The greatest coaches in rugby history – Sir Graham Henry, Sir Clive Woodward and Bob Dwyer – coached their teams for close to two 4-year terms and brought home the World Cup.
One could argue Woodward took seven years to build an experienced, World Cup winning team, Henry had the players for 2007, but couldn’t decide on his best match-day team and it resulted in an early exit. By 2011 he knew his best team, and won the Cup.
Dwyer won the Rugby World Cup for Australia in 1991, and perhaps by the time he got to the 1995 Rugby World Cup his squad were too old and players started losing their class and hunger.
To build a successful World Cup team a coach should have an eight-year tenure to build a squad of talented youngsters, giving them one World Cup to gain experience at the knock-out stages. By the time the second World Cup comes along the squad will be experienced and fully developed.
After some dismal performances by South Africa since November last year, I started recognising some familiar trends under Heyneke Meyer.
South Africa has had four coaches who were appointed for a period of four years in the professional era: Nick Mallet, Jake White, Pieter de Villiers and Meyer.
I have compared the winning stats of each or these coaches per year, excluding World Cup matches as those would skew the results due to easy pool matches.
| Coach | Year 1 | Year 2 | Year 3 | Year 4 |
| Mallet | 100% | 92% | 33% | 38% |
| White | 69% | 71% | 42% | 57% |
| De Villiers | 68% | 67% | 57% | 25% |
| Meyer | 67% | 92% | 69% | 0% |
| Average | 76% | 80% | 50% | 30% |
There is also a similarity in performances just prior to the Rugby World Cup.
White won the Tri Nations in his first year, Mallet won the Tri Nations in his second year, De Villiers won the Tri Nations in his second year, and although not winning it, Meyer’s best year was his second year.
The statistics above show a clear pattern regardless of players selected – South African coaches perform in the first two years of their tenure. When you consider that their combined average winning percentage in their first two years is 79 per cent and by the end of their tenures their combined average has halved, questions need to be asked.
Fellow Roarer Harry Jones suggested that many coaches lose their dressing room after a few years, and perhaps he’s on to something. However that would be too simple an answer. There is no doubting the fact that each of these coaches had the talent to work with – you don’t have a close to 80 per cent win rate if you don’t – but what made them fail so miserably in their last two years?
Are players being held on from previous World Cups in the hope that they could make it to another? Are coaches experimenting with new selections too late in their tenures? Do opposition teams adapt and out think them by year three of their tenures? Are the South African coaches one-trick ponies and unwilling or unable to change their game plans? Do the senior players begin to break down? Does the coach lose his passion and along with it his team’s commitment?
I suspect it could be a bit of each.
Should coaches, instead of being appointed from World Cup to World Cup, be appointed in between World Cups to ensure these second-year peaks coincide with the premier world tournament?
Either way, the statistics suggest the current way of appointing South African coaches does not work. Perhaps a coach should only be appointed for a term of two years?
NickSA
Guest
Kid K Firstly I am talking on averages here, you will always get an exception to the rule however to make a true impression averages have to work in your favour. An example is most people with degrees earn more money than people with out degrees but there of course are exceptions of people without degrees that earn more money than people with degrees. So yes, a black child from a poverty stricken background who has no cultural affinity towards rugby is less likely to develop into a world class rugby player than a child who goes to a school with rugby facilities and a school tradition of rugby which tend to be middle class schools in south africa. Do you disagree with me? And Yes on average a child who has not had the same early child hood development and same quality of education during school is less likely to be as productive as a child that has had good child development and gone to a school with a better education when they eventually reach the work place. Do you disagree with me? However I must admit, economically it is different to rugby because if a poor child is given that opportunity even if he is less productive, his children would become middle class and afforded the same opportunities, so short term it would cause issues but long term it would work. However what tends to happen is that companies want more productive people to hire, so they tend to promote middle class blacks instead of poorer blacks which completely defeats the purpose as the opportunity is just taken from the poor and given unfairly to the middle class. With regards to New Zealand and Ireland their is a cultural affinity toward the sport in the general population so you can't use them as an example. An example is coloured people, even though they represent about the same proportion percentage wise of the population as whites there is far more quality coloured rugby players than there are black players. I watched the SA schools game yesterday, the "50% black team", most of the "blacks" are actually coloured. There were very few black players. I can bet that schools with good rugby facilities and a rugby tradition has a higher proportion of white students to black students. Traditional poorer black schools (which is the majority) would be producing players if their was a cultural affinity toward the sport but there isnt so we rely on a minority middle class to produce our players. They would rather make a make shift soccer field and play soccer than rugby. However put in good rugby facilities and good rugby coaches into these schools and you will start getting a large portion of kids playing rugby but as previously stated before that is not going to happen when the classrooms and teachers are not up to scratch.
