.
MM said | September 11th 2009 @ 10:26pm | Report comment
I tend to agree with you Willem.
The bench is a problem but when politics rule the public are rewarded with players that frustratingly devalue the team’s performance since it is human to see the weaknesses larger than the strengths
sheek said | September 11th 2009 @ 3:21pm | Report comment
I would think the 1987-90 ABs were the best rugby team I’ve seen in my 40 years of following the game.
The speed, power, skill & intensity of their game was a quantum break from anything we had witnessed previously.
The next best team was also ABs, from 95-97. My best Wallas were in order – 84-86, 91-93, 98-01.
I’m not sure of the best Boks team of the past 40 years. Since the 90s they’ve struggled to maintain consistency for any length of time. The 80s team remain an unknown but potentially great quantity. I think they hit a high point in 1998, while the WC winning team of 2007 was also very good.
The best Lions were of course 71 & 74, followed by the 2001 mob.
England’s best was 2002-03; Wales mid-late 70s; Scotland mid-late 80s; Ireland mostly through the 2000s. France have been up & down, but I recall their 76-77, 81-83, 86-88, 94-95 combos as pretty special.