Has White been exposed?
Rugby365 editor Jan de Koning looks at the Springboks' decline in the past two years (yes, two years) and asks some pertinent questions about the state of affairs in South African rugby. He seems to think that Jake White has finally been exposed and that things could get ugly from here on!
Our columnist Duncan Bech reflects on what he makes of England's coaching shake-up and gives us his views on the possible return of a certain knight of the realm…
The debate surrounding Jake White's tenure as Springbok coach has reached fever pitch in the past few days, following the Boks' humiliating, record (49-0) loss to the Wallabies in Brisbane at the weekend. It has raised questions, not for the first time, about White's credentials.
I decided to look for some answers to one simple question: "Has Jake White been exposed as a charlatan, or is he the real deal?"
White himself has a predisposition for statistics, which he often uses to wish away criticism.
So I thought it was only fair that we first look at White's stats as a coach and compare that with something (or somebody) tangible. So I thought let's compare him with his predecessor, Rudolf Straeuli, who (according to most pundits) left the Boks in a total mess.
Lets first look at the overall records of the two.
Straeuli was in charge in 2002 and 2003, two years. During his reign there were no official world rankings, which were only introduced by the International Rugby Board (IRB) in September 2003, and we have to opt for an unofficial set of rankings from our stats partner Pick and Go.
When Straeuli took charge of the Boks their were, unofficially, at No.8 in the world. They reached a high of six, slipped back to eight and moved back up to six – which is where White found them when he took charge of his first test in June 2004.
White took them from sixth to No.2, but has recently been slipping back, rapidly, to fourth.
During his two years Straeuli was in charge of 23 tests. He won 12 (52.2 percent) and lost 11. Overall his teams managed an average score of 27-26, score 71 tries and conceded 61 (average of just over three tries for and 2.65 tries against per match).
White, who has now been in charge for two years (his first test was actually only in June 2004, although he was appointed earlier that year), has had 29 tests – 19 wins (65.5 percent), nine defeats and one draw. His teams scored 915 points and conceded 635 (32-22 per match). The try count stands at 97 for and 67 against (3.34 for and 2.31 against per match).
One point to White.
White made a huge fuss about his home record, an unbeaten run that was only broken when France beat the Boks last month. So is that record that good?
Straeuli played 11 matches at home, won nine (81.8 percent) and lost two. His teams scored 343 points and conceded 278 (31-25). There were 36 tries for and 32 against (3.27 – 2.9).
White has had 14 games at home, 12 wins (85.7 percent), one loss and one draw. The Boks scored 532 points for and 262 against (38-19) during this period. There were 58 tries for and 27 against (4.14 – 1.92).
Point to White.
Neither coach can lay claims to a great record on the road, but lets look at it anyway.
Straeuli played 15 away matches, recorded seven wins (46.7 percent) and eight losses. They scored 282 points and conceded 373 (26-25). There were 39 tries for and 40 against (2.6 – 2.66).
It's a point to White, but certainly not a pass mark for either coach.
As another point of debate, lets look at their records against their SANZAR/Tri-Nations partners – New Zealand and Australia.
Straeuli played five games against New Zealand (four in the Tri-Nations and one the World Cup quarter-final of 2003) and failed to win a match. His teams scored just 79 points and conceded 171 (16-34). There were six tries for and 20 against (1.2 – 4).
White's teams played in just four matches against New Zealand (all Tri-Nations) and have managed two wins (50 percent), both at home. It is 110 points for and 96 against (28-24). It is 12 tries for and eight against (3 – 2).
The stats for Australia tells its own story.
Straeuli played just four matches and won two (50 percent), both at home. They scored 95 points and conceded 120 (24-30). They scored 11 tries and conceded 12 (2.73 – 3).
White's teams have already played seven matches against the Wallabies and won four (57.1 percent), three home wins and one away win. They scored 138 points (none last week) and conceded 183 (49 last week) for a match average of 20-26. There were 11 tries for and 23 against (1.57 – 3.28).
We would have to say another two points to White.
And their biggest defeats compare favourably.
Straeuli lost 53-3 to England at Twickenham in November 2003. White lost 49-0 in Brisbane last week. I don't think either of them would want to claim points for that.
Now we know why White likes statistics. They tell a story.
But do they tell the truth?
I would now like look at a few facts, real facts.
Let's go back to the beginning.
When White was appointed, or rather when Straeuli's job was advertised, White was not on the original shortlist of four.
But he was a member of the "technical" panel that drew up the questionnaire and set the tests for that original quartet.
When the shortlist then became a long list and several names were added, including that of White, the same set of questions/test were used during the interviews. Yes, that's right, White was tested with the questions he helped set up for the original four.
Makes you wonder why he scored so highly.
But he still had to produce results on the playing field.
Nobody gave the Boks a chance and in the first Tri-Nations, after a nervous June series, the Boks won the Tri-Nations from Australia on a single bonus point. Each team that year won their two home games and lost their two away games, with the Boks collecting three bonus point, Australia two and New Zealand just one.
After the problems of 2002 and 2003, this was seen as the new dawn of South Africa.
But, I feel, it was indeed just a false dawn.
The first cracks started to appear on the year-end tour in 2004. White talked a big game, told the Irish just how rubbish they were and were made to eat humble pie. Worst was to follow against England, with just two wins against Wales and Scotland.
The players started to look jaded and still White clung to a core group, telling the Super 12 (now 14) coaches they should put careers on the line so that he can have fresh players. (That issue is another debate altogether)
The 2005 June series and Tri-Nations produced some encouragement, but generally it was a step back from the previous year. The All Blacks and the Boks each won three games (the Aussies failed to win a game), but this time the Kiwis won the bonus-point battle.
But the real fact was that the other teams, and in particular New Zealand, had begin to work out the Boks' defensive system and the safety first option was no longer as effective. The cracks were now wider, but hope remained that White would look for alternatives on the year-end tour.
He didn't, took the same bunch of worn-out players and predictable tactics to Europe and got his rewards – a hiding from the French.
There was hope of some new blood in 2006, but again that didn't materialise. The injuries that started to appear were again blamed on the Currie Cup and Super 14 coaches and the same players and tactics were tried.
The result another hiding from France.
With his resources now paper thin and very little experience to fall back on, some youngsters (Under-21 stars) were drafted in for the trip to Australasia. How much of that was a result of pressure from other selectors we don't know.
But the same tactics (rush defence, along with kick-and-hope) were again on display in Brisbane. Only, by now, the Aussies had taken note of how the frail that ragged, rushed defensive line was and like the French just went straight up the middle and had a feast.
We can look at some selections, or non-selections – Luke Watson, AJ Venter, Kabamba Floors, Tim Dlulane, Ruan Pienaar.
Compare these players to Jaco van der Westhuyzen, Enrico Januarie, Gaffie du Toit and Andre Snyman.
White is also know for some real public clangers – 'Only two Irish players are good enough for my team' or 'My sons are the best fetchers' or 'Luke Watson is too small' or 'We'll scrum them as often as we can' or 'the referee didn't help us' … and so we can go on.
The stats tell me White did better than Straeuli. The facts tell me he is no better.
His Tri-Nations win was a fluke – the Kiwis and Aussies were caught off-guard and maybe even underestimated the Boks. If you look at what happened since, White's reign is not so rosy.
But hey, I'm just a journalist and he is the coach.
Maybe, as they say, you are only as good as your last game … 49-0.
