45 Days to RWC and SA in a world of hurt.

Since 1 January 2008, the springbok Juggernaught has been slowly grinded down into a free fall thanks to the Management, coaching staff and an antiquated game plan.

There has always been lots of controversy surrounding Peter de Villiers, some believing that he is a worthy succession to Jake White, and that his assistant coaches on face value do know what they are doing.

Others like myself have been wanting to give the man a chance to prove his worth. Yet it becomes increasingly difficult to have any faith in the setup.

The career of Peter de Villiers can be broken down into two “eras”.

From his appointment in 2008 to the Tri Nations of 2009.

Then from the aftermath of a tough Lions tour and Tri Nations to present.

What is an absolute eye opener is looking at his successes during the first period which gave him a success rate of 73% and in the latter era only 50%.

During the first “era” he coached the Springboks to 16 out of 22 tests, but the latter “era” only 9 victories out of 18 tests.
There have been theories thrown around the NH that the British and Irish Lions normally have a big attrition rate in injuries and form following the aftermath of such a tour. Is this an excuse PDV might be able to use in explaining his rapidly falling win rate?

Even during the successful British and Irish Lions tour, and also the Tri Nations trophy immediately after, there were already a number of South African fans questioning how much longer the game plan that was employed at the time could remain the winning formula.

There was outrage in the republic and in the springbok camp when Graham Henry suggested rugby is moving in the wrong direction, if the kicking game was the winning one.

During the 2009 autumn tests, SA was poor, unmotivated and beaten France and Ireland and the signs were there. But most would have written those losses off due to the tough year the Springboks had, and very few did not accept that reasoning.

However come 2010, and the springboks were outplayed with new breakdown laws, and the inability to change.

Allthough it must be said that the two home matches that SA lost to Australia in Bloemfontein and the All Blacks in Johannesburg, they were competitive and should not have lost, it was only a penalty that Kurtly Beale kicked in the last minute that gave Australia their victory, and the All Blacks came back from a losing position to win their test.

The fact still remained though that the Springboks were slowly losing form and even with players like fourie du Preez and Brussouw who were injured, that wasn’t the reason we lost.

During this period Peter de Villiers also had internal issues with his assistant coaches and was planning on replacing them. Eventually it was “resolved” and everyone stayed. Word at the time thrown around pubs back home was that perhaps no one wanted to work with him, and thus the existing assistants had to stay.

So here we are. It is the dawn of the RWC 2011, and as defending Champions anyone would expect us to at least challenge the top teams in the competition. We have a few aging players, a number of first choice players who are woefully out of form, and then a number of senior players who have been plagued by injury the last 18 months or so, who has very little game time and would surely struggle to get back to form. Having said that, we should still be good enough to win our pool and make it to the quarters. But what then?

Injured players.

Bad news for South Africa is that Andries Bekker THE form lock for the past two years are out of the RWC. Guthro Steenkamp, Fourie du Preez, Juan Smith and Heinrich Brussouw ahs had virtually no rugby in the last 12 months,

Out of form players

Starting with John Smit who has led his country well in his career. He just isn’t the player he was in 2007. Victor Matfield on his day is probably still better than most international locks, but his physicality has diminished and in some matches he is overshadowed by younger, hungrier players. Since the Lions tour, Bakkies botha has received numerous bans and cards and just isn’t the “enforcer” we have grown to love.

Since Bryan Habana has been rewarded player of the tournament in 2007 he form has gradually declined. Not sure what to make of him, has he become his own greatest hero? Is there an attitude problem with him? Or is his dip in form just coinciding with the poor performance of the springbok team in general?

When Morne Steyn came onto the international scene he immediately made an impact, he won us a Lions series and Tri Nation trophy in the space of 6 months, but since then his form didn’t just drop at international level, but also at Super Rugby level.

Frans Steyn’s form and commitment must be a serious issue for all Springbok supporters. There has been so many accusations flying from and to France during the last two years that no one knows what to expect from him or Peter de Villiers.

Pierre Spies are also amongst those who have not made good on his promise of being "the best 8th man in the world"

The “unscathed” players.

