Jake White versus Pieter de Villiers.

For better or worse, the Pieter de Villiers era has come to an end. Many felt at the time of his appointment that Heyneke Meyer was the best candidate, and now four years later he will get his opportunity to prove them wrong.

Like his predecessor Jake White, Pieter de Villiers’ tenure was full of controversy, albeit of a different kind. Jake White was in trouble with SARU more often than not; and almost lost his job at the end of 2006 when he was called into a meeting with SARU mere days before the Springboks faced England. He had to fly back home to justify his selections and performances. Prior to the World Cup in 2007 once again selection issues reared its ugly head when he was forced to include Luke Watson, son of Cheeky Watson, an antiapartheid activist. Jake White wasn’t the most popular coach in South Africa, in fact, I doubt whether any coach in South Africa is really ever favoured.

PDV on the other hand suffered from foot in mouth disease, his public quirks to the media were often misunderstood and scoffed at. Where JW was a superb technical analyst, in contrast PDV didn’t seem to have much technical knowhow, and often had issues with his assistant coaches, during 2010 wanted to get rid of them.

To his credit PDV did want to bring a new methodology to the Springboks. He tried to change the way they played in 2008, but that was almost immediately discarded by a group of senior players he recalled back to the Springbok squad. Perhaps this was his biggest downfall, the fact that he wanted continuity with the squad. Sadly he was never able to enforce his new game plan and we will never know whether it would have worked. Therein lies the PDV conundrum.

How do you measure the man? He retained the majority of 2007 world Cup winners. He continued with the same game plan for an additional four years, even when law changes and especially interpretation at the tackle/breakdown area changed. He never had enough faith or gumption to enforce his own brand of rugby on his team.

PDV had choices to make. If he believed in his methodology, he could have enforced it upon the players, or he could have gotten rid of those players who refused change. Instead he took the easy way out, he empowered his senior players and although he often said he valued input from everyone in the squad, the final decision rested with him.

On face value there are some similarities between PDV and JW. Both won a Tri Nations trophy. JW ended his tenure with a 68% win record, PDV ended on 62%. Both worked on the principal of “judge me at the world cup”. The negative of that principal was the number of tests they sacrificed for the “good of the ultimate goal”.

But that is where the similarities end. On the plus side for Jake White was a World Cup medal, for PDV an early exit. PDV won a British and Irish Lions series, and both won a Tri Nations trophy.

But when you want to see the real measure of how South Africa will rate their successes, you need to look at their two main rivals.

JW had a superior win record against Australia, but an inferior record against the All Blacks, PDV had a very poor record against Australia and a marginally better record against the All Blacks, even though, still inferior. Overall JW won 45% of his Tri Nation matches. PDV only won 39% of his Tri Nation matches.

Would it not have been better for both of them to have taken all these matches as must win games, selecting their best available players in every match?

When records are analysed years later, it doesn’t matter who played, what matter are only the results.

JW rarely got credit for the squad he built from near scratch at the start of his tenure, he brought back two players lost to international rugby, Os du Randt and Percy Montgomery. During this time he handed out debut caps to 36 players, of whom Fourie du Preez, Gurthro Steenkamp, Bryan Habana, Enrico January, Gary Botha, Wynand Olivier, Johan Muller, Akona Ndungane, JP Pietersen, Chiliboy Ralapelle, Pierre Spies, BJ Botha, Ruan Pienaar, Bevin Fortuin, Francois Steyn, Bismarck du Plessis, Jannie du Plessis, Peter Grant and Ryan Kankowski which would make up the core of his 2007 world cup squad. These players joined John Smit, Bakkies Botha, Victor Matfield, Butch James, Ande Pretorius, Juan Smith, Schalk Burger, Jaque Fourie and Jean de Villiers who had been capped prior to the JW reign.

At the start of Pieter de Villiers’ tenure, he recalled Victor Matfield, Jean de Villiers and John Smit. He handed out 30 debut caps, importantly though four of those debutants were thrown into the cauldron of Tri Nation rugby, whilst the real Springboks were wrapped in cotton wool prior to the 2011 world Cup.

