The greatest challenge in South African rugby's history

For the South African rugby community, there is little to feel optimistic about regarding the future fortunes of the Super Rugby franchises and the national team.

Indeed, when you compare their regression with the progress of New Zealand, Australia, Argentina and Japan, it is hard to have any hope for green and gold rugby.

New Zealand have won virtually all they possibly could for years, with the exception of the 2014 Super Rugby tournament and 2015 Rugby Championship, both taken from them by Australian teams, which is also the extent of Australian rugby’s achievements during those years.

At least the Australians can say that they have won two competitions of note. That’s more than zip from South Africa, who only have a lonely bronze medal to show for their efforts in the previous World Cup cycle.

Neither Argentina nor Japan have won anything of note, but their rugby has come in leaps and bounds, especially in the previous year, where they both defeated the Springboks.

While Argentina should be able to defeat the Springboks in Argentina – as they defeated the Wallabies in Argentina in 2014 – the Pumas should never be able to beat South Africa in South Africa. No matter how bad the Springboks are. Never.

As for Japan, they should never defeat South Africa, period. England hasn’t been able to do it for a decade. Wales have only won against South Africa twice in almost a century. The Wallabies have struggled to do it in the past four years. On paper and on reputation, Japan’s win cannot be possible, and yet it happened. The seismic shock of this occurrence even led the world to call it the greatest upset in the history of rugby union.

South Africans call it the greatest humiliation in 100 years of Springbok rugby.

Both Argentine and Japanese rugby have progressed, as have New Zealand and Australia, while South Africa stagnated and then regressed, because South African rugby is resting on the laurels of history and reputation.

The Springboks are probably the most hated team in world rugby, alongside England. The overarching thought to this is that South African teams play ‘evil’ or ‘anti’ rugby, but this has been debunked on numerous occasions when South African teams played ‘positive’ rugby, while other teams have played anti-rugby.

The Irish class of late 2013 to early 2015 is a prime example of this, playing from the 2009 Springbok template. They relied on a strong kicking game, preferably a bombardment of up-and-unders, a strong forward pack, and a good lineout. There were no revelations in attack, or use of the ball unless the odd opportunity presented itself – much like the Springboks of 2009.

Yet Ireland was widely praised, while the South Africans were crucified. The dislike has nothing to do with playing style – it’s just dislike, and that’s fine. The idea was never to be popular, it was to be successful.

The only reason the world respects the Springboks is because they are the second-best team in rugby history, succeeded only by New Zealand. When this form of respect dies, and recent failures indicate that the time is near, so too will the rugby fraternity’s tolerance for South African rugby.

So, with all of that background out of the way, let’s analyse the current situation of Springbok rugby and why that leads me to believe that this could be the darkest time in their history – worse even than the era of readmission.

For starters, we have the coaching dilemma. It is old news that Heyneke Meyer has been given the boot, and rightfully so. He managed to win roughly 70 per cent of his games, but under his tutelage the Boks were never going to evolve or expand.

Meyer has no excuse for not performing. His predecessor, Pieter de Villiers, managed a lot more than Meyer did with a playing pool that was roughly equally as strong.

Under de Villiers, the Springboks beat the All Blacks three times in a row and twice in New Zealand, including the first win in Carisbrook in their entire history. They won a British and Irish Lions series in 2009, and went on to claim the Tri Nations trophy the same year. They also beat the All Blacks once in 2011 before the World Cup. That means De Villiers’ Springboks beat the All Blacks five times in four years – Meyer’s team only managed a solitary win in four years.

Allister Coetzee is the frontrunner for the Bok job – the same man who took an impressive Stormers unit and turned them into a team that enjoyed tackling more than they did running with the ball. This same Stormers unit failed to win a single play-off match that they participated in, with very humiliating losses coming against the Sharks, Crusaders and Brumbies at Newlands in 2011, 2012 and 2015 respectively.

Simply put, Coetzee’s team lacked the ability to win big games.

