Take a bow Peter

rugby365 columnist Jon Harris doffs his cap to Springbok coach Peter de Villiers and highlights why he thinks it is time for the PdV-bashers to hang their heads in shame.

The other day I was asked if I thought that it was not perhaps the assistant coaches who were doing the coaching of the Springboks. Admittedly, this was the week before the second Tri-Nations test against the All Blacks. That same week, I also had to listen to someone sprout on about how it was the senior players who were taking control of the squad and running the show.
 
My answer to the first question was simple. Who were the assistant coaches to Jake White at the World Cup in 2007? This fellow, not strong on rugby detail, could not answer. My point of course was that everyone accredits Jake White with the success of the Boks at the World Cup, yet now that Peter de Villiers is in charge, they are stingy with their acknowledgements and want to give the glory to his assistants.
 
The second point was even more naive in its concept. This is not a Saturday afternoon club match, where the players and coaches train for a couple of hours a week and then do their utmost to win on match day. This is a finely tuned machine, where every member of the team, be they management or player, is expected to pull his weight and anything less will be obvious from the outside.
 
Is it reasonable to think that a player or group of players facing the pressures of the game, and by that let’s limit those pressures to the off-the-field kind, will be able to take charge of a team and plan, prepare and motivate them to perform against two of the top 3 teams in the world?
 
Of course, that is also an insult to the assistant coaches, to imply that they would willingly stand by while their roles are usurped in what is tantamount to a palace revolt. Oh, we the passionate, loyal but ill-informed public come up with some pearlers don’t we?
 
But before I spread the blame for these clangers onto the broader spectator base, let me remind myself that it is a small minority out there who seem to have a problem in conceding that Peter de Villiers is a good coach. When last, if ever, have the Springboks been unbeaten after four rounds of the Tri-Nations? When last have they been the only team to have scored a four-try bonus point by that stage of the competition?
 
Suddenly the PdV-bashing is more subdued. Sadly, the bashers have not been converted to PdV disciples, they’re merely regrouping, waiting for the man to make a mistake so that they can shout from the highest hills his faults and failures. But why don’t they accredit him with strong management skills, as Jake was hailed in bringing the best out of his charges?
 
An international coach has at his disposal a myriad specialist coaches to do the training. He is the equivalent of football’s manager. So why then is de Villiers judged as a coach and not as a manager? A manager he is, and he is proving to be a fine one too.
 
Naive is a word which would often crop up in any description of his early tenure. He at first espoused total rugby and tried it unsuccessfully. He then accepted a more organised structure. He then appeared to go to the other extreme and played a kick and chase 12 man rugby. Twelve-man rugby being the ball gets to number ten who kicks and the wings chase all day. Yet it worked.
 
Then just as he became world rugby’s public enemy number one and not just SA rugby’s, he surprised all by playing a running game while we all were looking skywards for the airborne ball. Fourie du Preez’s quickly taken try was a perfect example of how the kicking game was expected. If you have the opportunity to see a slow motion replay of that try, look at how Adam Ashley-Cooper saunters back with his back to the Boks, fully expecting the kick for poles.
 
Now before the cynics shout that it is probably not de Villiers who employed these tactics, that it was the assistant coaches and the senior players, think of the folly of that remark. If that was happening, would the squad be a happy one? Would there be such harmony evident if there was disarray, mutiny and treason at play?
 
Peter de Villiers is a man of strong character, even his greatest detractor would admit that. He will not allow his role to be diminished.
 
Let’s give this man some credit. Just like Jake had the foresight and confidence to harness the input of other experts in their field without feeling threatened, so has de Villiers clearly done the same. He has a good rugby brain in his head and he knows where he is going. He has two very capable assistants who buy into his philosophy and support him all the way. There is an understanding amongst them and a deep respect for him, clearly evident in a conversation with one of them.
 
Why don’t we enjoy the moment. Our team is on top of the world. Why do we torture ourselves by looking for reasons for our success in the failure of others? Can we simply not be the best team in the world by virtue of being the best? The World Cup detractors looked to the early exit of New Zealand and Australia to claim that victory as hollow. They even want to add another ten minutes to the internationally accepted standard duration of a match, so that the Springboks could have lost against Fiji in the build up.
 
Give Peter de Villiers the recognition he deserves. If he was the buffoon he is made out to be, would the respect he clearly commands within that camp be there? Would the senior players follow him as they do? What more does John Smit have to achieve in world rugby, so why would he stick it out under an ‘idiot’ after enjoying such a strong relationship with his previous coach?
 
Please don’t refer to the pool of talent he has at his disposal at present, that is his good fortune. Any coach with a limited amount of talent will struggle, look no further than Nick Mallett. He is not suddenly a bad coach now that he is with Italy.
 
Let us be logical. This is a happy squad.
 
I’m proud to be a South African and a Springbok supporter. I respect Peter de Villiers.