Not all of it was bad though; he did manage to bring through some debutants worth a mention, Andries Bekker, Beast Mtiwarira, Heinrich Brussow, Morne Steyn, Juan du Jongh, Francois Hougaardt, Ashley Johnson, Jean Deysel, Pat Lambie, Willem Alberts and Coenie Oosthuizen. These are all certain future stars and should make part of the new coach’s squad selections.

The problem for PDV by all accounts was the fact that he didn’t have enough belief in these youngsters and stuck to the tried and tested. He often created the perception that his debutants were selected out of panic, necessity and pressure from outside sources. His selections seemed to stink of reactive rather than proactive thinking.

Was PDV a bad coach? No, his players’ respect for him is testament to the fact that he was a good man manager and carried their best interest at heart. Was he the best technical coach? No, certainly not, his helter skelter substitutions at crucial times during matches prove that. Was he the worst coach South Africa ever appointed? Certainly not, that honour belongs to other less successful candidates who had much less of his qualities.

Pieter de Villiers will forever be remembered as the first non-white coach of the Springboks, hopefully he will also be remembered that despite his shortcomings, he won a British and Irish Lions series, he won the 2009 Tri Nation series by white washing the All Blacks, and perhaps most importantly he showed us how to beat New Zealand at home, not only once, but twice.

Great article Biltong.

I feel P-Divvy at times with his public pronouncements encouraged the opposition to under-rate the Boks, which may have done them some good on occasion.

I agree with you about his man-management skills, given the amount of player power in SA rugby I suspect there'd have been moves to get rid of him if the players didn't like him (his "transformation" badge might have saved him if they had admittedly).

Interesting article,Biltong the odd point,2008 PDV bought back the three mentioned plus Butch James and Percy Montgomery.
One factor that year was the ELV`s NH were not playing them[or ALL of them]
and Matfield for one had a problem adapting.
It seems you are in agreement with me about sacrificing 3Ns matches for a RWC
Jake White set the precedent.HE at least produced the goods,correctly you state
the results matter.
With respect PDV did`nt show how beat the All Blacks 2008,they were all over the Boks till the last minute.THE winning try was a brilliant solo effort against the run of play.
Botha and Matfield were outplayed by after[20 minutes] two Locks with one start between them.
In 2009 PDV certainly did show the way with a 3-0 win stat you can`t argue that nor would I try too.

Good article biltong.

I think pdvs reign was a little worse than that. The fact that pdv couldnt impose a gameplan or change while he was there to me means he wasnt a good coach because that is the core function of any coach- decide on a gameplan, select the players for it and lead the team towards the common goal of winning by applying the chosen gameplan.

By not being able to do this, the system is corrupted. When senior players have more authority than the coach, when compromises are made there will be disharmony, lack of direction and leadership and confusion.
All of that was present in the bok side over the last two years.

Results are there simply because SA has better players than most but losses came more often than they probably should have.

As senior as mccaw carter thorne etc are as All Blacks NO ONE would have dictated terms such as gameplan or team tactics to Henry. No chance.

That I believe is one of Smiths failings. As great a player or captain he used to be he put himself before his team. He should have been dumped for du plessis in 2010 but because of the influence he and others had he was effectively able to 'pick himself' under the presumed guise that he was so essential as a captain. I can't subscribe to that thinking.

On the matches 2009 was a good year for pdv but as good as it was it prescribed poor years ahead by contuing to ignore the tackle law changes. The players as main tacticians failed to compensate for it-perhaps because current players arent keen on gameplay change for the preservation of their own positions and they thought what won using the old rules would continue.

Again. This is where the coach is required. Meanwhile back in NZ the game was being analysed to bits and GH came up with the simple statement before Eden park..." the boks dont play a lot of rugby"... Referring to the kicking, ball in play minutes stats.
Pdv scoffed at it then SA got run off their feet with the ABs keeping the ball in play at all times. The boks were effectively caught with their pants down.

Just an example of why a coach must be chief tactician because the players will always have one main goal in mind...self preservation.

For mainly the above reasons i believe it wouldnt have been right for SA to win the world cup in 2011 as if that set up represents the best in the sport then the sport is in trouble.

In effect pdv was a little like BL...

"Evil dwells where good men do nothing".

Hi Taylorman, I agree on the whole with your comments, I just felt because this is probably the last time I am going to write about PDV and have been very critical of him in the past, I would try to write an article a little more balanced.