If you had to look at Peter de Villiers’ first choice players, there are only a handful who have come through this period unscathed. Bismarck du Plessis who is still rated as one of the best hookers currently in world rugby, Schalk Burger ( although his dislocated thumb may still rule him out), Jacque Fourie widely regarded as a top notch midfielder and Jean de Villiers.

JP Petersen has come through his injuries OK, and has returned to decent form the last few weeks of the Super Rugby competition.

So Peter de Villiers has only 4 of his first choice players ( assuming Burger will be OK.) ready for this RWC.

The question is, will the out of form stalwarts, the players recovering from long injury lay offs be in form and hungry enough to defend their title in the space of 50 days?
Does Peter de Villiers have anything new to bring to the otherwise troubling Springboks in the time that is left?

I sincerely doubt that.

Out of interest, what would your SA team be for RWC and what will PDV pick?

That team that played on sat, would stuggle to get out of the pool stages.

the-goon wrote:Out of interest, what would your SA team be for RWC and what will PDV pick?

That team that played on sat, would stuggle to get out of the pool stages.

The problem is, most of his players you have no choice of picking as well, simply because he hasn't given enough exposure to the guys who are challenging.

But here is what I would have liked to see if he gave the younger ones more exposure.

1. Beast Mtwarira ( Guthro is our best loose head, but I do not know whether he will be ready)
2. Bismarck Du Plessis
3. Jannie du Plessis
4. Danie Rossouw
5. Victor Mafield ( would have chosen andries Bekker, but he is out)
6. Schalk Burger ( I like Brussouw, but he has had no game time.)
7. Juan smith is on form otherwise willem Alberts.
8. Duane Vermeulen but might not make it due to his injury.
9. Francois Hougaard
10. Patrick Lambie or Peter Grant ( Problem is neither got enough exposure)
11. Mvovo or Ndungane
12. Jean de Villiers
13. Jacque Fourie
14. JP Pietersen
15. Frans Steyn

It could be that you are over-reacting to what happened on Sat against the Wallabies. I am sure they will put in a better show in their second game together.

No one has won back to back world cups. Closest was Australia in 2003 when beaten by an extra time field goal by Wilkinson. England made the final of 2007 Final but reality is no one expected them to get there in the first place, on form.

Form and quality in the team comes in cycles there is inevitably rebuilding that is needed after a peak. If the post world cup peak was the end of 2009, then there is only a season and half to re-build to be competitive again come now. SA haven't done that rebuilding maybe to due to coach, politics, tactics or just plain cattle. Who knows? Maybe the forward play and 10 man rugby style will serve them well in NZ if it is raining a lot - and it will be.

I saw Brussow get a couple of games in the S15. He looked to be up to his usual ball stealing antics (like any good openside should be). Thought he would be a certainty, did he get another injury I missed?

I don't rate Steenkamp I'm afraid, he's overly reliant on being big and was horrifically mauled at the scrum against Tigers in 2009. I have never seen such a poor performance by a front row and that included Steenkamp and du Plessis. I hope for SA's sake they've improved drastically, though having Bismark in there should help as he's quality.

Judging by the Oz game Alberts is a must as the Boks look desperate for the penetration he offers. Rossouw also looks like he's seen better days and surely a last go for Botha before he heads to Europe is a must.

You're getting down their Biltong. Cheer up.

We all knew that PDV was naming a weakened side for the 3N, and that SA haven't won in Sydney for an age.

We also know that Genia, Cooper et al are a pretty fearsome bunch of strike players who can punish teams quickly.

SA didn't capitulate on the weekend, and pulled it back to a respectable score line. The RWC will not be played in Sydney. It will be wet, windy, cold and plain uncomfortable. The conditions will not play to Australian strengths.

Word is that NZ will not play a full strength back line this weekend and I imagine SA will step up the performance in the pack. I expect the game to be close.

Like the Aussies, amazing what a difference one week can make.

Greyghost, I am not getting down, I am what they call in Afrikaans "gatvol" and I have been for a while now. Saturday was just the last straw of along period of dissappointment.

