Is De Villiers dreaming?
Despite Peter de Villiers’s claims that the year was a success, 2010 was anything but memorable for the Springboks. Grant Ball argues why…
After the Boks lost 26-20 to the Barbarians, a flattering scoreline that consigned De Villiers’s side to their 11th defeat in their last 20 matches if you include losses to Saracens and Leicester, he had this to say: “It was a very good year, one of the best of my life,’ De Villiers said of the Boks’ eight from 15 win record in 2010.
‘The scoreboard did not look good, but it was a good year because we pulled together through adversity. I now understand each individual better. If one looks at the scoreboard from the past year then you all have the right to be critical. We lost the game today, but won in other areas. This was not a Test match. It was a test of our young players and depth. We won that test and lost the game.”
How De Villiers can say they passed the BaaBaas test is perplexing. Yes, some players got the opportunity to play for the Boks, but Coenie Oosthuizen and Elton Jantjies’ debuts for the senior team ended in a disappointing defeat. For Alistair Hargreaves, he hasn’t won in the senior Bok shirt after losses to Leicester and Sarries, and young players are getting into a losing habit in the senior side.
The BaaBaas may have been star-laden, but they also just had one practice during the week, with most of the preparation dedicated to socialising.
Before the BaaBaas fixture a former Bok said he wouldn’t mind if a young Bok side lost, if they at least looked dangerous in trying to play an attractive brand of rugby. But the Boks disappointed the few fans who did pitch up to Twickenham (which illustrates their standing in the world game at the moment) as they opted for kicks at goal and generally didn’t move far away from their conservative and one-dimensional approach with ball in hand. That writer said there’s always a question of prioritising winning and looking good, but the Boks failed in both aspects as they didn’t play decent rugby and failed to get the result.
Many fans would be satisfied if the Boks continually ‘won ugly’, but their one from six record in the Tri-Nations and the results since the completion of last year’s southern hemisphere tournament emphasises that that’s not happening regularly enough.
With under a year to go to the World Cup it’s clear De Villiers will remain with the side as the players try to steer an already woefully off-course ship. As De Villiers mentioned earlier this year, the Bok camp has adopted a laager mentality where they will continually ignore deserved criticism that comes their way. That there’s a lack on introspection within the side is disappointing, and whether enough innovation and progression has taken place under De Villiers’s tenure is also questionable.
Not much will change in the Bok set-up or playing style before New Zealand 2011, and De Villiers will be relying heavily on Fourie du Preez’s return from injury (the Bok scrumhalf manning the microphone and communicating tactics during the home leg of the Tri-Nations shows how much influence he has in the side). That the Boks are relying so heavily on one player to execute their out-dated game-plan and ignite their limited attack, also highlights the regression that’s taken place when they should be dominating world rugby with the players they have.
Many commentators have also complained that the Boks aren’t innovative enough, and that’s another indictment on the coaching staff that the side have become followers instead of leaders. What further highlights the Bok coaches’ shortcomings is how the Stormers and Bulls, and most recently the Sharks, have shown the world how to play rugby.
The Boks will always be in with a chance of defending the World Cup next year, but that’s in spite of their coach and not because of him.
Grant Ball writes for RugbyXV
