South African rugby: 21 years since readmission
Roar Guru By biltongbek, 17 Oct 2012 biltongbek is a Roar Guru & Live Blogger
- Tagged:
- Rugby Union, South Africa rugby, Springboks
South Africa's Springboks Bismarck du Plessis, Frans Steyn and Heinrich Broussow. AFP PHOTO / Marty Melville
Related coverage
The Ellis Park home crowd waited with anticipation for the kick off on the 15th of August 1992, when the Springboks met New Zealand for their first international encounter since the Apartheid ban.
South African greats such as Danie Gerber, Naas Botha, Uli Schmidt, Wahl Bartmann and a number of other veterans took on a game All Black side.
South Africa had 10 debutants on that fateful day when New Zealand won by 27-24, the narrowest of margins.
The South African public would have taken a lot of confidence out of that performance and would have believed that South African rugby was as strong as ever, until of course the next weekend when the then world champions Australia thrashed the Springboks 26-3 at Newlands.
Perhaps it was an omen that a new world force had risen during the self-inflicted international hiatus.
But 21 years on, has South Africa improved?
Back then provincial rivalry was staunch, understandable as the Currie Cup was the alpha and omega for South African rugby players and public, it ultimately influenced the manner in how selections were made. Internal politics, nepotism and favouritism reigned supreme.
Looking at the record of the Springboks over the past 21 years it makes for complex and contradictory reading.
Two World Cups, three Tri Nations titles, and four Super Rugby trophies does entertain the thought that there were some successes along the way, but when you delve deeper and ignore the win ratio of 63% (including a superior win record over all nations bar the Wallabies and All Blacks) then it seems little has changed.
We still face a system that discourages collective thinking, the Super Rugby franchises rarely do anything for the good of the collective, politicians interfere regarding ‘non-existing’ quotas, administrators behind closed doors make rash decisions with scant regard for the consequences and supporters are rarely being kept in the loop regarding the clandestine workings of the inner circle.
If Dr. Danie Cruyven would be able to come back for a visit, what would his opinion be about where we find ourselves 21 years later?
We still haven’t been able to evolve our game plan, we still believe in the Neanderthalic approach to ball carrying and lo and behold, the kicking fly half is still revered as the Messiah in South Africa under many supporters.
IRB player of the year (2007) Bryan Habana has learnt how to circumvent the stoic game plans and has found other methods of scoring tries, be it by intercept, individual brilliance or opportunistic chip kicks.
We score less tries per match than our two biggest foes, we have stifled great players’ instinct and vision and yet there is a strong belief among many South African supporters that we are on the right track.
It seems to me at least we are doomed to forever be contenders and never the holders of the prestigious title of best team in the world.
Is it an inherent trait of South African leaders to remain conservative and afraid of taking risks? Will we forever be the rugby nation that has all the talent in the world, but continue to waste our resources due to the inability to reach for the stars?
Will Heyeneke Meyer stick to his guns and select the young potential stars like Jantjies and Lambie now that Johan Goosen is out for the end of year tour, or we he fall back to his safety net of Morne Steyn?
It is easy to fall back to the comfort of experience, but it takes a brave leader to venture into the unknown. Will Meyer be the man who will change Springbok rugby forever, or will we wait patiently for the promised land?
Looking to join The Roar team? We're searching for an experienced Group Sales Manager to lead our team in Sydney. Yes, this does mean you get to work with the site all day long! If you're a digital media sales star, we want to hear from you. Apply now.
Passionate about your union? Then sign up to The Roar's brand new daily union email, delivering Roaring articles directly to you day-in, day-out. You'll love it!
Click here to join now!
- Explore:
- Rugby Union, South Africa rugby, Springboks
October 17th 2012 @ 2:45am
Jiggles said | October 17th 2012 @ 2:45am | Report comment
Interesting article. To be honest there is probably still some sort of lag effect from isolation which saw the Springboks go from the best test rugby team pre-isolation to arguably the 3rd best team now. Since reintroduction the Boks definitely haven’t been as good as the Wallabies in terms of W-L percentage and have fallen some way behind the All Blacks, who were not quite as good in the old days. Again I am not sure how you could quantify how much isolation hurt the Boks, but I think it definitely had some profound impact.
