Former Springbok media liaison officer Alex Broun examines how over a period of almost two years Nick Mallett was slowly forced out of his position as Springbok coach, nearly causing a breakaway by the Springbok team in the process
Despite what the South African Rugby Football Union’s (Sarfu) public relations department (better known as certain members of Cape Town’s “rugby media”) might suggest, Nick Mallett did not just resign on “the spur of the moment” during his disciplinary hearing on September 27. The truth is Mallett was forced out by a deep-seated and ongoing conspiracy against him that stretches back to his first loss as Springbok coach against England on December 5 1998. A well-orchestrated attack utilising underhand methods finally claimed its objective. The knives were being sharpened for Mallett as early as the first year in his tenure as Springbok coach. As Mallett was to comment later: “The knives were always out for me. They were just waiting for me to slip up.” They came not to bury Mallett, but to burn him at the stake. In fact, looking back over the Mallett era, the most remarkable aspect is that he managed to survive for three years. As far back as that day in 1998 when Dan Luger caught Mike Catt’s cross kick and passed inside to Jeremy Guscott to score England’s winning try in their 13-7 victory, forces were working to have Mallett removed. As incredible as it may seem Mallett was asked by a leading Afrikaans journalist at the press conference after the match: “[Was he] ready for the flak he would receive back in South Africa after this loss?” An incredulous Mallett was speechless. “I’d just won 16 games in a row,” he was to comment, “and they were calling for my head.” But moves to oust Mallett had already begun in earnest on that tour. A little drinking party, consisting of a Supersport commentator, former Springbok hooker Uli Schmidt, Beeld rugby writer Hennie Brandt and another leading rugby writer, had gained strength on the tour. The common topic of conversation in their marathon drinking sessions was how this “Englishman” had to go. Brandt in fact stated publicly at the start of the tour that he was “going to bring Mallett down”. Oddly enough, in Mallett’s final season as coach Brandt became one of his staunchest supporters, regularly calling for the Bok coach to continue. But back in 1998 any journalist, player or even management member who walked past this poisoned quartet would be dragged in to be given a tongue-lashing and hopefully converted to the anti-Mallett campaign. Mallett was “too English”, “too autocratic”, “too successful” and, the greatest crime one can ever commit in South African rugby, “he talked too much”. The quartet had their allies on Sarfu’s executive committee even at that stage with the president of one northern union a vocal critic of Mallett. But the northern president’s power base within the executive committee was not strong enough to sustain a push against Mallett at this stage and, after all, a record of 16 wins and one loss could not be argued against. The daggers were put back in the cloaks – for the time being. Last year, however, the anti-Mallett brigade was given more ammunition with allies springing from the most unlikely sources. For the early part of his reign Mallett had been the darling of the media. Journalists, tired of the same old monosyllabic automatons, were blown away by Mallett’s freshness, openness and control of the English language. But by June last year all was going too well in the Springbok rugby camp. The team had won 18 out of 19 and whipped Italy by 100 points. It was getting monotonous. You can write the story “Springboks on a roll” only so many times. The Boks are one of South Africa’s most engaging soapies and soapies need drama, intrigue and bad guys. With a speed that was almost incomprehensible the media turned on Mallett, hitting him with a steam train loaded with caustic criticism, the speed and power of which he could never have predicted. “What was so odd,” said Springbok commercial manager of the time Rob van der Valk, “was the venom they came at us with. Those who had always supported us turned on us with a fury that was almost unimaginable.” Leading rugby writer Gavin Rich from the Cape Argus was ordered by his editors to get a bit of dirt on Mallett and he delivered in spectacular style with his now famous “I won’t be dictated to” story in Cardiff last year that developed into a racial controversy. On the Tuesday before the Test against Wales in Cardiff, Rich stood at the Springbok training session, preening himself like some overstuffed rooster. “I have to ask Nick Mallett a question,” he insisted. Stupidly, and trusting that Rich had always treated Mallet fairly in the past, I did not enquire what the question was, confident that, whatever Rich asked, Mallett would answer diplomatically. But as so often is the case with these “incidents” Rich got lucky with his timing. Mallett had been involved at training in a heated game of handball with the players and his team had lost a close tussle. Mallett is fairly competitive and was feeling the loss as he strode back to the team bus. Rich seized his moment to ask the question. “Sarfu thinks you should have more black and coloured players in the team,” said Rich. Supposedly a heated Mallett retorted: “I won’t be dictated to on selections.”
Most would think that was a fair enough statement from the Springbok coach whose main responsibility, after all, was to win Test matches. But this is South Africa. Rich filed a story saying that Mallett reacted “angrily” to calls for more representation. Eric Nyablatisha, a news journalist from the Cape Times, picked up the story and rang Sarfu president Silas Nkanunu for comment. In true Sarfu hippopotamus-style diplomacy, Nkanunu, the controversy-prone president, without checking the validity of the story or ringing to discuss the situation with Mallett, went in all guns blazing. “The coach will heed the drive for transformation or else,” he proclaimed. The Springbok team – four days out from a major Test match – was embroiled in yet another controversy. The absurdity of the attack on Mallett’s commitment to transformation was that more black Springboks have played under Mallett than under any other Springbok coach. Since 1997 Mallett had selected six new black or coloured Springboks in Dale Santon, Owen Nkumane, McNeil Hendricks, Deon Kayser, Wayne Julies and Kaya Malotana with four of them (Hendricks, Kayser, Julies and Malotana) going on to play Tests. A fifth, Breyton Paulse, was also chosen for his Test debut. History was also made in the 1999 Rugby World Cup under Mallett when three black or coloured Springboks started in a Test with Paulse, Malotana and Julies beginning the Test against Spain. A fourth, Kayser, also came on as a replacement.
