It wasn’t so long ago that the Boks went down 49-0 in Brisbane and people were calling for the head of Jake White. “Joke” White, the headlines read. And now we have a new clown.
Peter De Villiers has maybe built less than White, but before we all write the Boks off completely, it is worth comparing histories.
Jake White took over from a Springbok team in ruins. Kamp Staldraad and all the homo-eroticism disguised as team building, a Quarter Final exit in the World Cup … Danie Craven was turning in his grave.
In stepped White, and the Boks were immediately resurrected and won the Tri-Nations in 2004.
2005 was an equally good year, though people seem to forget it. The Tri-Nations was barely lost on the bounce of a ball. The Boks and All Blacks won three games apiece, the Boks going down to a last minute try, denying them their first win on New Zealand soil in years.
And then the infamous 2006 Tri-Nations humiliation, Schalk Burgers neck injury (inevitably related), political interference, doom-and-gloom, calls for the head of the coach.
And then World Cup victory in 2007. How did Joke White turn it around when they had supposedly sunk so low?
In his book, Jake White claims that the team moves in cycles, and he expected the terrible third year given the amount of rugby being played. He knew that if he just rode it out, he would win the World Cup, as that is what he had been building his team for all along.
So he put his players on a reconditioning program, forgot about results in 2007, and became a national hero.
Can Peter De Villiers do the same?
Are the Boks just in a cycle of burnt out bodies from over-use? I think it’s key to point out some similarities and things that did change, and need to be adhered to once more.
Yes, the key Boks have played WAY to much rugby. Matfield, Habana and Smit are in serious need of reconditioning. They look like corpses out there (bloated corpses in Smit’s case – the man needs a diet and some gym).
Again, the Boks are missing a key flanker in Heinrich Brussow, and Juan Smith for that matter.
Their return should make a huge difference. What White did effectively is blood youngsters in the pre-World Cup year. We saw the rise of Francois Steyn, Ruan Pienaar, Bismarck Du Plessis and JP Pieterson.
Taking a leaf from the Book of Jake, De Villiers needs to give his youngsters a chance. It’s time to put Januarie out to pasture and give Francois Hougaard a run at scrumhalf.
Likewise Juan de Jongh needs some game time, and come end of year tour, he needs to introduce Mapoe, Mvovo and Lambie to the squad.
Perhaps, most significant, was White’s willingness to admit his short-comings, and bring in some fresh eyes. The contribution of former Aussie coach Eddie Jones cannot be overstated. He brought life to a stagnant backline, and shook up the complacent Bokke.
De Villiers needs to swallow his pride, and do likewise.
I’m thinking Brendan Venter – he has transformed Saracens. Or perhaps Ian McGeechan. His work with the Lions backline was revolutionary – I have never seen such dangerous running, and bizarrely, no-one has tried to replicate it.
Maybe Rod McQueen, if we can get him to leave the Reds for a spell.
Regardless, there needs to be fresh input, because the current pond is stinky.
So don’t discount a Bok victory next year. New Zealand is nice and over-confident again – ripe for the picking as home pressures mount.
Perhaps it’s all part of some bizarre Peter De Villiers masterplan.
Colin N
Guest
"The 1999 Ausies did very well post 1999. What does that mean? How many Tri Nations did that side win and how many times did they win B&I Lions series?" Considering a British and Irish Lions series only comes around every 12 years for an individual country............? But anyway, they won a world cup, a Lions series and two Tri-Nations between 1999 and 2002, which is what I would call a period of dominance, whereas a World Cup, a Lions series and a single Tri-Nations title sandwiched inbetween a last place and what looks to be a poor 2010 campaign isn't. Nevertheless, I don't think the comment by Frank is unfounded. Who do you think is 'the worst world champion ever?'
Ben S
Roar Guru
Errr... I'm not defending Frank's statement. I've offered my own statement that claims that the SA 2007 side can be labelled the worst WC winning side are hardly unfounded. 'I am not interested in getting into a debate with you about the relative merits of the sides from 1999 to 2007.' You're contradicting yourself. Why waste my time?
Ben S
Roar Guru
'In fact the core of those players hold more titles and trophies than most international players. Worst ever just is not borne out by the facts. It highlights simple prejudice and jealousy that would fit well in a junior school playground.' That's not even true, though. The 1999 Wallabies had the WC, the 2000 & 2001 3N, and also beat the Lions. You're cherrypicking loose events and trying to forge an era of SA excellence that never happened. It's quite a simple argument: the 1999 Wallabies and 2003 Australian side had three consecutive seasons of dominance each. SA won the 2007 WC with two 3N titles 5 seasons apart.