Not sure if you will recall, but on the old 606 after the Lions series and Trinations in2009 I predicted the potential cracks, flaws and poor results that would follow.

Sadly it came true

Yes just trying to comment purely from a rugby point of view as though politics doesnt exist- certainly not a go at PDV, but rather the system in which he bought into and unfortunately, stayed.

When comparing it to say the Ab system the flaws are obvious and under Henke the opportunities to correct them are there for all to see.

He'll also have less barriers than pdv so unfortunately when we compare his results in a couple of years pdv will again look poor perhaps again not due to his abilities but rather the circumstances. So I'm basically agreeing with your article, just from a different perspective.

Exposing things warts and all at this point is good medicine I believe to go forward and I've certainly thought pdv's presence was great for the non white progress in the sport.

If you can have him at the very top of the game in terms of national and international exposure through the media, it must have opened doors for other non white players so on that front he's been a well worth investment for the future of SA rugby. I believe that's pdv's true legacy. Unfortunately it just won't re realised for years, probably decades.

Plus, I found him entertaining. His heart was in the game even though his foot was in his mouth at the same time...

The memoirs of players and pdv in a few years might be interesting...

I meant to add that I was waiting to watch the 1981 Bok/ Waikato match and found I was sitting on the fence when the protesters ran onto the field, even though I was sitting in a Rugby club full of angry people at the time. That day you would never have convinced anyone that a non white coach would lead the Boks to a World cup in 2011 so even in my short lifetime HUGE progress has been made.

Its just the ironing out of the smaller things that need to happen but a 21st century Bok dynasty sure looks more promising than a 20th century one which on the whole, was horrible.

To be honest I don't think PDiv was as bad a manager as the media made him out to be. He got is fair share of success. Would Jake White have won the world cup if he had identical fixtures to PDiv? I actually doubt it. That WC campaign put a gloss on a fairly unspectacular career for White. I think they match up quite well White and PDiv in terms of personality, rugby style and success.

Leinster I can quite confidently say if Jake White had another four years as coach, we would have had much better results.

Those boys and even the majority of the world cup squad knew him and he knew them. JW would certainly not have taken that long to adjust to the new laws

Maybe its just post world cup winning coach curse.

Andre Markgraff (spelling?) and Carel Du Plessis were disasters after Kitch Christie.

Eddie Jones John Connelly had to follow Rod McQueen and are percieved as less successful for the Aussies post 99 despite getting to the 03 final.

Brian Ashton, Andy Robinson and Martin JOhnson and constantly were measured agaainst Clive Woodward creating massive pressure when they were trying to build a new team, the RFU never reall gave any of them the time it had SCW.

PDV is always going to be measured against success. Winning the RWC perhaps places a burden of expectation on the team that has follow and coaching staff.

Onto 2015 will the curse continue?

even furter back(I cant remember the coaches and too tired to look it up) the post world cup winning nation has hardly surpassed itself at the next event, Australia in 95 were what quarterfinalists. NZ in 91 lost to the eventual winners. I guess Alex Whylie was hardly a disaster after Brian Lochore though despite that,

History is probably going judge White as a better coach, given he's a world cup winner. Also because of the media take on PDV and polics of sport (I'm not insuating racism, I'm just saying we have favourites, e.g. Hart, Wyllie, Smith, Mitchell will all have their detractors in NZ. PDV polarises people more than White for his media presence alone.

I think he's probably under rated. The world cup has an element of luck, the boks exited following a close game against Australia under PDV, and won following a dream draw under White. It's hard to compare the two.

It's also hard to compare because of changes in the emphasis of refereeing. The traditional boks game in 07 was taylor made for refereeing at the time, field position and tactical kicking dominated, with the move to police the offside law more effectively as well as aspects of the ruck and maul. That game became less effective. The same can be said of various teams at other times, e.g, England were less effective following 2003 when techniques relating to sealing the rucks were more effectively policed Australia are no doubt facing the same issue with Pococks technique in the ruck now, McCaw has had to reinvent himself and Duisitor would be hamstrung if rules relating to staying on your feet were enforced..

blackcanelion wrote:I think he's probably under rated. The world cup has an element of luck, the boks exited following a close game against Australia under PDV, and won following a dream draw under White. It's hard to compare the two.

