Who would have thought that South Africa would ever need to take a rugby lesson from Argentina? The Pumas have been the Cinderellas of southern hemisphere rugby for half a century, but after Saturday’s 24-14 defeat of France in Marseille they finally made it to the ball.
In Edinburgh, Australia beat Scotland far less comfortably than the 31-17 score line might suggest, and New Zealand were hanging on desperately at the end of their 26-25 encounter with Wales in Cardiff. At Twickenham the Springboks were demolished by a new-look England and coach Jake White has consequently rung the changes for this week’s match against Scotland.
Argentina have been excluded from the Tri-Nations on the basis that they don’t bring enough money to the party, but the subtext of that is that the three Sanzar unions actually don’t rate them. A good scrum and a few good backs in search of a game plan would distil the thoughts of most, but after Saturday that excuse won’t wash anymore.
France were on an eight-match unbeaten run, which included a Grand Slam in the Six Nations earlier this year. They had just thumped the Wallabies in Paris, leading the visitors’ curmudgeonly coach, Eddie Jones, to remark that France are currently the best team in the world.
One week later the best team in the world, unchanged from that which defeated Australia, got taken apart by the Pumas. How did it happen? The answer is simple and contains the moral for White’s Springboks: the Pumas beat France with good old-fashioned 10-man rugby.
With the wind at their backs they built up a 19-5 half-time lead and then defended their hearts out into a stiff breeze that had transformed itself at the turnaround into a typhoon. The forwards toiled and the halfbacks chose the right options. Scrumhalf Agustin Pichot reined in his normal flair and gave an armchair ride to his flyhalf, Felipe Contepomi.
Contepomi has been around on the international scene for six years, but at no stage has anyone claimed the status of world-beater for him. Yet he ran the game against France and was scarcely ever under pressure from the matchless French back row. The reason for this was that he stood so deep in the pocket — to use an ugly, but in-vogue phrase — that he probably finished the game covered in lint.
In difficult conditions against ‘the best side in the worldâ€, Contepomi stood deep to give himself more time. He kicked often, ran several times in each half and never once passed the ball to his inside centre. This is the sort of flyhalf play that gives rugby a bad name. The modern game is supposed to be about flinging skip passes and running your opponent ragged.
Derrick Hougaard, for instance, was not taken on tour because it is alleged that he stands too deep. But what would White not have given to have had the option of bringing Hougaard on against England? Hougaard would have made bad ball into good, kicked for the corners and placed England under pressure, something that hardly happened at Twickenham.
In the Blue Bull pivot’s absence, the Boks had to soldier on with Jaco van der Westhuyzen, perhaps the first international flyhalf in history who would never have made it as a soccer player. Van der Westhuyzen owes his place in the team to White’s utter faith in his ability to implement the Bok game plan, but no one seems to have told either coach or player that the Tri-Nations ended in August.
White claims to have learned much on this tour, and his captain John Smit has been speaking about the number of wide-eyed 21-year-olds he has in his charge.
England apparently surprised the Boks with their strength, while the slippery conditions exposed the tourists’ lack of a wet-weather game.
Goldfish are supposed to have total recall of about 15 seconds, which is why they don’t go stir crazy in bowls. If White were in charge of a school of goldfish the above comments would be defendable, but South Africa has been touring the northern hemisphere for a century now and since isolation they have been there 10 years out of 12. So how come Springbok sides are constantly being surprised?
If Argentina can beat France by playing 10-man rugby, why can’t South Africa take on the home unions with similar tactics? For let’s not fool ourselves into believing that Murrayfield this Saturday will be as firm underfoot as Loftus in July, the weather as welcoming as Durban in May.
Van der Westhuyzen may be a fine player in those towns in those months, but it is becoming increasingly plain that in Britain in November he is a liability. A flyhalf of an earlier generation was recently part of a discussion about the merits of those who play his position in South Africa today. When told that a certain player could not be considered because, ‘He doesn’t take it upâ€, the flyhalf said, ‘In my day if a coach had told me to take it up, I’d have said, take it up where?â€
Which is to say that you need horses for courses and the Boks might have had a chance if Contepomi had played instead of Van der Westhuyzen against England. This week White has made a plethora of changes, but his flyhalf remains. Two years ago Andre Pretorius, a flyhalf with a similar dislike for kicking the ball, played against Scotland in another match that the Boks could not possibly lose. He had a nightmare and Scotland won. History has a habit of repeating itself.