TheGreyGhost wrote:
SA didn't capitulate on the weekend, and pulled it back to a respectable score line. The RWC will not be played in Sydney. It will be wet, windy, cold and plain uncomfortable. The conditions will not play to Australian strengths.

Oh really? While you're at it, could you give us next week's lottery numbers?

Strawman argument, you can't know for sure what you've said will come to pass, and even if it did, its questionable that it would disadvantage any one team.

What you say is true Bek, but look on the brightside; you're going into the tournament in a far better/stronger position than it's previous defending champions(England).

It'll be a hard tri-nations for SA, they look set to finish last. But I just get the feeling they'll have it right for the World Cup and get back to winning ways.

And fair play to your 'A' team - they got away with cheap shots just as well as your main team

Great White wrote:

TheGreyGhost wrote:
SA didn't capitulate on the weekend, and pulled it back to a respectable score line. The RWC will not be played in Sydney. It will be wet, windy, cold and plain uncomfortable. The conditions will not play to Australian strengths.

Oh really? While you're at it, could you give us next week's lottery numbers?

Strawman argument, you can't know for sure what you've said will come to pass, and even if it did, its questionable that it would disadvantage any one team.

It's not mystics it's called a weather forecast. On average there are 22 days of rain in the period scheduled for the World cup. The average temperature for evening match times is around 6 degrees. Obviously this varies across the country, with Auckland tending to be wetter, Wellington windier and wetter still and Dunedin colder.

Compare that to Sydney which was 14 degrees and dry.

Whilst Australia played will throughout the game, the majority of the points scored were from counter-attack and involved slick passing. There's no mystery in realising this style is less effective in cooler, wetter conditions. And from Australia's record it's easy to draw a correlation between their comparative ability at home in Sydney in the dry, and away in the South Island when it's wet, windy and rainy.

Any more questions?

I'll take that as an admission of defeat in the actual debate then. Unless you were trying to claim that the RWC will be played in Sydney. And by the way, you don't know what a straw man argument is clearly.

No its not actually. You can't tell the future, you stated, and I quote, "it WILL (my emphasis) be wet, windy, cold and plain uncomfortable". Then you attempt to substantiate your argument based on weather statistics. Great stuff, go to the top of the class poindexter. So what you're actually saying is that for every match Australia play, it will be as you've predicted - for those 80 minutes and for that period of the day of that week. Yes, of course it will And I suppose you'll be telling me next that Australian teams have never played in the wind and rain or learned to adapt to it? I'vbe seen Wallaby teams win test matches in rubbish conditions so don't give me that garbage.

The fact is that both teams were quite rusty and PDV had tinkered with his line up quite a lot, the outcome of this match will have little bearing on the relative performance of both teams in a WC months away and after both teams have got into their stride. To speculate now, and to quote the weather as a significant factor in that speculation is idiocy.

Drat, I have been supporting a side that can't win matches in the wet or windy conditions, drat drat and double drat!!!

But I do understand what you're saying GG, the Wallabies style of play does suit drier condition where ground is good underfoot and ball sticks to fingers, but that ideal condition would also benefit all other sides, same as monsoon play day could be a great leveller too. Though I wouldn't say the wallabies cannot adapt to bad weather.

The combination of wet weather and a strong forward pack doesnt particularly suit the oz game that relys on high octane manoevres from the deep to score tries. Chances are it may suit the england bokke and dare i say it nz game more than oz.thats the inference with the comment.
Its always been a strange one to me that with SA having generally the hotter faster tracks they rely more on the boot and forward play more than a strong back game.
SA have never had the high quality backs thay Oz and NZ consistently churn out. Their stars are generally forwards.
The altitude and the length of the kicks they get must have a lot to do with it. Perhaps also the lack of the presence of the darker folk who typically tend towards back play around the world.
This seems to be changing and in one or two generations the face of SA rugby will probably change significantly when more social barriers are broken down.
Gotta be a good thing i reckon

First post on this site but recognise some of the old faces from the original 606.... grey ghost, you're a trojan dude... can't knock your enthuasiasm for dishing it out to us excuse spitting NH fans. Biltong, great to chat again.

