The top two inches and Chris Rattue.

First topic message reminder :

Every sporting fan has to put up with disappointment every now and then, some more than others, but it is a choice we make when passionate about sport.

Sometimes we will unfairly criticise a referee or match official and other times we have legitimate gripes about deemed unfair practice by referees or at least gripes about the incompetence shown by them.

Most of the time it will only be a few rumblings and dies down soon after the event, and other times we tend to have a lingering, simmering feeling of injustice about a match.

In 2007 the New Zealanders were up in arms about the famous forward pass that cost them a place in the semi finals of the Rugby World Cup. Saying that there was no unsavoury retorts by New Zealand fans will be off the mark. At the time South African fans paid little attention to the ruckus that ensued, simply because they were too busy celebrating their 2nd trophy in four attempts.

Perhaps now in hindsight it was a mistake for the simple reason that the “holier than thou attitude” shown by some individuals from the land of the long white cloud has now become the order of the day. Granted it is only but a handful of them that seem to be on a mission of redemption.

Perhaps it is important to understand the psyche of the South Africans before we continue with the actual reason for the article.

Isolation.

Up to the point where South African sport went into isolation, the Springboks were the only team in world rugby who had a superior record against all opponents.

So it would stand to reason that not participating in the inaugural world cup was shunned by many South African rugby fans as “whoever win, wins because we aren’t there.”

During the isolation years the Springboks only played 12 official test matches and managed to win 10 of them. So even during this period we believed and probably were still the best team in the world.

Rugby greats such as Naas Botha in his prime, the du Plessis brothers, Danie Gerber and many more never had the opportunity to become greats outside of South Africa because of isolation and will forever live as icons only in our memories.

Re-entry

Along came 1992 and we started off with a close loss to the all Blacks and only a week later we lost handsomely to the then reigning world champions Australia.

To say our entry into the international arena after more than a decade went smoothly will be incorrect. During the isolation years the Currie Cup became our test rugby. In my opinion the Currie Cup has never been and sadly will never again be as important and competitive as it was then.

The problem was that on our re-entry into international rugby, provincialism and internal politics which still impact our game today, was rife. John Williams was the first Springbok coach on our re-entry, Being a Northern Transvaal coach, the majority of his squad came from there. His record as Springbok coach was disappointing to say the least. Ian Macintosh the Natal coach appointed only a year later didn’t do much better and it was only when Kitch Christie the Transvaal coach got appointed that the Springboks started their winning ways.

Up to this day, internal politics, provincialism and nepotism have been the deterring factors for the Springboks to regain the heights of yesteryear.

It is fair to say the 1995 world cup for many reasons was a must win for us and the justification we needed to prove to the world that we were back on top.

And sadly 1995 was also the end of an era where we could still claim a superior record against all comers.

In 1996 New Zealand won their first ever test series against us on our shores, and with that they also took the lead head to head, as yet not been hauled in by South Africa.

We have had some mediocre years during the professional era, there are many reasons for that, but in my view the ones that stand out are much the same as those of the past, nepotism, internal politics, administrators with hidden agendas, poor coaches and the consequences of apartheid, having to rectify the wrongs of the past.

Now I will admit that professional rugby is won or lost in mere inches and the top two inches is where it matters the most. Having experienced playing rugby in South Africa first hand, I can tell you that those top two inches is where our biggest failings are.

Whether it is because we are greedy or too ambitious as administrators, or whether we allow our favouritism to rule our team selections from school level all the way up to professional level, the quality of coaches we appoint or simply the political influence that mars our selections, the top two inches have been the main cause for us not to reach our potential.

Most South African rugby fans have a deep knowledge of the game, and a deep rooted frustration for the levels of performance we have achieved during the professional era. It is not something that can be waved away with a dismissive gesture, it is real, it is burning and it is frustrating because we see the potential, we see the glaring mistakes and we see the incompetence on a too regular basis.