Make no mistake, Coetzee is a top coach, possibly the best that South Africa has had in Super Rugby the past five years, and does not over-rely on favourite players. Eben Etzebeth, Schalk Burger, Duane Vermeulen and Jean de Villiers have all been injured during Stormers campaigns, and he valued their wellbeing and long-term benefits much more than their immediate presence on the field – something Meyer failed to grasp. Coetzee is a players’ coach without arrogance and hard-headedness.

Yet he is still the coach that could not overcome the challenge of a Super Rugby semi-final. How then can you expect a Springbok team under his tutelage to overcome a play-off game in a World Cup? He might be an option, but he’s not a good one.

What about other options within the country?

Nollis Marais, the new Bulls coach, seems to be heading in the right direction with his team. During the 2015 edition of the Currie Cup, Marais’ team eradicated all familiarity with the traditional Bulls game plan. They ran the ball with vigour and accuracy, and look to be in a good place heading into the 2016 Super Rugby season. Yet he has not proven himself, so is a moot option.

Lions coach Johan Ackerman’s team has come in leaps and bounds in the past two or so years, playing the type of rugby that every South African wants the Springboks to play. He has a Currie Cup title under his belt, but that’s pretty much it for him. Eighth place in Super Rugby is not a successful crack, and shows that his time is not now. Ackerman is an option for after 2019, not 2019 itself.

Robbie Fleck was part of the problem with the Stormers, now he is supposed to be the solution. I doubt it.

Gary Gold’s efforts with the Sharks needs no introduction, we all know how poor he’s been, and Franco Smith of the Cheetahs presents the same problem as Marais.

Other options are Brendan Venter, Nick Mallett, Rassie Erasmus, John Plumtree and Gert Small. Some of them can work, but most of them don’t strike me as coaches in the mould of Steve Hansen, Eddie Jones or Michael Cheika. Mallett may work, but the odds of him taking over are slim.

Then we have the issues of transformation and the quota system complicating matters further. Since I severely dislike issues of race, let’s cut this one straight and short.

I am not against transformation, but I am against the quota system. Trying to expand our pool of players by embracing the African communities will get no resistance from me, as long as their method is long term, which the quota system is not.

Firstly, the intended plans of the quota systems that will be in full effect are only the first of its kind. The national government is more concerned with including pure black talent than it is about including coloured talent or, say, Indian talent.

The national cricket team is a prime example of this. Despite being infinitely more diverse in colour by its inclusion of many coloured and Indian ethnic players, the Proteas are under continued scrutiny for their omission of black (as in African) players.

This means that the government will continue to press for black only numbers until they deem the quantity to be sufficient. Not coloured talent. So it will not only negatively affect players of European heritage, but the coloured players as well.

When advocating the quota system in future, remind yourself that when you pick a team that the government should be satisfied with, you don’t choose players like Bryan Habana, JP Pietersen, Cheslin Kolbe, Justin Geduld, Nizaam Carr, Rudy Paige, Damian de Allende, Elton Jantjies, Rosco Specman, Rayno Benjamin, Cornal Hendricks or Juan de Jongh. You’ll have to limit their inclusion to complete the true representation that the government wants.

Lastly, there is an enormous misconception regarding the fact that you could class a type of player with a specific race. It is often mentioned on The Roar that black talent is somehow more ‘exciting’ than white talent or that white talent is more physical than black talent.

Black players do not play a naturally more exciting game of rugby than white players and white players aren’t stronger than black players. If you watch the Varsity Cup then you will see plenty of exciting white players who play attacking, ball-oriented rugby, and tons of black players in the forwards who play the same physical game as white players.

They are all rugby players with their own unique skillsets and attributes. There is no such thing as one race of players being naturally equipped for one thing more than another.

Transformation is a slippery slope in South Africa and the quota system is the chosen saviour by the national government. If that is the course that SARU have chosen, then let them do it. Very few rugby fans care anymore, they just want all the threatening to stop and for SARU to just do it. Still, it is predestined to further complicate matters in a nation whose rugby is already in very dire straits.

South African rugby face the greatest challenge in their history. It will take nothing short of a miracle to regain the lofty standards of old.