It’s so much better to win the first Tri-Nations game of the season than the last. In 2002 we had to wait for Ellis Park in August to celebrate a win, and that with the last kick of the match. In 2003 all sorts of drastic measures have been put on hold thanks to last week’s 26-22 victory over Australia at Newlands.
A sense of déjà vu hung heavy throughout the game. Australia were the opponents once again, South African pride was in tatters once again, and a man called Brent Russell, wearing the number 20 shirt, was the principal catalyst in the Springbok victory once again. Last year Russell was a late replacement for Andre Pretorius, injured at the captain’s run on Friday. This year he came on in the third minute thanks to the unfortunate injury to Jaco van der Westhuyzen.
The veneer of professional detachment slipped briefly from Rudolf Straeuli at a press conference this week, when he all but called the media a bunch of idiots for not believing in the coach’s plan. He claimed that the substandard performances against Scotland and Argentina were part of that plan and that he had been keeping key players aside for the sterner challenges ahead.
Straeuli may well be telling the truth, but when you deliberately pick substandard teams to represent their country you make a rod for your own back. Rather than gloating over a win against a very average Australian team playing away from home, why not accept that the Springboks have played poorly for nine months owing, in no small part, to a bizarre selection policy, and that they’ll have to play out of their socks to beat the All Blacks at Loftus this week?
Why not admit that Australia may not have been beaten at all without the early introduction of Russell? And why not address the key issue of why, in the name of God, we don’t build the team around Russell, rather than leaving him to stew on the bench never knowing where in the back line he is going to be asked to do an ambulance job this week?
It has been as plain as the nose on Ken Rutherford’s face for 12 months now that Russell is in a different class from everyone else. Yet we conspire to leave him out on a bunch of spurious grounds: he can’t kick, he can’t tackle, he runs sideways, he’s too small, he’ll get hurt.
The injury to Van der Westhuyzen meant that Russell had to play against New Zealand this week, and yet there was learned debate about whether Thinus Delport should move to fullback or, if fit, Andre Pretorius, for as we all know, Russell is a delicate flower who will get killed by those mean All Blacks. Have you ever heard such nonsense?
Russell is not made of glass: he is no more and no less injury-prone than any other player in South Africa at the moment. He has, for instance, a fitness record to be proud of in comparison to Marius Joubert, the so-called saviour of the back line who lasted 40 minutes last week and has been replaced by Andre Snyman.
But this is a World Cup year. Would it not be sensible to keep the powder of a few gifted individuals dry ahead of that tournament? No it would not. The one thing the Springboks are desperately in need of right now is confidence, a commodity that cannot be built by leaving out potent weapons on the basis that they might get hurt. Besides, it is a fact of life in sport that when you try to make something
happen the fates conspire against you.
There is a story concerning the great Kent and England left-hander, Frank Woolley, who, in his final season at the age of 49, somehow got into the 90s in a county match. Believing that it would be fitting for Woolley to end his career with a century, the fielding side made a pact to drop any catch that came their way until the landmark had been reached.
On 98 Woolley snicked one to the wicketkeeper who duly dropped it. But it lodged in the top of his pad and no amount of discreet jiggling would dislodge it. Woolley had to go because the fates had decreed it. To bring things back up to date, if Straeuli were to seal Russell in the Big Brother house for four months he’d probably injure himself shaving. The moral of the story is that life is what happens while you’re busy making other plans.
Mercifully, Russell was in the starting 15 announced on Thursday morning but if, wonder of wonders, he makes it through to the final whistle with all his faculties intact will South Africa then have beaten the All Blacks? What a stupid question. If we knew the answer to questions like that there would be no need to play the game to find out whether we were right.
What can be said with some degree of accuracy is that the two teams are well matched because this is some way short of a classic All Black team. Compare it, for instance, to the last two teams to have played and won at Loftus in 1996 and 1999.
The 1999 side won 34-18 and included players such as Jeff Wilson, Christian Cullen, Justin Marshall, Josh Kronfeld and Robin Brooke. Those five also played in 1996 in the Test that decided a series in this country in favour of New Zealand for the first time. Indeed, were it not for the injury-induced replacement of Andrew Mehrtens with Simon Culhane, that side would stand comparison with any rugby team in history.
For the record, it featured Frank Bunce and Walter Little in the centre, Zinzan Brooke and Michael Jones alongside Kronfeld in the back row, Ian Jones with Brooke in the second row and a front row of Olo Brown, Sean Fitzpatrick and Craig Dowd. Those who believe in the fable that there is no such thing as a poor All Black side should listen to what New Zealanders are saying about the current incarnation.
No one seems to believe, for example, that Reuben Thorne is anywhere close to being the best player in his position, and to hand him the captaincy weakens the team even more. The fact that he wears number six on his back intensifies the similarities to what was said about Francois Pienaar in this country before the World Cup began in 1995. The difference is that Pienaar was a damn good player, despite what a few purblind pinheads will still insist on telling you, given half a chance.
The back line has more thrust now that Aaron Mauger has replaced Daniel Carter at inside centre. But that means Carlos Spencer has to take the goal kicks, which is all well and good if his team is in cruise control thanks to a few early tries, but in a tight game our thoughts and his will go back to the defeat against England last month where New Zealand would have won comfortably if Spencer had kicked half decently.
Saturday’s game could be very similar to last week’s, inasmuch as two sides in the process of rebuilding will be facing each other with several
players on either team unsure of whether they feature in the coach’s World Cup plans.
If South Africa can reproduce the dynamic defence of last week —
particularly against Spencer and Mauger — they can win. If they can’t, they’ll lose. Simple, really.