RUGBY: Barney Spender
WIN or lose on Saturday, this sixth tour of New Zealand by the Springboks will probably be judged a failure by the vast majority of South Africans. After all, the test series was lost, the Springbok head fell to Otago in rainy Dunedin and there was the ignominy of having prop Johan Le Roux sent home for biting an opponent’s ear.
A win tomorrow would finish the tour on a high note, defeat will make this the first South African side to be whitewashed in New Zealand.
It is hard to argue the bald statistics of the tour and if you throw in clumsy selections, both prior to and during the tour, a savage spate of injuries and a confusing pattern of play, it makes for pretty bleak reading.
But the tour has certainly had its moments and in assessing it there is a case for borrowing from the Clint Eastwood dossier and dubbing it a mix of the good, the bad and the ugly.
Off the field the good came in the shape of a first-class public relations exercise although there were occasions when the mask slipped. One of these came when manager Jannie Engelbrecht angrily interrupted a television interview with Johan Le Roux because it was the Friday before the second test. Or so Engelbrecht thought. That it was only Thursday caused much embarrassment all round not least for the unfortunate Roux.
On the field the team produced an excellent record against some fired-up provincial teams. One defeat and 10 wins suggests a certain strength in South African rugby although the fact that they only faced really tough opposition against Waikato and Otago detracts a little from the record, and the soft run-in to the first test may have cost them the series.
Also, several players have enhanced their reputations. Mark Andrews has been consistently good and, after making his test debut against England at Newlands, has already established himself as South Africa’s top lock, one of genuine world class. Someone who may soon be packing down with him is Krynauw Otto who, after a tentative start, was beginning to play some quality rugby when he fractured his cheekbone and had to fly home early.
Others who advanced on the tour were Fritz van Heerden, who has been called up for tomorrow’s test at Eden Park and James Dalton among the forwards and Chester Williams and Japie Mulder in the backs. Dalton began the tour, socks around ankles and catapult in pocket, with the brash petulance of a schoolboy gang-leader. But when he settled down and concentrated on playing rugby he showed that he really is a footballer with huge potential. In his case, the sending home of Johan Le Roux may have served as a timely cold shower.
Skipping over that well-documented ear-nibbling incident, which provided the one truly ugly moment of the tour, the bad side came in several aspects.
Foremost, naturally, was defeat in the test series. A little bit of luck and it could have gone the other way but when faced with that Clint Eastwood, aka Harry Callaghan, poser of “Do you feel lucky?” the answer was always “no” and the All Blacks took advantage.
Luck aside, there was always a problem in trying to figure out the Springboks’ game plan. Often it looked as though there either wasn’t one or that no one quite understood which plan was in operation. Sometimes the players looked stifled on the field, other times they simply did not look good enough for international rugby.
Too often the rugby has been a stagnant set-piece to set- piece imitation of trench warfare. The South African backs, lacking a decisive playmaker, have not had the quality ball to play with and the regular appearance of forwards outside the fly-half, between the centres and so on has rendered a lot of their training ground preparation useless.
With the World Cup just nine months away it would be unwise to ditch Ian McIntosh now although questions are sure to be asked.
Discipline and flexibility have also proved a problem. Two reversed decisions denied the Springboks’ kickable penalties in the first test and all the way through the tour there was an element of silliness whether it was off the ball contact or bad-mouthing the referee. There was an improvement right at the end but unless provincial rugby cleans up its act the lesson from this and previous tours will be lost.
As for flexibility, there appeared to be little in the way of thought process happening on the field during the course of a game. The pattern, when there was one, was too predictable and for that reason the selectors might have used scrum-half Joost van der Westhuizen more profitably. Too often they were caught flat-footed by tap penalties.
Perhaps, though, expectations were too high from the start. After all, only one Springbok side, back in 1937, has ever won a series on New Zealand soil.
Only two other sides, the British Lions in 1971 and France this year, have won a series here. Was it ever reasonable to expect an inexperienced international side, which the Springboks were when they arrived and — to be honest — still are, to topple a side which, although in transition and some way short of vintage All Black, remains a tight unit, long on experience both of test rugby and the local conditions?
It is easy, as General Melchett might say, to “pooh-pooh” the value of experience but at test level it counts for a huge amount. The points difference in the first two tests was just eight in Dunedin and four in Wellington. South Africa could easily have won either or both but when the issue got tight the All Blacks could call on some age and wisdom to see them through.
John Kirwan has more caps than the entire South African backline put together and it is the same story with Sean Fitzpatrick and the forwards. When it comes to anticipating situations and keeping the troops cool under pressure that “been there, done that” experience is crucial.
Maybe this tour came just a little too early for the Springboks. But so long as the selectors stick by the nucleus of this team, that experience will come and when it does the Springboks will be a lot better prepared to take on not just the All Blacks but all comers.