Except for the fact that you are forgetting that those same players were in top form in 2007, irrespective of the lucky packet draw we had and many of them were out of form prior and during the world cup.

I'm not denegrating them. The AB's ended up on the easy side of the draw in 87 and 99. I'm just pointing out that following their destruction of England in pool play and Frances loss to Argentina. They avoided a realistic threat until the final.

As far as form goes it's difficult to judge. White kept many of his major players out of matches (e.g Matfield and Botha didn't play in the second string sides that lost away matches to Ireland, England, NZ and Australia in the lead up to the WC). Their form can only be based on provincial form, or games against an England B team, an understrength AB's team, Australia and Namibia all in SA.

Stats are interesting. 2006 is the worst year in SA professoional rugby in terms of winning percentage. Overall PV's winning percentages are lower for Scotland and Australia. An B or C team lost to Scotland in Edinborough, so I'm not sure how much to read into that. In terms of Australia, the edge was in the first two years, when Eddie Jones was coach. 2005 was the worst year for Aussie in the professional era, with losses to England, France, Wales, NZ (2) and SA (3). It was so bad Eddie Jones got the sack. They are close, I think it's hard to judge. I'm not sure PDV is worse (although it's no contest in front of the camera).

blackcanelion, that is the problem with White's record. He sacrificed too many matches.

If he selected his best squad every match his record may have stood in excess of 70%.

That is what I liked about Mallet, for him every test was important, and in my view the last SA coach who gave his all to SA rugby.

This sacraficing of tests provides other teams opportunity to gain a mental advantage and no good comes out of it.

Fair enough. I really rate mallet as well. I think you're potentially on to a winner with Meyer(?)

To be fair, I don't think the coaches can play their top team all the time these days. With a hectic schedule and no long tours. They have to develop new players, build depth and rest players. No going back to the good old days of 4 or 5 tests a year unfortunately. It could be worse our football team virtually never plays.

Not sure about Meyer yet, he may make the same mistake as PDV by bringing back players.

Agree it is not possible to play your best team every match, but some matches are just give aways these days.

What do you think of his policy of trying to get a unified playing style in the republic?

Well it depends what style he is talking about.

We will always have good forwards, but it is what he wants to do with them that is the question.

We have been using forwards in our back lines for far too long. I don't mind them carrying ball up to gain momentum, but once there is a rythm in attack the ball can't keep on going to them, the ball just then move fast.

He will also most likely stick with morne Steyn and that is also a problem, Steyn doesn't have enough vision, he is like the SA version of Donald.

We need Lambie.

He did say we must adapt to the laws, but then again maybe his plan is to keep doing the same thing, trying to outthink other teams at the break down, then we are still predictable.

So I have to see before I will beleive in him.

biltongbek wrote:Leinster I can quite confidently say if Jake White had another four years as coach, we would have had much better results.

Those boys and even the majority of the world cup squad knew him and he knew them. JW would certainly not have taken that long to adjust to the new laws

Yes but JW took a while to settle into the job himself. I'd actually say the Boks are as bad as I've ever seen them under White in the earlier days.

biltongbek wrote:

blackcanelion wrote:I think he's probably under rated. The world cup has an element of luck, the boks exited following a close game against Australia under PDV, and won following a dream draw under White. It's hard to compare the two.

Except for the fact that you are forgetting that those same players were in top form in 2007, irrespective of the lucky packet draw we had and many of them were out of form prior and during the world cup.

They were older and the game moved on. It's not Pdivs fault John Smit used the breakdown to have a rest rather than do some work. Though spose he could have picked Bismark.

And remember Jake White would have never selected Heinrich Brussouw because of his obsession of size.

Leinster, JW won the Trinations in his first year mate.

My money would be on PDV. He has that crazy side which makes him a dangerous opponent in the ring.

The new Bok Coach,is saying we need to adapt to the Laws,to keep up which is
the way to go.But contradicts what happened with the Bulls failure to adapt,also he is keen to pick off land players.
He does`nt say who.also recognizes the different fitness regimes in the NH but still seems keen.Maybe thinking of NH sides players selection when touring NH,as to a common style for S15 sides unlikely.
With the Southern Kings timebomb ticking for 2013,who`s chopped,Sanzar looks like no change to 2015.
2004 3Ns was`nt that the one all 3 SH sides tied and it was decided on bonus points? PDV win was very decisive by contrast.

