/ 11 January 2008

So long Whitey

''I want to be honest with South Africa and say that the appointment was not entirely made for rugby reasons. We as an organisation have made the appointment and taken into account the issue of transformation very, very seriously when we made it. I don't think that tarnishes Peter -- I'm just being honest with our country.''

”I want to be honest with South Africa and say that the appointment was not entirely made for rugby reasons. We as an organisation have made the appointment and taken into account the issue of transformation very, very seriously when we made it. I don’t think that tarnishes Peter — I’m just being honest with our country.”

These wise words of South African Rugby Union (Saru) president Oregan Hoskins were uttered at a press conference following Wednesday’s Presidents’ Council meeting at Newlands. Maybe the festive spirit still stalks the Saru offices, or maybe it’s the result of a new year’s resolution, but being honest with the South African public makes a rather refreshing change.

We have become accustomed to double-speak and selective leaking from the Presidents’ Council. The most powerful body in South African rugby made such a mess of the conclusion to Jake White’s term of office that any one of the four short-listed candidates might have been forgiven for walking away from the process.

Instead, Peter de Villiers accepted the appointment with good grace, becoming the first person of colour to coach the Springboks. He said: ”I am very privileged to be in this position of taking over a great squad of players, but this is where the hard work begins. To make wholesale changes would be stupid.”

For that to be the case, however, De Villiers will have to convince a few of the more recalcitrant members of the council to put away their petty prejudice about foreign-based players turning out for the Springboks.

Ironically, that’s where White’s term began four years ago. Unhappy with the level of flyhalf and fullback play at home, White summoned Jaco van der Westhuizen and Percy Montgomery from Britain. The former had his moments of glory before being discarded and the latter became the cornerstone of White’s team for four years.

Montgomery already has said he would be more than happy to continue his career in the green and gold, but is now based in France, with John Smit and Victor Matfield. How De Villiers deals with this thorny problem will define the early days of his tenure. The Presidents’ Council will meet again to discuss the issue on March 27.

Ultimately De Villiers will be judged on transformation, a fact attested to by Hoskins. Therein lies the importance of Saru’s decision to ignore the claims of Heyneke Meyer, the man regarded a shoo-in — until the 11th hour — to the top post.

It has become common cause that the pace of transformation was being impeded by the preponderance of white, Afrikaans coaches in provincial rugby who, when faced with a choice went with what they knew instead of what they didn’t trust. Saru is hoping that the opposite will apply to De Villiers who, faced with players of equal ability, will settle on the one of colour.

Demonstrably that was not the case with White, despite the many players of colour who passed through his squads in four years. Victory at the World Cup helped to disguise that fact. Just as an example: how did Wynand Olivier get into the mix ahead of Waylon Murray?

That’s an extremely subjective statement of course, but it serves to emphasise the point. Coaching a winning team depends ultimately on your ability to select well.

The ”players of equal ability” line beloved of transformation politicians has an unfortunate corollary: never mind the final choice, who decides that two players are of equal ability in the first place?

De Villiers dealt well with the subject following his appointment on Wednesday, saying: ”The players must understand that they will all stand an equal chance, because our country comes before any ego. All the players will stand an equal chance — if they are good enough, talented enough and work hard enough they will be part of the South African squad.”

One intriguing aspect of De Villiers’s appointment is that it is for an initial period of just two years. Hoskins said in the run-up to the meeting that he believed the four years between World Cups was an ideal length of tenure for any coach. It worked with White, of course, but it ignores the history of Springbok coaches in the post-isolation era.

When Nick Mallett took the job at the end of 1997, he was the third man to be appointed until ”after the 1999 World Cup”. Andre Markgraaff stepped down following racist remarks heard on tape and Carel du Plessis lasted just eight games as his successor. Asked at the time what made him think he was any more likely to take the team to the 1999 World Cup than his two predecessors, Mallett said: ”Simple. Unlike them, I have a contract.”

Of course, the final weeks of the White era served to highlight the fact that contracts can create as many problems as they solve, but for now let us forget what went before and concentrate on what is to come. Like his predecessor, De Villiers is a decent man who has paid his dues and has an abundance of talent at his disposal. Oh, and in the extremely unlikely event that he loses every game in 2008, his team will still be world champions for another three years.