Kidk
Guest
So nick what you're saying is you can't get a good black rugby player unless he's from the middle class? Isn't that being elitism, what your saying is that poor kids who went to cheap government schools are just not as good as their middle class counter parts, I've seen poor kids from the townships work hard to get distinctions and get into Wits, are they some how inferior because they are from poor government schools or are their distinctions a farce? Is their acceptance into top varsities also a farce cause the varsities need their black quotas and the years they work to get that degree just doesn't count right cause universities just give those to black people just for showing up, I disagree with you on your statement Nick look at the universities those black kids in there have to work just as hard as their white counter parts there is no extra 15% on a test just cause your black, and the players you mentioned nyakane is only second to the beast, kolisi when he was picked was on form and so was mvovo, granted kolisi has now lost that form and mvovo isn't test match quality, and if I recall rugby is trying hard to remove it's elitist tag kolisi was from a poor family and I agree with you on schools and talent identification, its saru job to figure that one out and the black middle class should be more than enough supply as evident in new Zealand and Ireland that you don't need a huge pool to choose from
Hi Andrew, thanks man, good to know your brother and I are kindred spirits when it comes to the "Springbok saviour" Meyer.
Andrew Jardine
Roar Guru
Hi BBK, I have enjoyed your comments. I often discuss rugby with my brother Neil Jardine, who at one time captained Rhodesia and played internationals as a flyhallf against the Wallabies and Argentina, A mate of mine and former colleague on the Cape Times, when we were both sports writers, was Neville Leck. Neville wrote a book about H.O. de Villiers. I ended up on the Sunday Times writing about golf, tennis and boxing. I now enjoy writing a bit about rugby. My brother's rugby days were in the 1960s so they were probably well before your time! He is no HM fan and severely critical about the way the Boks play.
hopalong
Guest
RollaWAY.Not politically "decorous" but Hallelulah.
etienne marais
Guest
...in fact, Mbalula for president ! (Ok, not really, but you get my drift)
etienne marais
Guest
A good read from Gavin Rich, just to forcefully add some perspective: http://www.supersport.com/rugby/blogs/gavin-rich/Bad_science_necessity_and_arrogance
etienne marais
Guest
But Good To Hear !!! (that he has been properly briefed, and understands the mandate - it's important, because if this is so, he has HM's back, and HM and the A-Team can just get on with the show, with FM fighting the political opportunists back home)
etienne marais
Guest
Yes! Send in The A-Team. Theme music, cigars, guns and burning cars !!
Rugby Tragic
Guest
Pickett, the same applies to the NZ National Anthem. The Maoris section of the anthem is not as well know as the English stanza ...
Quite the turn around since the cricket world cup
Harry Jones
Expert
Yes. I think he's a nice guy. But incredibly, in over his head. The great thing about sport is HE CAN TURN IT ALL AROUND WITH WINS!
etienne marais
Guest
The minister of sport speaks: "Cape Town - South Africans must be patient with the pace of transformation in the country's national rugby side and will not be asking for more black players at the Rugby World Cup, sports minister Fikile Mbalula said." http://www.sport24.co.za/Rugby/Springboks/No-quick-fix-to-racial-make-up-of-Boks-Mbalula-20150811
I don't know why you bothered? But anyway, I wanted to compare results and form of each coached from when they were appointed without world cup matches being included due to Meyer firstly not having payed world cup matches yet, and the results in wrld cups have been 83% , it is the non world cup matches that shows this remarkable trends, but I suppose you missed that?
Not Bothered
Guest
Well this is doctored statistics. Perhaps this article would have some credibility if you hadnt doctored the win/loss ratio by removing games. In 2007 SA played Arg, Eng twice, Fiji and Samoa in the WC and you dont count that!?
Haha
Harry Jones
Expert
True! We only sang Die Stem. The English version was in the blue leather hymnal, too. But we never sang that, in primary or high school. The soft soutie accents in the hall would probably have made Biltong grimace.
etienne marais
Guest
"So there were Afrikaans medium and English medium kids. And one week we sang the Afrikaans version, and the English kids mumbled, and the next week we sang the English version, and the Afrikaans kids mumbled. But never a mixed version." Ja Swaer. That's how I remember it too.
Vic
Guest
Harry, that's hilarious. Do you want to tell me you learnt the Afrikaans Stem in an English school?? Well, see I come from Natal. The last British Outpost and all. We had tweetalige skole. Made for interesting Boere oorlog fights :) ( guess what my role was). So there were Afrikaans medium and English medium kids. And one week we sang the Afrikaans version, and the English kids mumbled, and the next week we sang the English version, and the Afrikaans kids mumbled. But never a mixed version.
superba
Guest
Etienne I have just read the history of the SA National Anthem on Wikipedia .It says that Die Stem and God save the Queen were the N.A. from 1938 to 1957 when Die Stem solely became the anthem until 1994 .As I had written .Whatever the real story is when I was at school the currently sung English verses we never sang .And I can't recall ever having heard of them but I did leave SA in the 80's .So I sing the Oz anthem and the Afrikaans bit of the SA anthem. And after all these years Die Stem.still stirs the blood despite being a soutie .