Andy Capostagno Rugby World Cup
There are those who are beginning to clutch at straws. It was suggested this week that South Africa’s progress to the final of World Cup 1999 was inevitable as there were so many parallels to the 1995 campaign.
In ’95 the Springboks played some coruscating rugby in their opening match against Australia. This time around against Scotland, after a nervous first hour they came good with some spectacular tries from broken play in the final quarter.
In ’95 the Boks followed their dazzling beginning with a rather murkier 21-8 defeat of Romania, the game in which Adriaan Richter scored a hat-trick of push-over tries from eighth man. This time around for Romania, read Spain, against whom South Africa were again captained by the eighth man, this time Andr Vos, who scored two tries instead of Richter’s hat-trick.
And in ’95 the eventual champions were again a shadow of the team that opened the tournament, beating Canada 20-0 and having James Dalton sent off in the process. Against Uruguay the Boks produced their single worst performance since readmission and had a man with a number two on his back, Brendan Venter (the number 12), sent from the field. At least the Murrayfield lights didn’t go out.
So if you believe in history repeating itself you may believe that the rest of the tournament is a mere formality. The problem is in ’95 the Boks played Samoa in the quarter-final at Ellis Park, the ground which was the provincial home for more than half the Springbok team. This time around it is neutral territory in Paris and the opponents are England.
Less than a week ago a Springbok victory seemed assured. They had the easiest group of all and two meaningless games to build up, and were set to play opponents exhausted from an energy-sapping quarter- final play-off against Fiji in midweek. In the circumstances if South Africa could not beat England they did not deserve to be in the semi-finals.
Times have changed. It has nothing to do with the fact that England scored 101 points against Tonga or that they have successfully erased from the collective memory banks their inadequate display against New Zealand. It is more down to the fact that it is now South Africa and not England who are in disarray.
Even with 15 men on the field against Uruguay they were poor. With 14 in the second half they were woeful. Bobby Skinstad moved to centre when Venter was sent off. This is worthy of mention because the move was officially recognised. Unofficially Skinstad has been playing centre the whole tournament, which explains why the outside backs have received so little ball and of such poor quality.
England also use their eighth man as an auxiliary back and no less a critic than Sean Fitzpatrick attributed the defeat to the All Blacks as due partly to Lawrence Dallaglio spending too much time away from the tight exchanges. But at the moment if you were asked to pick the best eighth man at the tournament, one who combined slick handling skills with great positional sense and fierce tackling, you would pick Dallaglio every time. Heaven only knows how low down the poll Skinstad would come; possibly below the 40-year- old Uruguayan totem, Diego Ormachea.
It is a harsh charge to level at one so young, but Skinstad may be a large part of the problem with this Springbok team. Consider that Nick Mallett and Alan Solomons were willing to break up one of the most successful teams in the nation’s history to get Skinstad into the side. Had either man been willing to eat a little humble pie we might yet have a Springbok side playing structured rugby, captained by Gary Teichmann with the world’s finest impact player on the bench.
Instead we have a collection of disparate individuals with no apparent game plan heading for a spectacular Waterloo in, of all places, Paris.
How to avoid humiliation? Well, for a start the pack has to come to the party. Before the tournament it was the one area that apparently needed no attention. Now the myth of the mighty Springbok eight is just that; a myth. England will not fear the Bok scrum, nor its line-out.
They may fear the likes of Os du Randt set loose against some frail three- quarters, but in order for that to happen the team has to get away from the English fringe defence, which is the best in the business thanks to the likes of Dallaglio and Richard Hill. They may fear the remarkable pace of Albert van den Berg. Ditto.
There are no easy ways to beat England, away from home and leg weary though they may be. It will take the most disciplined Springbok performance since they beat New Zealand in last year’s Tri-Nations match in Wellington. Discipline means just that; no sloppy handling at close quarters, no stupidly optimistic passes, no head-high tackles, and definitely no boots placed in close proximity to heads.
Discipline also means kicking goals when they are on offer, no matter how inviting a half gap may look to the man who gets to the dead ball first. For that reason the idea of pushing a half-fit Henry Honiball into the fray is just plain dumb. Even if he is fit enough to start the game, he will have spent no time practising goal kicking, which means that it will be entrusted to Percy Montgomery. That way madness lies.
It may revive the cries of “boring Springboks” which accompanied victory in 1995, but from now on this tournament is all about the team which makes the least mistakes and which routinely punishes the mistakes of its opponents. It is not about making friends and influencing people, it is about beating good teams in matches where defeat is not an option.
So we might as well talk about parallels to ’95. There’s no other reason for optimism.