You look at the side today thats he's most likely to pick and its like he's reading Jake White's autobiography.... John Smit Captain... check, Butch James at Pivot.... check, Habana on the wing... check, 3N away leg rest in RWC year.... check. Does this man have any ideas of his own?

In terms of momentum its a big worry, no tests since Nov'10 and then the 1st XV straight into 2 home games against NZ & AUS. It would be different if SA had an established and settled side but they don't......

This isn't fantasy rugby... what looks good on paper doesn't always work on the pitch, you need to settle your combinations.
I look at the side and see only 5 players who are certain if fit to start a potential SF against NZ at the RWC... (thats Bakkies, Matfield, Schalk, JDV & Jacque Fioure).. all the other places are up for grabs it seems.
Sure, you could argue that this shows strength in depth... but when your own Captain is unsure of a starting berth and you're playing players on past reputation who haven't delivered for years, you know its a bad sign.

Don't think its all doom & gloom.... the players should just take a page from the England 07 book.... go back to basics and grind out results. They have the side to win a one off match against anyhow still.... such is the talent in the side. But to do it 3 matches in a row????

OzT wrote:Drat, I have been supporting a side that can't win matches in the wet or windy conditions, drat drat and double drat!!!

Limerick last November against a provincial 2nd XV?

Great White wrote:No its not actually. You can't tell the future, you stated, and I quote, "it WILL (my emphasis) be wet, windy, cold and plain uncomfortable". Then you attempt to substantiate your argument based on weather statistics.

Dude, saying NZ will be cold, windy and wet in September/October is hardly astrology. Have you lived there? it's like saying you might need to take a few woollen jumpers to the Arctic, or the Sahara might be hot around mid-day. It's just a given. Not sure why you're trying to argue the point.

I'm not saying the Wallabies will lose because the conditions will be different, but history, statistics, weather, climate, logic and reality are in my corner on this one - the Wallabies are a harder nut to crack in Sydney in the sun on a hard track than they are in the mud. I don't think even a one eyed Wallaby fan would find anything contentious in that.

History?! Australia won both their world cups in the wet and cold of a UK winter! Twickenham 91' and Cardiff 99'. If anything history is on their side for winning world cups in poor playing conditions.

grey ghost
I know what you are saying,I just dont understand why Thunder and and sharkey hang on every word then attack you sp personally, even though I was in Sydney for 24 hours last Thurs/Fri and honestly it absolutely pizzed down .

They will come good they always do, i still think Wales will lose the first pool game against SouthAfrica no matter how poor they play Wales will throw the game away in some stupid fashion.

Then you look at the ball carriers they will make mince meat out of the rest of the pool,
South Africa will struggle if they meet NZ ,Aus or France

Great White wrote:No its not actually. You can't tell the future, you stated, and I quote, "it WILL (my emphasis) be wet, windy, cold and plain uncomfortable". Then you attempt to substantiate your argument based on weather statistics. Great stuff, go to the top of the class poindexter. So what you're actually saying is that for every match Australia play, it will be as you've predicted - for those 80 minutes and for that period of the day of that week. Yes, of course it will And I suppose you'll be telling me next that Australian teams have never played in the wind and rain or learned to adapt to it? I'vbe seen Wallaby teams win test matches in rubbish conditions so don't give me that garbage.

The fact is that both teams were quite rusty and PDV had tinkered with his line up quite a lot, the outcome of this match will have little bearing on the relative performance of both teams in a WC months away and after both teams have got into their stride. To speculate now, and to quote the weather as a significant factor in that speculation is idiocy.

I have to say that it looks like you'er just peedoff at TGG for past WUMs and will react negatively to anything he says.
Basically you argue that he can't tell the future and denigrate him for using statistics on the basis that.....? What they are not significant? They are wrong? They are too clever?
You suppose he will say something about "Australian teams having never played..." and then say ... "don't give me that garbage" when he didn't. You said it.

You next point agrees essentially with TGG's point that this game is not a good guide to what will happen in the RWC.