October 17th 2012 @ 3:07am
ohtani's jacket, Wallabies supporter said | October 17th 2012 @ 3:07am | Report comment
The Springboks began struggling prior to their isolation. I don’t know whether it was because of the anti-apartheid protests every time they toured, but they really struggled in the 60s. 60% winning percentage vs. the All Blacks 83%.
October 17th 2012 @ 10:21am
garth said | October 17th 2012 @ 10:21am | Report comment
By the late ’60′s the NZRU had also grown a set and was refusing to let South Africa’s apartheid policies dictate NZ team selection.
October 17th 2012 @ 3:17am
jame said | October 17th 2012 @ 3:17am | Report comment
I’m not sure anyone can answer this besides saffers themselves.
I don’t think isolation did hurt Springbok rugby in terms of performance-readmission did judging by the results vs the ABs. Head to head prior to 1995. ABs 18 Boks 20. Boks were better not ‘dominant’ as bok fans would say.
However in terms of running the game, that is where isolation has hurt the boks as attitudes, ideas and management of the game may still hold onto values that were used prior to readmission. I get the feeling the SARU has yet to adapt to the way rugby should be managed on all levels in the professional era which may reflect why its taken them 11 years to win their first super rugby tittle in 07.
October 17th 2012 @ 5:57am
mania said | October 17th 2012 @ 5:57am | Report comment
jiggles – preApartheid AB’s only ever struggled vs the boks. AB’s overall winning % vs all nations has always been higher than SA’s. boks (as they do now) only ever lift their game vs the AB’s
October 17th 2012 @ 6:47am
biltongbek said | October 17th 2012 @ 6:47am | Report comment
Very true, I think we have spoken about this before. south Africa sees NZ as their arch rivals and have the hunger, need, inspiration, desire, whatever you want to call it to raise themselves against the best.
But by the same token they don’t dominate against teams they should. The minor top 8 countries all get the odd win which the All Blacks simply won’t allow.
October 17th 2012 @ 7:03am
mania said | October 17th 2012 @ 7:03am | Report comment
wow biltongbek , that is a big honour to AB’s when u say it like that. as u know imo boks have always been the true measure of how good a player really is. i dont consider any player world class unless they can play well vs the boks
October 17th 2012 @ 7:08am
biltongbek said | October 17th 2012 @ 7:08am | Report comment
I assume my cheque is in the mail then
October 17th 2012 @ 7:09am
mania said | October 17th 2012 @ 7:09am | Report comment
yes….u know all our banks are owned by australians? good luck with it
October 17th 2012 @ 3:23pm
Jiggles said | October 17th 2012 @ 3:23pm | Report comment
Head for head record has more baring in my opinion.
If throughout the Deans tenure, for example, if the Wallabies hadn’t lost to any other teams but kept the same record against the All Blacks as they currently have, no one would seriously suggest that the Wallabies were a better team.
I think the same applies here to be honest.
October 17th 2012 @ 3:27pm
Jiggles said | October 17th 2012 @ 3:27pm | Report comment
I’ll also add that through the 1998 – 2003 period, the All Blacks had a marginally better record against all teams than the Wallabies, but inferior head to heard record. I don’t think anyone would say the All Blacks were a better team throughout this period.
October 19th 2012 @ 6:42am
richard said | October 19th 2012 @ 6:42am | Report comment
The record was better because of the ’98 whitewash, after that it was a shared 2 test series through to 2002.
Also, the ab,s were struggling with the poms, as were oz.
October 17th 2012 @ 3:30am
Sam06 said | October 17th 2012 @ 3:30am | Report comment
I think bok fans had this expectation that because they were once the super power in rugby prior to 1995, this dominance would continue on after readmission. The 1995 WC win really reinforced this idea but in reality the Boks were slowly falling behind their 2 biggest foes as the year went by. They (fans) still hold this firm belief that they are rightfully the best team in the world despite the poor showing of the boks at times.