So getting to 2011 world cup. We had a coach who has inherited a formidable team, a man who by all accounts were appointed for non rugby reasons, assistant coaches who did not seem able to bring anything new to the table, a handful of senior rugby players unwilling to change and a host of tests being sacrificed for the good of a tournament that is a long shot.

Preparation for the tournament was a shambles, injuries, the sudden exposure of a host of rookies to Australasia and poor results over the previous two years didn’t provide much confidence.

Scraping through against Wales was disappointing enough, but losing players like Francois Steyn during the free for all match against Samoa was probably the biggest setback. Jean de Villiers over the last number of years has proven that he had little or no ability to attack with ball in hand, getting the backline into a gap was wishful thinking. Frans Steyn much criticised during the previous year was a revelation and showed to be the man that would take the backline to new heights. In fact in my view his injury was the biggest reason why we lost against Australia in that controversial quarter final

Quarter final day, Wellington, 9 October 2011.

As a Springbok fan it was a day of nervous anticipation, Australia had just won the Super XV with the Queensland Reds, they won the Tri Nations for the first time in a decade, and had been our biggest nemesis for the past four years, winning 7 out of 11 tests against us. In my mind I didn’t worry too much about the last two encounters as we sent a group of youngsters over there and never expected them to win in Australia anyway, the return match in SA was disappointing, but we had shown potential and messed up more than a handful of opportunities to score tries.

The reason for my concern was the Australian back line. Genia, Cooper, Ioane, Beale and O’Connor were the danger men. They had bags full of talent and showed little fear on attack. In my mind no other team had a back line as adventurous as the Aussies.

I don’t want to go into much detail about the match, it has been discussed to boredom, but would like to give my main reasons why we lost the match.
Frans Steyn. Had he been on the field that day, Australia would not have been able to stop us, the forward passes made by Jean de Villiers would not have happened, and we would have broken the line even more successfully than we had that day.

David Pocock. He approached the game with the decision that he would test the referee from the get go, it worked and his impact on the breakdown was massive in slowing ball down for the Springboks enough to allow his defensive lines to regroup.

The referee. There has been many comments about South Africa should have adapted to his methodology on the day. I agree, we should have, but by the time Pocock won the ball illegally, it cost South Africa 5 points. Now when you look at the winning and losing margins between these two countries over the previous 4 years, the points difference was nil, zero, zip.

Reaction.

There was an uproar after the match, South Africans created online petitions, there were threats, jokes were made at the expense of Bryce Lawrence. What most people don’t get, is it was about the inconsistency of his officiating, the fact that he murdered Australia at the breakdowns against Ireland, and then did nothing in the quarter final. That is it.

Forget about the threats, not all South Africans threatened him and it is most likely just ramblings that will never go into action, forget about telling us we should have adapted, we know that. Forget about tarring all South Africans with the same brush. We get it, we lost because of the top two inches.

But remember this, it was the top two inches of three men that lost us that game, Jean de Villiers and his inability to have vision, Pocock and his ability to use his top two inches against the referee, and the top two inches of Bryce Lawrence which inexplicably has no consistency.

Chris Rattue a writer for the New Zealand Herald, has afforded himself the opportunity to educate the rugby public at large. He has taken it upon himself to remind the rugby public of how bitter and twisted we are. He has decided to criticise our forwards, our captain, our gameplan and whatever else he could find to grind a knife into our souls, with a piece that in my opinion, show the biased character that he is. As a writer and individual he has little or no understanding of the South African psyche or culture, and yet has decided to use his ignorance to educate the rugby public at large.

So in closing, perhaps this will provide some understanding of the South African Psyche, we are able to accept responsibility for our failings, but just as we need to let go, perhaps a certain Mr. Chris Rattue needs to let go as well.

Link to his latest article: http://www.nzherald.co.nz/best-of-sport-analysis/news/article.cfm?c_id=1502180&objectid=10780934

Dr. grey, as you say there were other issues, appointment of coach, ability of coach, players that should have not been selected, players that should have retired, injuries, skill levels, etc. etc.

As you also say you understand the psyche of South Arfricans.

