All Black Dominance and Why the Springboks are falling behind

Recreation Sports
1

Two teams playing the best rugby in the final - what more could you ask for. It’s gonna be f. awesome. Hope I can catch it.

In line with Kea’s posts above I would love to read a good analysis of why South Africa, with a rugby player base 3/4 times that of NZ and a good five times that of Aus, not to mention a more intense and enthused public than its Southern H. rivals, fails to dominate. Talking about quotas etc doesn’t explain it when you look at the make-up of that Stormers front row backpedaling their way around the paddock yesterday.

2

[quote=“Dial”]Two teams playing the best rugby in the final - what more could you ask for. It’s gonna be f. awesome. Hope I can catch it.

In line with Kea’s posts above I would love to read a good analysis of why South Africa, with a rugby player base 3/4 times that of NZ and a good five times that of Aus, not to mention a more intense and enthused public than its Southern H. rivals, fails to dominate. Talking about quotas etc doesn’t explain it when you look at the make-up of that Stormers front row backpedaling their way around the paddock yesterday.[/quote]
Quotas are the least of their problems. We dominated before Isolation (not counting the 80s tours), but the problem now isn’t player base or quotas. Quotas are hardly even necessary anymore when you consider the great black and coloured talent coming through naturally. The biggest problem IMVHO is management (player management and how coaching structures etc is decided on). Also, we have so many talented players that have left that we could field a second Bok side based on those numbers (albeit, several of them wouldn’t be first choice selections, but some would have been). When a good Bok coach (Jake White for example) is appointed they (the powers that be, ANC, National Sports Council, SARU etc) do anything and everything in their power to hamstring the coach and any structures that he tries to set up. When a crappy coach is appointed, they are happy to let him run wild, embarrass the nation, rugby (SA and international) and himself and basically just wreak havoc. Jake White, for example, should never have been let go. He was one of the few coaches since 1995 that was truly professional in his approach. But if he was to be replaced, Heyneke Meyer should have been the man to take the reigns at that stage. But why fix it if it isn’t broken?
Rugby in SA is the one sporting code in SA that has to deal with more political meddling than any other code, yet is still the most successful sporting code despite all that. If they just let things hum along, appointed the right coaches and just let them get on with it we’d do a lot better.

Unless you’re a Saffa, you won’t really be able to understand the extent to which they meddle and how this affects structures, players and performance. SA Rugby and it’s myriad of problems is like a microcosm of SA at large. Everything still works, and relative success is despite the ANC, not because of it. If SA Rugby were allowed to be managed like it is in New Zealand, Australia or even England the Springboks would be close to invincible IMVHO. As things stand, it’s amazing we’ve won anything since 1995. A true testament to the brute talent in the country.

But all that aside, and forgetting about SA. Comparing NZ and Australia with their relatively small player bases and few resources to that of the large European Unions, it’s amazing that they have achieved what they have. To put it even more into perspective, out of 6 World Cups, only one hasn’t gone to a Tri-Nations country. On Northern tours and in the July tests, the Tri-nations countries are all but unbeatable. Despite political meddling (SA) and small player bases (Aus and NZ), the Tri-Nations is truly an annual World Cup. I’m not sure, but I’m willing to put my neck out and say I don’t think a Tri-Nations Champion has ever been beaten in that year’s Northern Tour.

3

I gather the meddling is an issue and I’d like to read a good long discussion/analysis of just how it impacts with actual examples - I’m surprised that no one’s written a book about it. Perhaps it’s too sensitive a subject. It’s not the whole story, however, and I’d suggest there’s also an unwillingness/inability to adapt. You could look at it a little differently and say that South Africa actually plays the Northern H. game brilliantly: grinding out wins via powerful scrums and taking the opposition head on. Only times and rules have changed - NZ and Aus have changed to meet them but South Africa hasn’t. One criticism I’ve come across time and time again is that South African players aren’t taught to think - ie. to play what’s actually in front of them. Rather they are taught structures to apply no matter what - kick and chase, kick and chase. Only now the opposition is as strong and confrontational as you, but also more intelligent and skilled in their play. Is that lack of thinking on their feet you see in South African rugby a result of meddling or a conservative rugby culture? Its worth noting that the current much laughed at, much reviled coach has a better win/loss ratio than Jake White, if I’m not wrong. (Or, at least until White’s rather fortunate World Cup win) Didn’t PdV come on board vowing a new style of play only to be cowed back to the past by the current crop of Springboks-for-life - Smits, Matfield et al. Perhaps if he’d had more support?