A testimony to Mallett’s affirmative action was clearly seen when the Boks beat the All Blacks earlier this year at Ellis Park with two black or coloured players (Chester Williams and Paulse) in the starting line-up – the most ever selected for a Tri-Nations match, a fact that went virtually uncredited by the South African media. But still it was Mallett’s commitment on the “race issue” that threatened to bring him down. Now the anti-Mallett fraternity was gathering steam and the Afrikaans group from the north scented blood. They joined in with the now outraged group from the Western Cape to seek the coach’s head on a plate. The Cape fraternity hailed mainly from Tygerberg, with Sarfu development general manager Sas Bailey and Tygerberg supremo Pieter Jooste, following Nkanunu’s lead, up in arms over Mallett’s supposed stubbornness over transformation.
Sarfu CEO Rian Oberholzer then waded into the fray, in his typical style – boots ‘n’ all. Seeking to pour oil on troubled waters, he flew to Cardiff to meet the Springboks a few days before the Test and calm the situation. He succeeded only in igniting a bonfire. A meeting was called between the players and Oberholzer on the Thursday before the Test. At the meeting Oberholzer, who was heckled throughout, calmly informed the white Springboks that they would soon be replaced by “coloured and black” players. If they didn’t like it, they were told, “the door is open”. Oberholzer was booed from the room. Although a smiling Oberholzer later proclaimed to the media that the meeting had gone smoothly, the effect on the Springbok team was profound. Morale in the camp plummeted. So doom-laden were the team after the meeting that they held a second meeting to discuss the possibility of forming a breakaway Springbok team based in New Zealand that would take South Africa’s place in a revised Tri-Nations.
A delegation headed by senior players was to approach media baron Rupert Murdoch to discuss the plan, similar to the world rugby circus suggested by Australian mogul Kerry Packer. So serious were plans being considered that around the pool table the next day one Springbok now based overseas and a Springbok captain were heard discussing just where they would base the new rebel team – Christchurch or Wellington.
Other Springboks never looked at the Springbok jersey the same way, with Pieter Rossouw’s continued disenchantment with South African rugby directly stemming from that meeting. Is it any wonder that an upset and disillusioned Springbok team suffered their first defeat against a pumped-up Wales in Cardiff a few days later? There is even the suggestion that Oberholzer’s actions were driven by darker motives. Springbok players of the time suggested that Oberholzer had deliberately set out to destabilise the team. At that stage the Springboks still held an amazing record of 18 wins from 19 matches and the players and some members of management thought that Oberholzer felt the team was getting too “big for their boots”. He needed to do something to undermine confidence and “bring them down to size” as he was heard to comment at the time. Oberholzer has since admitted that calling the meeting in Cardiff was a mistake. A case of shutting the trap door after the runaway train has left. Helped by Oberholzer’s disastrous interjection the conspiracy was gaining speed. Rich sat in his room, overlooking the gloomy Cardiff railway yards, clad only in shorts, pumping out three stories an hour to keep up with his paper’s (and the public’s) appetite for Bok scandal that he had whet. Worse was to come for Mallett as his rotation policy backfired in Dunedin soon after and the Boks slumped to a record loss against the All Blacks, following this up with a record loss the following week in Australia. The conspirators rubbed their hands in glee and were soon to be given another stick with which to beat Mallett.