However in saying that 21 years is enough time to adapt and address these issues. Maybe its something deeper or just their opponents are always 1 step ahead.
October 17th 2012 @ 6:49am
biltongbek said | October 17th 2012 @ 6:49am | Report comment
That reason is simply the hard headedness and the inability to accept the fact that the game has evolved. It seems to me at least that the administration and leaders in SA rugby refuse to acknowledge there is another way.
October 17th 2012 @ 3:38pm
Wal said | October 17th 2012 @ 3:38pm | Report comment
Maybe the biggest loss during isolation was coaching talent, the current crop of coaches now would have been in the early stages of learning their trade 21 years ago (either playing or administering) Henry as the Auck coach 20 years ago.
Maybe isolation meant they weren’t being exposed to a wider variety of game plans, like subsequent generations of NZ coaches have been with Aus, Eng and French defeats to learn from.
October 17th 2012 @ 4:00am
Johnno said | October 17th 2012 @ 4:00am | Report comment
Boks a talanted rugby nation no question. Won 2 world cups so overall a huge success. But like in OZ let down by a poor administration. SARU have just as many problems for multiple reasons as the ARU. But talant wise South Africa have just as much depth as NZ, just let down by poor administration. And South Africa has a much bigger population than NZ to and OZ. About 50 million. However population can be misleading. South Africa has a strong middle class, and a very rich country and big economy, massive amounts of natural resources, eg Diamonds etc. But a lot of inequality too large poor population living in poverty, so South Africa doesn’t maximise it’s population size as well as Australia or NZ coz of the poverty sadly that exists in South Africa. However a big middle class still but will get better as the middle class grows even bigger and places like the easter cape with southern kings entry develop more.
October 17th 2012 @ 5:52am
Matt said | October 17th 2012 @ 5:52am | Report comment
I think South Africa is slowly finding ways of intertwining their old habits and traditions with ther requirements of the modern game.
Things like the Varsity Cup and Craven week are great assets. And the realisation of the need for the Kings is also a long term vision.
However, the political ramblings seem unfathomable from an organisation who are paying supposedly top administrators to look after the growth of the game. How can a nation with THAT many people, with such poor competition in terms of other sports (of all the African countries South Africa must be one of the most underperforming in football), such a strong stock of school and club sides and a LONG heritage in the game not be world leaders? Not to mention all the money available to SARU compared to the ARU or NZRU.
I don’t agree with those who suggest that a lack of central contracting is the issue in South African rugby either. Right down through the age grades and even at Super Rugby level the South African youth sides and Franchises struggle to break away from a limited skill base playing style. Is there possibly a lack of touch rugby being played, is it as simple as that?
Certainly coming from a NZ perspective the game has such an emphasis on ball handling due to the innate style of play which is derived from touch rugby and the large Maori and Pacific island love of this form. The Springboks have always had world class props, hookers, locks and loose forwards. They’ve also had world class scrum halves. Where the Boks are let down is in the sheer lack of attacking flyhalves, midfielders and fullbacks.
There is hope with the likes of Small-Smith, Lambie, Goosen, Taute etc but you can almost guarantee that they’ll have this hammered out of them soon enough. It will be a mightily impressive effort if Meyer can go away from everything he holds dear in terms of style and becomes the man who moves the emphasis of the Bok game towards a more total rugby approach. It would hurt initially and he’d have to take the stick from the fans and media. But once the Boks started playing some exciting open rugby then the kids would follow and you’d have created a lasting legacy. Another skillful all round team to match the All Blacks would be wonderful for the game. The Wallabies and the Welsh seem to be able to do the loose but struggle in the tight and England tends to be an underpowered version of the Boks. It will surely be interesting to see what cards Meyer plays on the end of year tour.
October 17th 2012 @ 6:52am
biltongbek said | October 17th 2012 @ 6:52am | Report comment
I spoke to someone a few weeks ago that came up with the following reasoning as to why we lack skills.
At school the big boys don’t need skills, they simply overpower their opponents through sheer size and strength, unlike the New Zealanders who play in weight categories where you naturally have to improve your skills to excell.