Eagle
Guest
Again you are massaging the facts. The claim was the worst side ever. I do not know why you think you can defend Franks statement by your artificial and false claim about when the game became professional. I am not interested in getting into a debate with you about the relative merits of the sides from 1999 to 2007. You use generalisations when it suits you: ie The 1999 Ausies did very well post 1999. What does that mean? How many Tri Nations did that side win and how many times did they win B&I Lions series?
Rusty
Roar Guru
No chance of him coming back so soon - madness if they did
Eagle
Guest
You are most welcome to your opinions. I simply pointed out the casual way facts are handled in these murky quarters when making derogatory comments about Springboks. I never argued that the 2007 Boks where the best side to win a RWC. I simply offered you an opportunity to justify the casual and popular NZ/Aus/Eng (losers of 2007) claim that those Boks where the worst team ever to win a RWC. In fact the core of those players hold more titles and trophies than most international players. Worst ever just is not borne out by the facts. It highlights simple prejudice and jealousy that would fit well in a junior school playground.
Ben S
Roar Guru
excuse me... 'post 2007'
Ben S
Roar Guru
You can't really compare the amateur and professional eras due to the fact that there was no 3N, therefore we are left with 1999, 2003 and 2007. The 1999 Australian side went on to do very well post-1999. The 2003 England side didn't, but then nobody expected them to. Woodward basically had to rebuild a whole new team - the WC was the peak. That's the difference between that England side and this SA side. This SA side was meant to dominate immediately. This SA side came last in the 2006 3N, won the 2007 WC (without facing a top 5 IRB ranked side) and then came last again the 2008 3N. The 09 3N victory and Lions series win isn't connected to the WC, like the 1995 Springbok side wasn't connected to Mallet's 17 match win streak side a few seasons later. To that extent the 2007 WC Springbok side could fairly be labelled the worst of the three professional WC victors. Are you surprised there are knockers - especially when you refer to the 2004 3N?
Lee
Guest
Fnatstic news - Bismarck is training with the Sharks and play in the Currie Cup this weekend....so he might be back for the Boks next game... Interesting conundrum - I can't imagine them dropping Smit to the bench for his 100th test, but can't imagine them not starting Bismarck...so Smit to 1 or 3...hopefully at loosehead.
Ben S
Roar Guru
And it doesn't really add much to your argument - a one off excellent result. That really is the thrust of the issue, and reflects the SA record post-1997.
Eagle
Guest
No. I just completed the list of the Bok matches for the 2010 season set out by Hayden.
Eagle
Guest
If you want to look at worst ever, then the 2002 Springbok side that played in that 14 man vs 15 man match at Twickenham and lost by 50, was probably the worst ever Springbok side.
Lee
Guest
Speaking of players who need to retire.... Terblanche frustrated me more than any other Sharks player during this years S14, the amount of 2 on 1 chances he bombed because he thought he had the pace and step to dummy and go himself!!!
Eagle
Guest
The only point I am raising is the comment care of Frank O' Keeffe that the Boks in 2007 where "the worst side ever to win a RWC" . The core of this team had an u21 world cup and a Tri Nations under their belt before 2007 and subsequently got another Tri Nations and the B&I Lions. One of their number had a previous world cup victory under the belt and one had participated in the 17 match winning streak under Nic Mallet. The sticker worst ever seems to lack a bit of glue.
Ben S
Roar Guru
Did you miss the Argentine victory over France? The same Argentina that lost 0-2 at home to Scotland, btw. You're being overly simplistic.
Ben S
Roar Guru
England: 2000: 6N title - drawn series with SA in SA 2001: 6N title 2002: record defeat of SA (53-3) - home victory over NZ 2003: 6N title (Grand Slam); World Cup title - 14 match winning streak - consecutive away victories over NZ & Australia - record victory over Scotland England's WC victory was a crowning glory of an ageing side. There's no contrast with this current SA side, of which was meant to be on an upward curve from the 07 WC onward. Incidentally, I don't recall the 1999 WC winning Wallabies finishing last in the 2000 3N...
Eagle
Guest
Subsequent simply means after the RWC win. You missed the little win over France in June.
Hayden
Guest
The AB side who won in 1987 ( yes, I know not many of us can remember back that far ) was pretty decent also in the years immediately afterwards.
Eagle
Guest
Enlighten me please, about these mighty achievements.
miguel
Guest
The bitterness over the 2007 world cup doesnt make any sense. First off its extremely insulting to say that the boks won without facing any real competition, because that dismisses all the pacific island nations and argentina. If the only teams worth beating are New Zealand and Australia how can you blame south africa for their defeats to France and England. Kiwis can moan all they want about the results, but theyre not the only team worth playing.