Through all the political interference over the years, the muddling through mud and underperforming for the last 4 years, you could probably say BL was the last straw.

SA fans being so fed up with a system hampering our real potential, the last thing we needed was a numpty officiating our exit out of RWC.

As much as so few want to admit BL was ALSO a cause of our exit, and the more you refuse to acknowledge that fact, but continually throw the reasons at our doorstep, the more you are missing the point.

Despite all those reasons that we should not have won, despite all the reasons you are offering why we should not be performing at the top of our game, despite winning matches without thumping opponents, we are always a threat at world cups.

The point is gentlemen, many of us have acknowledged our part in the failure, very few of you have admitted BL part in our failure.

And that is the point.

But once againt the point of this thread is the fact that it won't go away, if it is being thrown in our faces in the media constantly.

Mate,
To me, the only reason Bryce Lawrence comes into it is the Boks finishing was at a fairly pedestrian level to start with. This is your coaching and team management. Not the referee.

Watching the match again (I showed it a few weeks ago to my son's U15 team) I am amazed how un-Bok-like your lads were. You lost by two points. You had all the yards, all the possession, all the territory, won all your scrums and lineouts, pinched many Aussie lineouts, and conceded only 4 pentalties to Australia's 5 (per Scrum, I needed to look that up). Coaching is a big part of giving the players what they need to to turn all that good, maybe great, play into points. And players with the pedigree of the Boks on the pitch that day, which is terrific, should have been able to pinch one more score. So there was something missing.

Only when all that didn't happen - the coach didn't prepare the team and players off their finishing best - then it is possible to discuss the referee and the impact he had. And he was pisspoor and did impact the match, given the poor finishing....

I think we are saying the same thing from a different perspective. We all acknowledge BL had a shocker.

Non SA posters are just saying the part he played in the loss is not the determing factor SA fans like to think it is and that the level of vitriole towards BL is out of proportion to the loss- saying most of which arose from key areas within the Bok Regime. Without the emotion of losing that match theyre able to take a wider view of the overall situation.

But biltongs point about it being the last straw is also a primary part of this. On top of the mess SA-or perhaps Bok rugby as that below the national team looks in excellent shape- SA just didnt need an inept official at such a critical time. In their eyes BL has provided the final nail to a very frustrating few years. Losing tends to make you want to find a single primary reason for it amd BL has largely become that. The wider view comes more naturally later when the emotion fades.

My view of it is perhaps it has provided the rock bottom that SA rugby desperately needs for it to rise again.

Henkes expressed desire to make the national team the primary focus and to consult with all and sundry is a good start and as doc says leadership starts at the top. Hopefully those who have provided the usual barriers see it thay way. A new start. Timing certainly couldnt be better.

In saying that in rereading Rattues comments again biltongs right in that no one needs him using his position to again take a broad swipe at SA internet posters when theres nothing to be gained but perhaps more sensationalist trash.

Theres nothing new in this story.

Let it go Rattue... How about earning your bucks with something original rather than feeding from the bottom of the pond again.

Taylor,
Very well said, and it seems to me you hit the nail on the head. Hopefully you put paid to this line of thought.

But does anyone really take Rattue seriously when he goes off like this? In the UK, its like reading the Daily Mail and quoting it in serious political debate. If we don't rise to the bait, then we have no worries.

Yes, Taylorman, that was well put. It seems you are getting my point of view.

Grey, there is undoubtedly people that take rattue seriously, otherwise he won't have a job.

Countires' population, individuals etc. often get tarred with a brush royally painted by media. Just look at the perception players get tarred with when the media once too often call them thugs or dirty players.

Even when they redeem themselves they seldom get rid of a perception created by the media.

Take shane warne as an example, seen by most as the best spin bowler in world cricket, yet when you compare him to Muralitheran, you might disagree, yet many won't even debate the point.

Warne has been built up by the press and mediia as the best spin bowler ever and most will just go along with that train of thought and not even entertain the thought of considering Muralitheran.