October 17th 2012 @ 12:41pm
Sam Taulelei said | October 17th 2012 @ 12:41pm | Report comment
It’s not that dissimilar in NZ schools biltong.
The schoolboy game is dominated by the larger Polynesian kids who mature physically earlier than the others.
It was in 2009 when Graham Henry in an interview pinpointed the lack of kicking skills and vision of developing first fives playing at NPC and Super rugby where they developed bad habits at school where all they had to do was pass the ball to a strong running Pacific Islander to get them across the advantage line. As they progressed higher, their lack of fundamentals got found out.
October 17th 2012 @ 11:10pm
Mick said | October 17th 2012 @ 11:10pm | Report comment
sam-that argument was was confined to the north island especially regions like Auckland, Counties, Waikato where the schools consist of a lot of the Polynesian kids. The South Island schools were a different case as they did not suffer this problem due to the lesser presence of islanders in schools.
October 18th 2012 @ 12:53pm
Sam Taulelei said | October 18th 2012 @ 12:53pm | Report comment
Yes you’re quite right Mick, very valid point.
October 17th 2012 @ 3:39pm
Wal said | October 17th 2012 @ 3:39pm | Report comment
But jeez they were brutal in the latest under 21 World cup
October 17th 2012 @ 5:55am
mania said | October 17th 2012 @ 5:55am | Report comment
Uli Schmidt – my all time favourite non NZ hooker. this guy was amazing
October 17th 2012 @ 12:22pm
abnutta said | October 17th 2012 @ 12:22pm | Report comment
He’s my doctor here on the Central Coast of NSW.
He was a bit rough with my injured finger when I went in for an appointment. I suppose old habits die hard re: inflicting pain on New Zealanders.
October 18th 2012 @ 7:42am
sheek said | October 18th 2012 @ 7:42am | Report comment
Abnutta – is this true? Uli living on the CC, that is…..
Truly great player. He’s my ideal prototype of a hooker. The nearest Aussie-type to him was Billy Ross. And perhaps Mark McBain.
October 18th 2012 @ 8:58am
Rusty said | October 18th 2012 @ 8:58am | Report comment
Wow – that dude is my hero… I will be right up (Sound of brick dancing with finger)
October 17th 2012 @ 7:27am
nickoldschool said | October 17th 2012 @ 7:27am | Report comment
The Boks have always been a different team in my mind, mostly because of the political situation there. Thats why there was a lot of anticipation when they were allowed back in the game in the early 90′s.
We (in france) didnt know what to expect but knew these were the toughest rugby players on the planet. The ABs always had aura and exoticism about them. The Boks were feared. I remember how great it felt to welcome back one of rugby’s best (its like world football without germany, just not the same).
as an aside, how great, and sad, it was to see Joost van der Westhuizen last week. rugby wasnt rugby without SA.
October 17th 2012 @ 7:43am
allblackfan said | October 17th 2012 @ 7:43am | Report comment
I remember watching that tour live in Fiji. The atmosphere in the ABs first tour game against Natal was amazing.
If I remember correctly, though, the closeness of that score was a reflection of the fact the ABs were not used to altitude.
The ABs actually raced out to a big lead then faltered in the last 20 minutes as the Boks came storming home whereas the Wallabies game was played at sea level
October 20th 2012 @ 7:29pm
steve.h said | October 20th 2012 @ 7:29pm | Report comment
Natal plays in Durban at sea level you must be thinking of Northern Transvaal (Bulls), Free State (Cheetahs) or Transvaal (Lions)
October 17th 2012 @ 8:11am
The Mountain said | October 17th 2012 @ 8:11am | Report comment
The success of South African rugby is without question I think. Unrelenting, huge Afrikaner forwards (who grew up eating biltong at the age of 2 weeks), always a good lineout (made up once again with the Dutch heritage – statistically the Dutch being the tallest people on the planet averaging 6 feet and 1 inch) and on top of that height they used to lift as well (when it was illegal), a forward pack which always has intensity and mongrel (albeit sometimes a little over zealous and undisciplined), a history of a great kickers, and a rugby culture only matched by New Zealand in a nation that lives and breathes everything rugby.
