Andy Capostagno Rugby
The right thing was done in the wrong way and at the wrong time. The decision by Nick Mallett to drop Gary Teichmann both from the captaincy and from the Springbok squad was correct. And inasmuch as Mallett called Teichmann three days before he informed the rest of the world, the Natal eighth man received a good deal more consideration than his predecessor Francois Pienaar did from Andr Markgraaff.
But whereas Pienaar was dropped for no good reason other than that Markgraaff could not find a way to work with him, Teichmann was a victim of poor results and double standards. For as long as Teichmann was an integral part of the Springbok side, the fact that he had been playing through pain and injury for two years was an irrelevance. The team kept on winning and Teichmann kept going to the well, knowing that he may do himself permanent damage, but weighing that against the chance of leading South Africa at the World Cup.
It was a financial consideration as much as anything else, and anyone who knows Teichmann for the decent man he is could not criticise him for wanting to fulfil a dream and make enough money to secure his retirement along the way. But for his sake, and for the sake of South African rugby, he should have been stood down from the Grand Slam tour to Britain at the end of last year. So, too, as a few people pointed out at the time, should Henry Honiball, Joost van der Westhuizen, Adrian Garvey, Pieter Muller and Mark Andrews.
All those players had nothing to prove on a tour to the northern hemisphere, other than that they were suffering from battle fatigue after two years of remorseless Test rugby. And sure enough, as the performance of the Test team went backwards in successive weeks, the point was made. All of the above- mentioned players ended the tour with an injury of some kind, and in the case of Honiball, Van der
To PAGE44
Westhuizen and Garvey, they have only now recovered.
And in Van der Westhuizen’s case the recovery is some way from being complete. He has been campaigning for a month in the Currie Cup with a full leg strapping, concentrating on serving his fly-half (somewhat erratically) and spoiling opposition ball. Of the trademark breaks around the fringes there have been none, a fact pointed out by Mallett himself two weeks ago and now conveniently forgotten.
Which is not to say that he is the wrong choice as captain, but that if the coaching team and the medical staff are being honest, Van der Westhuizen will take the field against the All Blacks next week no more than 80% fit. And yet, a week ago the same medical staff which patched up Teichmann for two years, concluded that Van der Westhuizen had reached the same level of fitness as he displayed two years ago when at his peak. So who’s zoomin’ who?
Will the same medical staff have an answer when Van der Westhuizen is carried from the field at Loftus Versfeld in the first 10 minutes of next week’s match, having been successfully targeted by the New Zealand hard men who know an injured player when they see one and how to remind him of his injury?
And what in that scenario happens to the captaincy? Does it revert to the same Rassie Erasmus who turned it down once and then accepted it because there was no one else? Does Bobby Skinstad come off the bench amid catcalls from the Pretoria fans who, in common with their Bloemfontein equivalents, do not share Alan Solomons belief in him as the second coming? And the following week, against Australia in Cape Town, does the call go out to a very confused Teichmann to say: “Terribly sorry. Awful mistake. Would you care to carry on as though nothing happened?”
As it happens the captaincy may turn out to be a minor issue, quickly forgotten as long as Van der Westhuizen comes through unscathed. The reason being that the latest 26-man squad has many virtues, not the least being a sensible amount of battle-hardened veterans. The return of Honiball will at least sort out the game plan. In the friendly farmer’s absence Mallett and Solomons have attempted to turn Braam van Straaten and Gaffie du Toit into ersatz Honiballs with a consequential disruption of the back line.
Du Toit for one may never recover, which would be a crying shame. The coaching staff’s inability to find a way to accommodate the greatest natural talent in South African rugby may yet be written on their graves. I wonder whether Carwyn James and Syd Millar ever scolded Phil Bennett for missing a tackle or three? For Mallett to chide Du Toit publicly for not being Honiball is rather like criticising a swan for not being a goose.
Du Toit at least has been retained in the squad, from where he may yet emerge from his chrysalis. He would surely benefit from having Van der Westhuizen inside him and one of Honiball or Brendan Venter outside him. Such a move might also release the pent up talent of the fit again Andr Snyman, who has been a ghost of the great player he threatened to be since Dick Muir retired.
It goes without saying that the one crucial omission is Andr Joubert. Once again the management has seen fit to include Percy Montgomery as the only fullback in the squad, with more or less convincing emergency back up from Pieter Rossouw, Stefan Terblanche and Breyton Paulse.
But let us be thankful for small mercies. Ruben Kruger is back and so are Chris Rossouw and Adrian Garvey. The effect of the latter two could be crucial to South Africa’s World Cup chances. Rossouw’s scrumming ability combined with the power of Os du Randt will camouflage Garvey’s lack of brute strength and restore him to his unchallenged role as the best tight-head ball carrier in the business.
And, hard though it may be to comprehend at the moment, two good performances in the remaining Tri-Nations Tests could put South Africa on the road to retaining the World Cup. In that instance we could look back on the unfortunate business of this week as a bit of rose-pruning which looked horrifically severe at the time, but produced matchless blooms three months later.