At the post-match press conference Mallett was asked about the performances of flyhalf Gaffie du Toit and scrumhalf David von Hoesslin, which many felt led to South Africa’s record loss. Mallett blamed himself “for throwing Du Toit and Von Hoesslin into such a big match when they were clearly not ready for it”. These remarks were blown out of all proportion by Rich, who described Mallett as giving Du Toit “a public dressing down that shattered the young Bok’s confidence irreparably”. Rich still regularly harps on this misnomer a year after the alleged incident. But soon more juicy events were offered up to the poison pen. When the widening split between captain Gary Teichmann and Mallett began to emerge, again magnified by Rich, the anti-Mallett clan nearly cut off a few fingers in their haste to pull their knives from their cloaks. Soon after Mallett cruelly axed Teichmann on the eve of the World Cup and was quoted as describing Paulse as “a quota player” (which further incensed the Tygerberg clan) the knives were poised and ready to strike. Mallett’s neck was exposed and if ever he was to be brought down the time was then. In retrospect the mystery is how Mallett survived this period. His popularity was at an all-time low after having lost four games in a row (including the first loss to Wales), sacking the popular Teichmann and some careless remarks about South African rugby supporters in New Zealand. With people all around the country calling for Mallett’s axing, Sarfu now strangely chose to back their much-maligned coach. Official reasons suggested that it was too close to the World Cup to change coaches, or there were no other options for coach. But there were other, darker reasons. Sarfu hoped that Mallett would be humiliated at the World Cup and thus his sacking would be easy on his return. But Mallett had the measure of them in two key issues. His lawyers had negotiated Sarfu into a corner with his new contract, where Sarfu was adamant about the introduction of a new performance clause. By this clause Mallett would have had to win 60% of his matches if he was to continue as Springbok coach. At the same time, however, he was also to play a role in transformation by introducing as many black or coloured players into the team as possible. Looking at his upcoming 2000 fixture list – seven matches against three of the top four teams in the world – Mallett and his lawyers sensibly decided not to accept the clause and Sarfu was forced to back down. The second spanner in their plans was the Springbok’s unexpected success at the World Cup. After some lacklustre performances in their early matches the Boks were tipped for a quick exit in the quarterfinals. But after Jannie de Beer’s miraculous drop goals and the Boks’ unlucky extra time exit to eventual champions Australia in the semifinals, the knives were once again reluctantly sheathed. The Boks’ win over the All Blacks in the third-place play-off, with Paulse playing a starring role, further cemented Mallett’s continued tenure. With his position now relatively secure, until the beginning of the horror season of 2000, Mallett set about his toughest task to date – updating the Springboks’ dinosaur style of rugby. But the horrendous fixture list, brought on by Sarfu’s extraordinary greed for quick bucks, and an “accidental” journalist in Durban were set to provide Mallett’s conspirators with ammunition for one final assault. After the Boks’ less-than-triumphant performance in the 2000 Tri-Nations Sarfu’s management committee, comprising Nkanunu, vice-presidents Ronnie Masson and Keith Parkinson, executive committee member Arthob Petersen and Oberholzer, met to discuss Mallett’s fate. At this meeting it was decided that Mallett’s time was up and Oberholzer should approach Harry Viljoen to discuss his succession. This decision to oust Mallett is not surprising as Petersen and Mallett had clashed in the past, Nkanunu had also fallen out with the coach and Masson and Oberholzer were not among Mallett’s biggest fans. Parkinson was a lone, and ultimately lonely, voice crying out for calm. But how to get rid of Mallett? It was decided to push ahead with a disciplinary hearing for Mallett’s comments about high ticket prices in Durban – a decision that was green-lighted by the full Sarfu executive shortly afterwards. A second charge was then added, without the executive’s knowledge, of “gross misconduct” by Mallett in allegedly lying to Oberholzer that he had not known the woman he had spoken to was a journalist. After numerous delays Mallett’s hearing finally went ahead with Oberholzer mandated by the management committee to end Mallett’s contract if he was given the opportunity. An hour into proceedings he was given that opportunity. Advocate Jannie Lubbe, chair of the hearing, voiced his unhappiness at the Springbok coach being involved in such proceedings and asked if all avenues for a settlement had been explored. Sarfu’s lawyers then approached Mallett’s representatives to discuss the possibility of a settlement. Mallett’s lawyers asked if it was the disciplinary hearing they wanted to settle. Sarfu’s lawyers consulted with Oberholzer only (no other member of the management committee was present) and returned. They wanted to settle out Mallett’s contract. Oberholzer’s mandate had paid off. So began the negotiations for most of which Oberholzer remained present. He retired upstairs to Sarfu’s offices only after several hours, possibly to discuss with other members of the management committee the terms of the settlement and just how high he could go. In the end Sarfu’s management committee and Mallett got what they wanted. Sarfu got Mallett out and the coach got his full settlement of R1,25-million, although Sarfu sources could not resist telling the media it was a substantially smaller figure so it wouldn’t appear Sarfu had given in to Mallett’s terms. The Mallett conspiracy, after numerous misfires, had finally found its mark. The throne of blood was ready for its next victim. “Et tu Rian, Silas, Gavin, Arthob, Ronnie … ?”
n Meanwhile Neal Collins reports that Mallett flew into London this week on a top secret mission … chasing what is being widely viewed as the biggest, toughest job in English rugby. Mallett crept almost unnoticed through Heathrow to talk to the Rugby Football Union (RFU) about their R2-million a year job as rugby performance director.
Mallett, now 44, spent time in England in his student days when he became an Oxford blue. Many have argued that he was “too English” to be Springbok coach for too long – the question now is: is he English enough for the RFU role as the English public react strongly against the thought of a non-English soccer coach? The RFU have employed head-hunters to fill the role and Mallett, who led the Boks to a record-breaking winning streak and the World Cup semi-finals, was the first name put forward. The post is not as hands-on as Mallett might be used to – according to Peter Jackson, the Daily Mail’s rugby writing legend: “The successful applicant will be responsible for creating at least 12 nationwide academies, overseeing an elite coaching policy and the development of England squads at every international level.” “This is a massive job,” RFU chief executive Francis Baron confesses. “We will be holding interviews over the next couple of weeks and we will all heave a sigh of relief when we get our man on board.”