I always find it interesting when you compare the culture of a country and the style of rugby that they play.
When we were experimenting with some new laws in the Southern Hemisphere such as half-arm penalties to encourage more running rugby and less kicking for points with full arm penalties, the Northern Hemisphere was against it. They were not in support of as much running rugby as we seem to be in the south. This seems unbelievable to a lot of fans here.
And while a lot of our own fans scream about too many scrums and not enough running rugby, those of us that have played the game can really appreciate the battle and art that goes on in the scrum and front row. It is very much apart of the game of rugby.
So the culture of a country, their fans, their history, the climate, their administration, are all factors that make up the style of rugby being playing in a particular country.
I think the style that the South Africans play has always been very similar and hasn’t changed much. They have always had some amazing players with many skills, but sometimes may find themselves confined to the teams game plan.
October 17th 2012 @ 11:30am
Don said | October 17th 2012 @ 11:30am | Report comment
I’m married to a Jaapie whose views on rugby don’t generally take the argument too far. Her Afrikaans uncle, however, is a life long fan who’s lived through the ups and downs of South African rugby. He maintains that the biggest single cause of their conservatism (aside from a cultural tendency) is that the quality of domestic refereeing in SA is so poor that at all levels below the professional, it actively stifles risk taking, change and therefore attacking rugby. Forward-based play is well understood and “rewarded” while more adventurous play can result in higher risk of turnovers, penalties, etc. He reckons that over time, it has got to the point where only the truly exceptional attacking talents make it past this roadblock and professional teams have to start by trying to re-educate the majority of their players out of this conservative mindset if they want to try anything new. No idea if this is fair or not but I thought it was an interesting view by an insider.
October 17th 2012 @ 2:43pm
Gavin Fernie said | October 17th 2012 @ 2:43pm | Report comment
Sombre but accurate summation of where South African rugby stands after 21 years by Biltongbek.
It is interesting to note that at the very tail end of our previous international rugby ‘life’, the flour bomb, living in ‘bunkers’ Springbok tour of New Zealand in 1981, and the Springbok teams which played against South America in 1983 and against the Cavaliers in 1986, had developed a more all round game than the current ‘kick and pray’ dumb rumble up the field in order to provide the kicking hero type flyhalf with the opportunity to add points via his metronomic boot.
Part of the reason for this was that we had some exceptional backs at our disposal, Danie Gerber, Michael Du Plessis, Carel Du Plessis, Ray Mordt. Gerrie Germishuys, Johan Heunis and others, spearheaded by a genius flyhalf, Naas Botha, who could kick AND run a backline as well as any other flyhalf in the world, and better thn most.
Billy Beaumont’s 1980 British &Irish Lions played dour forward rugby, were better than us up front, out scrummed and outgrunted us(heresy, the Bok faithful screamed…. the Bloody Rooineks are beating us at our own game…..)but ironically, lost the series because we had teriffic backs and very good loose forwards; we were forced to play a more expansive, exciting game. The same applied when we played the South Americans in the early 80s and the Cavaliers in1986. Bear in mind this,minus John Kirwean, was the full All Black side which went on to dominate the 1987RWC.Throughout the golden period for W.P rugby(1982-1986) the W.P team played an exhilirating brand of rugby based on good tight forwards and brilliant loose forwards and some of the world’s best backs.
For one brief moment in 1992 it looked as if we had somehow kept up, only to have this illusion shattered by Bob Dwyer’s Wallabies on their way down from the rugby summit. Since then, with a few notable exceptions(Mallett’s 1997/8 Springboks) and the odd spark here and there, we have reverted to the laager /siege mentality, exacerbated by the success of out two RWC campaigns, based on knockout kick and pray rugby mostly(certainly in 2007) and the trumpeted victories of Meyer’s ‘skop and charge Neanderthals known as the Blue Bulls, in the Super competitions. There appears to be no going back now. The die is cast with Heyneke Meyer at the helm. Are we destined to be the perennial,stubborn bridesmaid who insists that her stolid way is the only way, even if she s destined to always be second hand Rose.