The Springboks have not beaten New Zealand since Nick Mallett’s penultimate test as Springbok coach three years ago. In Pretoria this year the All Blacks racked up a half century of points against the Boks in the most embarrassingly one sided encounter ever between the two old rivals.
So why is it that there is a strange sense of optimism ahead of Saturday’s quarterfinal in Melbourne?
It cannot have anything to do with history. It has been romantically suggested that because South Africa beat New Zealand in both the World Cup final of 1995 and the third place playoff match in 1999 that there is some kind of hoodoo working in the Boks’ favour.
But professional sportsmen worldwide care little for history and most are blissfully ignorant of it. If that means they are doomed to repeat it, so be it, but there must be a more concrete reason to believe that it will be Corne Krige’s lopsided grin that will be picked up by the cameras after Saturday’s final whistle, rather than the blank stare of Reuben Thorne.
Part of the reason has to do with Rudolf Straeuli’s team selection. Had it not been for the tournament ending injury to Joe van Niekerk in the final pool match against Samoa, Straeuli would have announced the first unchanged side of his reign, a remarkable statistic 18 months on from his first test in charge.
It is nevertheless a red-letter day when Danie Rossouw’s elevation from the bench as a replacement for van Niekerk is the only change in the starting 15. And the stability in the team is a clue to the real reason for optimism ahead of the game; the Springboks have learned how to defend again.
It is worth remembering how South Africa won the World Cup in 1995. If in doubt Joel Stransky or Andre Joubert kicked the ball over the opposition dead-ball line (it was legal to do so then) and forced their opponents to start again from their own 22. Then the remorseless tackling of the likes of Ruben Kruger, Japie Mulder and Os du Randt slowly sapped their strength.
It wasn’t pretty and at times it was pretty boring, but it was brutally efficient in the way that it played to the Springboks’ strengths. Without it Stransky would never have had the time and space to drop the most famous goal of his career.
Sometime around the Tri-Nations of 2000 the Springboks lost the plot. In the misguided belief that the Brumbies had produced the template of the modern game in Canberra, Mallett threw away the traditional strengths of South African rugby and sacrificed them on the altar of continuity.
It has taken three long years to realise that the quest for the Holy Grail ended in a pawn shop and still today there are those who opine that what is really wrong with Springbok rugby is that the players do not have sufficient patience to construct the multi-phase play required to prise open modern defences.
Poppycock. Springbok rugby at its best is direct and in your face. It starts with a dominant tight five, which in these days of rolling replacements is really a tight eight, and ends with the kind of stifling defence that kills ambition and results in the best kind of turnover ball. That’s how the Boks scared England and that’s how they demolished Samoa.
Straeuli’s team is now in the best position of any of the quarterfinalists. They have a settled side at last and are up against opponents who don’t know what works best any more, arrogance or humility. Against Wales they began with the former and ended with the latter, but against the Springboks they won’t have time to change their outlook.
It could, of course, all be over in 10 minutes of coruscating All Black back play, but that is highly unlikely. What is more likely is that South Africa will produce their most complete display since the last time they played in a World Cup quarterfinal and that the big bad All Black challenge will be over for another four years.