I'm not a TGG's apologist but I think you an a couple of others should take a chill pill and look at the arguement not the person. TGG can be pretty annoying at times but there was nothing in this one. In the end the Boks were well beaten but kept on fighting and got 2 tries. The team hadn't had a hit out before and will be better this week even with the new injuries. The performance this week will have little impact on the RWC because of the huge number of changes that will take place.

Getting back on subject...

Looking at the infighting amongst the SA supports (ollie le roux now accusing Smit of non performance, Jake white on pdv etc and injuries for this weeks match, comments about lack of jumpers in the lineouts, small backs etc etc.... I'm afraid the scenario is looking like a record score could be posted this Saturday.

Outside here it is now fine and reports suggest a good weekend lies ahead.

The Boks are the current World champions and this is becoming a farce...fast. The AB's were humiliated out of the last world cup and other than ensuring that key players get the rest they need, there will be nothing left in the changing room this weekend. Key players will be out to prove themselves across the team as the starting 15 is nowhere near sorted.

Can't recall the movie but you don't bring a knife to a gunfight and this has all the ingredients of a complete mismatch.

AB's thrive of scaring the jeebers out of allcomers and this weekend will be no different. I agree with Biltong- there is complete disarray and this weekend that will be turned into reality unless SA do something in the next 4 days to turn things around. And I've no idea what that might be.

Hey the last bit was back on subject.
The movie was the untouchables. Sean Connery was the actor.
Not sure about the record score thing. I imagine SA will be better than last week.
So how much better will we be than Aus were? I think the Aus backline is better than ours overall.
I reckon the margin will still be about 20 points (if SA don't just give up - which they didn't do last week)
It is lovely out there though isn't it.

Oh yeah I was referring to Kiwireddevils note from before...

Can't even see it being only 20 points diff. What will the AB's have been doing the rest of the time- defending?

21 players out of the squad...key names Matfield, Botha, Fourie, jdv, shaulk et all out. Plus they're carrying some niggles from the Oz match and the worst thing of all is most on the field will feel out of depth after the Oz loss, confidence being critical to a new players success.

I can't see any area the AB's will be matched- and we're only at half speed. But with a match under them and the training that's going on in Wellington this week it just looks so lopsided for a AB Bok match that it doesnt even feel like one.

Scary I reckon. 30 points minimum... likely 40-50...

Bit blunt my last post I know but love to know how unrealistic people think this is being?

Oz won comfortably I know but things look to have got significantly worse since that match. SA didnt know where this team was at before the match but they do now and I just think the whole team will be feeling like c&$%&p- especially with their own countrymen- ex players and coaches, supporters etc sledging anything remotely to do with this trip.

Most of its press I know but these are strong words from normally the people you would expect support from...

I don't know... feels real bad for them methinks... Hope I'm wrong as it certainly aint the players faults- at least theyve fronted.

I would say a 30 point margin. ABs are better at closing out games no matter the margin. Oz stop playing when they think it is won - which is why they give up so many leads.

The first international of the year is always a step up and both the Wallabies and SA came up short in their respective openers. SA will bring much more intensity this weekend I'm sure (basically because it would be hard for them to be any less intense than they were).

Agree with Rob, the AB's are better at putting teams to the sword. Aus probably left 3 tries out there and conceded a couple of fairly soft ones towards the end so the difference could have easily been 40 in Sydney. AB's will do this comfortably, 35+

It is a sad day when you don't look forward to big match-ups like Aus/SA and NZ/SA.... hardly a 'test'.

I think that you guys are under estimating a wounded B Boks and over estimating a stuttering but getting it together NZ.
Our result against SA last year in Wellington was 31-17. A better SA team for sure but then someone got binned and I think we scored two tries while he was off.
The game before that it was 32 -12 but then Headbutt Botha got himself sent off.
The best result against Aus was 49-28 when Mitchell was harshly dealt to and red carded.
The rest of the games were close 10 points or less.

Yeah but last years team had 3-400 tests on this one.
Where is the support for this team? Where are the matfields and co coming out and backing their mates?
All we see is past coaches and players slagging the whole trip off.
Sure its all media but its also all bad. These players dont deserve this.
What a mess.

