Springbok rugby: 2015 mirroring 2011

By the time the 2011 Rugby World Cup came around Pieter de Villiers had all but given full control of the Springbok game plan and selections over to John Smit, Victor Matfield and Foure du Preez.

The decision of relinquishing that control to a senior group of players meant that Bismarck du Plessis, arguably the best hooker in world rugby, at the time had to warm the bench while John Smit hung onto his Springbok jersey regardless of his declining form.

In fact it was deemed that his leadership on the field was so important that Smit would insert himself into replacing Jannie du Plessis when the burly prop had nothing left in the tank.

South African rugby at the time had got stuck in a hole reminiscent of the Kimberly Mine, dug more than 120 years ago, and mimicking the downward spiral of the biggest hole of the era the Springboks’ chances to succeed at the 2011 Rugby World Cup failed miserably.

It is said that you cannot teach an old dog new tricks, and the unwillingness and inability of the senior players to adapt their approach to modern rugby and their inability to adapt on the field of play meant the Springboks struggled past Wales and Samoa to end top of their group.

Their predictable play, inability to adapt, a prone David Pocock and a little help from Bryce Lawrence ensured an early exit from the 2011 showpiece.

Now four years later the question is have South African rugby progressed forward and has anything been added to improve their chances in the upcoming Rugby World Cup?

Bear in mind this is only an opinion piece and no Springbok was hurt in the writing of this.

Let’s first ask ourselves the question on whether South African rugby has truly evolved in the past four years, and more importantly, if any evolution has taken place will Heyneke Meyer employ these new tactics during a Rugby World Cup.

It is important to understand Meyer’s rugby philosophy, in fact it is not only Meyer’s philosophy but a philosophy held onto by nigh on every South African rugby coach bar Jimmy Stonehouse and Johan Ackerman.

It is a simple philosophy born out of conservatism that is innate to the DNA of most South Africans. Set piece, low risk, structured rugby and incredibly frustrating for many fans.

The problem with this approach to rugby is that you have to execute the set pieces well, you need dominance at the scrum and lineout, you need an accurate kicker, you need unbreakable defence and an accurate kicker. But most important you need disciplined players with little or no aspiration to be individual or maverick.

But what if the execution is not there, what if the defence opens up? Is it possible to consistently beat opponents intent on running the ball at you from every angle, opponents who shift the point of contact via offloads, side stepping their way through defences?

One only has to look at the poor showing of the supposedly top Super Rugby teams from the South African conference in the past two years to know the answer to those questions.

So onwards to Meyer, what has he brought to the table other than execution, execution and a couple of geriatrics?

Has he not learnt from 2011 that old dogs don’t learn new tricks and there comes a time in every player’s career where you have to accept that experience does not trump declining form?

You might suggest I am being pessimistic, but look beyond your first reaction and think about the following issues.

There is no new game plan, so when execution of the basic plan fails there is nothing else to fall back on. Although results have largely been on the right side of the ledger, the performances have been woefully inconsistent.

The players still allow niggles and trickery to befuddle them, they lose focus, become individualistic, predictable and fail to adapt.

The most experienced Springbok ever, Victor Matfield, got flummoxed by Ireland in November last year. I am at a complete lack of words as to how the most experienced Springbok got caught with the same trick again and again.

I can only believe his inability to adapt has something to do… well let me not be too harsh, we can’t all be geniuses.

There should be a major concern about the inclusion of Jean de Villiers, who in my view is being rushed back to fitness after his horrific injury against Wales in November. Especially considering that De Villiers’ form was in decline last year after a brilliant season in 2013, and he will be untested going into the World Cup.

Jaque Fourie has been courted, begged and promised eternal life to come back for the World Cup, but when last has he shown any commitment and form in the Springbok jersey?

Do Victor Matfield, Fourie du Preez and Morne Steyn have compromising photos of Heyeneke Meyer or is there a lovefest going on beyond anything we could imagine?

Jannie du Plessis’ form has been deteriorating since 2012, and he doesn’t kick at goal, so why is he still there?

Granted Warren Whitely, Damien de Allende, Jaco Kriel, Jesse Kriel, Faf de Klerk, Vincent Koch, Burger Odendaal, Rudy Paige, Steven Kitshoff, Harold Vorster and Francois Venter may have little to no international experience, but these were the form players in the South African conference, and it is highly unlikely that any of them would make Meyer’s squad.

One issue I have not mentioned, and for a reason, is the contact area. The most important aspect of modern day rugby.

The contact area covers the offload in contact, the ability to free the arms in the tackle, the support of the ball carrier, and then ultimately the breakdown.

South African rugby players rarely if ever offload. In order to offload you have to be conscious of freeing your arms in contact, the habitual brace for contact where you clamp down on the ball, tense your shoulders to take the hit is not conducive to offloading skills.

In fact the opposite is required to offload, loose shoulders and arms, solid grip onto the ball and the ability to get your arms free of the tackle is vital to avoid the breakdown and shift the point of contact.

South African ball runners only know one pace when they have ball in hand, and that is full tilt. At full tilt you do not allow your support runners to run onto you. Compare that with the ball runners from the antipodes, they have a change of pace, they wait for their support runners, and more often than not have someone to offload too.

The other issue is that South African teams are wildly inconsistent in the manner in which they approach the ruck. It should really be a simple process. Firstly the ball carrier should ensure he has support runners at the contact area, if he has broken the line it might not always be possible, and that is where commitment from the trailing players are important.

Read the breakdown, if you are the first arrival and the opposition has hands on the ball, your job as first arrival is to clear the prone player, not go for the ball. If the ball is secured, remove any players that could threaten ball security, and in order to force a free flowing attack and maintaining momentum the next wave of attacking runners should be on the front foot waiting for the release from the halfback, not standing on their heels waiting for the halfback to direct traffic.

In summary, there are more questions than answers, more concerns than beliefs from this rugby supporter.

Are there any positives? Yeah sure there are, but they will all be playing Currie Cup back home while watching the geriatrics fail in another World Cup.

And the reason is simple, Meyer should have cleaned house when he started his four-year tenure, and stuck with the newbies, developed a free flowing game, rather than hanging on to a tired rugby philosophy and ageing players reminiscing of years gone by.