Just throwing out some thoughts. South African rugby seems to be going through a crisis period. It will be fascinating to see how they pull through. They don’t have to abandon their traditional strengths but until they add to them and evolve they’re f’d. I’m sure that political meddling throws complications and serious serious challenges into the mix, but there’s more going on in my view. To put it a little harshly, if political meddling becomes the only story then we’re back with bad refs and travel - making excuses, that while they have merit, remain excuses if nothing more is said.

4

It’s all of a piece as I think a little more: conservative culture undergoing stress and challenge (political pressures/professionalism) becomes not more flexible and adaptable but less. And South Africa’s intense and rewarding provincial rivalries only make it harder to fashion the sort of coherent and focused response you find in NZ and Aus. Meanwhile only 25 or so Australians actually care about Union, and in New Zealand, while the rugby may be getting more potent and polished, the public is steadily losing interest. It’s the onward march of professionalism. A challenge that the smaller more mobile rugby nations with a less satisfying rugby culture respond to better.

5

I’ll try to answer some of your questions better later, but I have to get ready for work.

Also, you should read In Black and White: The Jake White Story. If even half of what he says is true, it’s amazing they won anything at all. John Smit’s book is also fairly illuminating.

Btw, feel free to change the title of the thread to something you think is more appropriate.

6

I’m curious to hear your response. And thanks for the book tip. Sounds like the one I thought hadn’t been written. I’ll read it with interest.

7

Bismarck

You given up in despair mate? Looks like PdV isn’t standing still. Apart from resting the ‘wounded’ he’s also suggesting a greater say from the Springboks selectors/coaches via the sort of central contracting system NZ has. Not a bad idea, though, of course, he’s being rubbished for any suggestion that he have yet more involvement in SA rugby/

Question remains is SA rugby going to have to give up the beauty of provincial rivalries to go forward. How to have their cake - intense provincial fealties, and eat it - a cohesive balanced style for the Boks, is something they must be giving some thought, too.

Anyway, enough from me, as no one else seems particularly interested in talking broader structural elements. I’m off to read that Jake White book and hopefully get a better idea of whether its politics or rampant tribalism that is screwing SA rugger. The challenge that SA rugby faces is quite fascinating in my view. Quite the tragic drama.

8

Sorry, mate. I’ve had a rough week. Haven’t really had time yet to sit and write a decent post about it. I did see a good article on Rugby365 about scrumming and why NZ is pulling ahead there. I’ll get on it this weekend.

9

Indeed, very much a tragic drama, 'cos it doesn’t need to be that way. Btw, how are you enjoying the book so far?

Ok, here’s an interesting article I came across on Rugby365 that brings some perspective to the issue.
Can Boks master the dark art?

Now who would ever have thought that such a concern would ever be raised about the Boks? Shows how things have changed in the last 15/16 years…
In fact, look how much has changed since 2009 when the Boks demolished the All Blacks in the Tri-Nations and made them look decidedly second rate (which was reversed a mere year later in 2010 when the ABs did the same to almost the exact same Bok team). And considering how dominant the Crusaders have been this season, and especially how easily they swept aside the Sharks and then the Stormers, it’s hard to believe these videos of 2009 and 2010 are real:
Bulls vs Crusaders Super 14 semi final 2009

In 2009 the Bulls totally demolished the Crusaders, and in the Tri-Nations a Bulls dominated side did the self same thing to the All Blacks.

Bulls v Crusaders - 2010 Super 14 Semi Final

Weird how in 2010 the Bulls did it again, but the Boks faltered and were swept aside like nothing. Makes one wonder what goes on in the Bok camp, between the Unions and at the upper echelons of SA and Springbok rugby.

[quote]The Crusaders have swept aside all before them at scrum-time this season, and while there may be no Springboks in the Stormers front row - which was repeatedly shoved around in the semifinal at Newlands last weekend - the same cannot be said of the Sharks and Bulls.

