The Roar
The Roar

Advertisement

Truth is, Springboks lack the X-factor

Roar Guru
11th October, 2011
Advertisement
Roar Guru
11th October, 2011
84
4663 Reads
Radike Samo storms forward for the Wallabies

Radike Samo storms forward for the Wallabies (AAP Image/Dave Hunt)

The name Bryce Lawrence will be firmly imprinted on the psyche of South African rugby fans long after the final whistle is blown at the 2011 Rugby World Cup in the Land of the Long White Cloud.

A sports team psychologist prompted for his views on primetime television news, following the Springboks’ heartbreaking 11-9 World Cup quarter-final loss to the Wallabies, summed up the collective feeling of its fans by saying: “I’m sure we don’t want to see Bryce Lawrence refereeing another match for us again.”

Judging by many a fan’s reaction to the defeat Lawrence is, in the eyes of the Springbok faithful, public enemy number one.

Choosing not to lambast the Boks for spurning many a golden opportunity to seal the match in such a crucial encounter, most fans instead took their frustrations out on referee.

Former Springbok wing, Ashwin Willemse, working as a studio analyst for
a popular sports television channel, was high in his praise for how the Wallabies had fronted up and eked out the victory. But he juxtaposed those statements by saying that Lawrence’s performance was nothing short of disappointing, adding that the referee’s interpretation of the breakdown had degenerated into “lawlessness”.

The Wallabies, he said, had benefitted from Lawrence’s policing of the law, while the Boks did not, with Dave Pocock in particular benefitting through transgressions at the breakdown.

The injured Bakkies Botha, who was among the panel of experts at the national broadcaster providing opinion and comments on the game, would obviously not be drawn into commenting on the performance of the referee.

Advertisement

All a disconsolate looking Botha could say on national television was: “I am totally gutted by the loss … especially now that players like Victor Matfield is ending his international career.”

Botha did however emphasise that in matches of this nature, it was crucial to take your chances when they presented themselves and admitted that the Boks had not done so.

An analyst on another television station believed Australia’s try had come as a result from a blatant infringement in a ruck about five metres from the tryline. A caller to the programme pointed out that Lawrence was a New Zealander, saying he had blown the South Africans out of the World Cup because he feared the All Blacks would come up against the Springboks in the semi-final and get beaten.

But assistant coach Gary Gold’s emotional response was as immature as you could get. Gold seemed to hold back in launching an attack on the referee but couldn’t resist saying, as reported by the SuperSport website: “The way the Rugby World Cup ended for several Springbok stalwarts was nothing short of the biggest injustice in sport.”

It went on to say: “Gold was visibly emotional, and equated the exit to the death of a loved one.” Not even an intense game of rugby could be compared to the death of a loved one, Mr Gold.

Well, after all the ranting by the SA public, I for one am actually going to stick my neck out and say, thank you Bryce Lawrence for having made up your mind to stick your whistle in your pocket.

Obviously, given what has gone before regarding Mr Lawrence’s approach to previous games, I believe the referees’ panel must have requested him to tone down the shrill of his whistle a bit. So possibly, Mr Lawrence went to the other extreme and allowed the game to flow freely – too much to the liking of the Springbok faithful.

Advertisement

Would South Africa be complaining if they had won the game, with opposition fans crying foul that Lawrence had been a factor?

Obviously what is more galling to the Springboks, other than the defeat, is the fact that they could not win the game, when the match statistics were overwhelmingly skewed in their favour. The Boks have been warned time and time again by the Joe Soap rugby public, about the White Line Fever that had crept into their psyche over a number of years, opting for a defensive strategy for a long period in their history.

The Boks have the backs to do the job; but that is not their style, only because their rugby is built around forwards of gargantuan proportions, who are used to bash up the centre of the park to outmuscle, overpower and overwhelm their opponents.

However, opposition teams, their rivals in the south and even up north, have become equally stronger, but also more mobile and streetsmart, like is evident in the Wallabies set-up and are now thrashing the Boks at their own game – upfront.

Peter De Villiers has failed by buying into Jake White’s strategy on developing the former coach’s game-plan and sticking with the same old suspects to defend the title; he should have focused on becoming his own man but with Jake White-backers in the form of seniors, Bakkies, Smit, Matfield, Fourie Du Preez and Morne Steyn among them, De Villiers was in no position to change tack. So fans got fed the same diet of Bok rugby believing that White’s foundation was the right way to go.

Dick Muir, who is mooted in the media as one of the candidates to step into the coaching breach when De Villiers exits soon, has done very little to isnpire South Africa’s backline play. The fast men like Habana and co were virtually left in no man’s land, while the forwards went bashing about the park, leaving backline players like him to forage for the scraps, of late.

In fact, the dour Muir can do little to take South Africa forward. SA Rugby would do well to put Allister Coetzee into the post, as he and Robbie Fleck have brought much-needed X-factor to the Stormers franchise.

Advertisement

South Africans sometimes have the habit of putting extra pressure on their players by “talking them up” in the papers and electronic media. Heinrich Brussow is almost heralded as a Bok messiah for his foraging skills – but has he got the staying power? Pockock showed how ordinary he in fact is.

De Villiers’ selections became highly questionable and was consistently under the kosh for choosing John Smit above Bismarck Du Plessis, for example. Smit towards the latter part of his career, as was the case in the quarter-final, looked like a modern-day Mr Plod on the field of play … he was going nowhere, but De Villiers thought differently.

Bismarck therefore could not be criticised for showing his disgust, when the pretender-to-the-throne was substituted for Smith in the Tri- Nations game against the ABs in Port Elizabeth. But when all is said and done, laying the blame at the foot of Lawrence’s door is a cheap shot indeed … it’s a slap in the Wallabies’ face really. They were simply brilliant on the day.

There is danger, too, in this approach by the SA fans – that the loss was the fault of the ref, and that the Boks were simply invincible on the day and not themselves to blame for the defeat. That’s not the way to inspire and teach the next generation about the realities of the game.

If everyone says the Boks have a good future despite the seasoned players moving on, then the Bok fraternity better dispense with the “sore losers” approach quickly.

To some people Australia may have lost the battle, but they definitely won the war. And that’s all that matters, isn’t it?

close