Full Credit wrote:The first international of the year is always a step up and both the Wallabies and SA came up short in their respective openers. SA will bring much more intensity this weekend I'm sure (basically because it would be hard for them to be any less intense than they were).

Agree with Rob, the AB's are better at putting teams to the sword. Aus probably left 3 tries out there and conceded a couple of fairly soft ones towards the end so the difference could have easily been 40 in Sydney. AB's will do this comfortably, 35+

It is a sad day when you don't look forward to big match-ups like Aus/SA and NZ/SA.... hardly a 'test'.

How were they soft tries?

The truth of the matter is that most of the aussie tries were scored by simply running through a defence of either front rowers or through and around Morne Steyn, Ruan Pienaar and Wynand Olivier. Now that is what I call soft tries.

If Wynand Olivier would actually pass the F.....ng ball, we might actually go forward.

How is it possible, that not one coach in his whole professional career has ever told him he is stingy and should know that there is a player on his outside called a wing.

Smit's try was fair enough but Chilliboy just peeled off the side and basically went over untouched. I would have expected a bit more organisation defending on the try line. It's one thing when the defence is stretched but when you've got numbers there and they don't man up I would regard that as soft. Maybe I'm not giving enough credit to SA's maul.

FC that's back to the weakness within the Aussie front five, make it a physical contest where they have to pull together and they are not that strong. Allow them to place a running game with fast rucks and they will put 30-40 points on the board.

biltongbek how does Olivier keep getting selected?

formerly known as Sam wrote:biltongbek how does Olivier keep getting selected?

It is one of those mysteries in life, I put it up there with the mysteries of the universe.

He only runs straight, doesn't step, doesn't pass, doesn't retain posession in the tackle and most likely ignores any criticism aimed at him. He lives in a bubble much like PDV, if they don't like the criticism they just ignore it and hop it goes away.

The truth of the matter is even Naas Botha, who were always criticised not knowing then names of the players outside him, recognises the fact that Wynand Olivier is most likely the most predictable rugby player in south Africa.

All the defence has to do when he gets the ball is first guy tackles, second guy shows daylight and robs the ball.

biltongbek wrote:

He only runs straight, doesn't step, doesn't pass

That sounds like you're describing Pat McCabe.

Full Credit wrote:

biltongbek wrote:

He only runs straight, doesn't step, doesn't pass

That sounds like you're describing Pat McCabe.

At least McCabe breaks a tackle every now and then.

nganboy wrote:... and over estimating a stuttering but getting it together NZ.
.

What are you talking about? other than spouting cliches?

NZ have played one test, with a mixed line up of incumbent, new and returning talent against Fiji. Just one test. What on earth is this "stuttering but getting it together" about? And what is this "wounded" Springbok thing?

Sorry but I find this kind of hackneyed mode of pundit sound byte cliche regurgitation doesn't really add much.

Next you'll be telling me that it's vital that the teams send out a message of intent, sound a world cup warning in a game of two halves where the team that edges it will be the one showing composure under pressure and executing their basic skills whilst adhering to the game plan, playing as a team rather than as individuals and at the end of the day the team that wants it more will prevail all things being equal. Or that results are important but holding your head high and going the full 80 minutes at this stage of the year whilst building momentum and learning the lessons is vital.

FFS.

As long as they give 110%.

Full Credit wrote:As long as they give 110%.

If only the Boks gave 100% last Saturday I would have felt better. In stead they looked like rabbits caught in the headlights of some fast moving train.

They didn't look any worse than the wallabies did a week before.

Full Credit wrote:They didn't look any worse than the wallabies did a week before.

Very true, but if you look at the supposed experienced players such as, John smit, Ruan Pienaar, Morne Steyn, Wynand Olivier, they lost that game for us just by their lcak of commitment to the defence, then add to that their poor back line play, and it is very frustrating as a bok fan.

Did a single one of the up and unders work in that entire game?

So where does that leave SA, Oz, Samoa, Fiji and NZ over the past 2 weeks...very hard to tell.

The next 2 matches may give us a better idea. Certainly Fiji (with perhaps some returning players) and Samoa look ready for world cup duty...