The teams from Durban and Pretoria, whose players make up the bulk of the incumbent Bok pack, were also schooled at set-piece time when they faced the team from Christchurch this season - sending alarm bells ringing throughout South Africa.[/quote]
That just about says it all…
Sure, the Boks in the Sharks and Bulls teams are playing with other members who aren’t Boks or Bok regulars, so they aren’t exactly a Bok scrum, but the same can be said of the Crusaders scrum. So why have they gone from being demolished by the Bulls in 2009 and 2010 to schooling the top three SA sides. In fact, the only SA side that gave the Crusaders a rugby lesson this year was the Cheetahs. And They were without their Boks (Smith, and Brussouw who had just returned from a long injury lay-off). So what are the Cheetahs doing right that the top three aren’t doing?
Well, part of it is that the OVS has also been a Springbok producing factory. They are similar to New Zealand in that it’s probably the most sparsely populated area in SA, with the smallest player pool and the least resources, yet they continue to produce legends that are regularly “stolen” by bigger unions, and still produce yet more brilliant players and awesome rugby. So they have that. But they are also a family. Play for and with each other. They have a closely knit coaching team that has remained together for a long time and players a rewarded with starting positions based on merit and performance rather than any other factors. And like the dominant NZ sides, and the All Blacks, they continually bring in young talent and give them opportunities to grow alongside some greats of the game.

Then you have the whinging about long seasons, traveling time and injuries. All whinges that the Crusaders have shown this year are of no consequence to a professional side. So, have the SA unions and Boks really bought into the concept of professionalism? Shouldn’t a pro team have enough back-up to field players regardless of injury concerns? If SA rugby in particular, and Rugby Union in general really wants to claim pro status as in Football, then shouldn’t we follow the same path in letting players play for other clubs in Europe, but still select them for Bok duty if they’re the best in their position? I can understand the want and need to defer this and to attempt to keep Bok players at home for comps like the Currie Cup, S15 etc, but I think we are overly anal retentive about it.
Then, Sports and politics do not mix, especially in an era of professionalism. The UK gvt has no say over who plays for Man United, and even less say over who is selected to the English national squad or where the respective players play their club football. And so it should be with rugby. Even the Bok emblem is an embattled aspect of the game, and it’s retarded how a lowly grass grazing antelope has been blamed for everything from the Soweto uprisings to the imprisonment of Nelson Mandela.
The game is professional. Sure the team represents South Africa, but the teams (national and international) are also franchises, businesses with all that comes with it. Which is why I never blamed players like Clyde Rathbone and Daniel Vickerman (Strauss before them in 1996) for buggering off to Aus to eventually play for the Wallabies. Shit, if I was a talented youngster like Frans Steyn I would never have allowed myself to be selected for the Springboks, but would rather have gone off to NZ or Aus where you get selected if you’re good enough (the best in your position) and don’t have to worry about trivial concerns from gvt.

Also, you are quite right about tribalism. The Currie Cup and isolation are very much to blame for this. I can’t see this going away any time soon, and the various unions will always be at each other’s throats trying to get the best deal for themselves, and to hell with Bok rugby.

And part of the tribalist approach is how we refuse to select the best man for the job. PdV was never going to be the best man for the job, and I still maintain that the only reason the Bok team was successful after 2007 was because he stuck with Jake’s team and allowed the senior players to run the show for the most part. And other than his coaching, the man is a national embarrassment.
Jake White’s contract should have been renewed, and if they really wanted to change the coach, Heyneke Meyer was the only logical replacement at the time. And why the aversion to selecting foreigners? There are some great coaches out there, yet we refuse to select them. New ideas is exactly what Bok rugby needs. The game has changed, but the coaches haven’t because we select coaches who have learned the old way and stick with it, or ex-players who know shite about coaching. And then we toss away brilliant men like Nick Mallet, because they don’t fit into the correct PC spectrum the government wants.

I’ll stop here for now, but the more I write the more I realise there’s more wrong with SA rugby than what’s right. It truly is tragic to see. I was devastated in 1996 when the All Blacks finally surpassed us on win-loss ratio, which we had held since the amateur era. After the RWC 1995 final we just screwed up for for several years in how we treated players and coaches and it was only in 1998 that things started coming right again. But by the ABs had forged ahead so far in the win-loss ratio, that in the pro era it will be very hard to gain back the ground we lost, because I simply can’t see the All Blacks having three shite years against us like they had in 2009. It’s more likely that we’ll have more of the same.