I just think his comments were fittingly. broad being so early in the piece Keeping doors open is politically correct to use the term positively here for a change.

By saying overseas players arent welcome is just limiting and opens up to attacks from those loyal to the idea. Mind you it also alienates those who don't want them but better to take a positive take on things at this stage.

Once he warms to the job, the players, people etc he'll start to come to conclusions. Internationally he's still fairly new isnt he?

Early days I reckon. Looking forward to it.

emack2 wrote:But contradicts what happened with the Bulls failure to adapt,also he is keen to pick off land players.
He does`nt say who.

With the Southern Kings timebomb ticking for 2013,who`s chopped,Sanzar looks like no change to 2015.

2004 3Ns was`nt that the one all 3 SH sides tied and it was decided on bonus points? PDV win was very decisive by contrast.

Alan, the fact that the Bulls didn't adapt has nothing to do with him, he wasn't there. Frans Ludeke has been the Bulls coach since 2008.

As far as the Southern Kings go, The currie Cup will most likely be used as the qualifier for the top five teams to make the super XV next year.

As far as JW's Tri Nation trophy, it doesn't matter how close it was, we can't keep on negating JW's rugby world cup win with the fact that he had a lucky draw, and then negate his Tri Nation trophy with it was close. That is utter nonsense.

What are we then going to do, negate PDV's tri Nations with excuses of injuries to the all Blacks, and his Lions victory due to lucky kicks. where is it going to end.

The point is JW and PDV's careers have certain similarities I pointed out, and then certain differences.

But at the end of the day, JW built his own squad, won a world cup and had a better win rate than PDV.

What both of them did badly was sacrafice matches, and hopefully Heyneke Meyer will stand by his word of wanting to win every test.

Biltong does any exact same team play the currie cup as the SXV? ie the Lions etc- same being same catchment area or franchise?

In NZ up to 5 or so sides make up each franchise- there are 10 or so South Island sides that make up the Saders and Highlanders even though Otago Southland and Canterbury provide 90% of the players probably.

Not exactly, the Super franchises have agreements with the smaller unions that they can use their players that aren't contracted to them directly. As an example Riaan Viljoen was used by the cheetahs in the super XV last year, but was contracted to Griquas.

But about 90% of the squad are contracted by their actual franchises.

I guess you could say the up and coming players are loaned, and then if they perform they get contracted by the franchises.

These are the feeding provinces for the franchises.

Bulls - Blue Bulls and Falcons
cheetahs - Cheetahs, Griquas and Northern freestate
Lions - Lions, Leopards and Pumas
Sharks - Sharks
Stromers - Western Province and Boland
Southern Kings - Border, Eagles and South western districts.

Sorry Biltong got my wires crossed about the Bulls,thought he was the Bulls Coach for last couple of years.Agree hope he does`nt give any one easy wins,as to 3Ns just thought PDV`s was more decisive not meaning to denigrate either.
Both were in there way very similar Record wise,3% is neither here nor there,GrizzWyllie has better stats than Graham Henry does`nt make him a better or worse coach.
As to Overseas Players we wit and see.maybe he is not thinking of the usual suspects.Even if they seem to want to play for SA under him again.As tothe S15/6 I can see a real barney happening if SA do`nt get there way.
They have promised the Southern Kings a S15 place and panted themselves into a corner.You yourself said the current Conference system gave away to many soft points.It seems this is going to be an example of your description of
them as more of the same.

Alan, I hope after the television rights for the Super XV comes to an end SANZAR realise the conference system is not working as effectively as it should and reduce the teams back to 12. In my opinion that was the best format, simply becuase the tournamnet doesn't threaten the sustainability of the NPC and Currie cup and all the team can play one another.

It is important for SANZAR to realise less is more.

I unders tand they want to increase revenue by playing more games.

But more teams provides lower quality as countries must now spread their talent thinner.

Rather then play a complete round robin home and away have the thing run for six months and find a solution for a shorter Currie Cup and NPC.

I agree 4 really strong franchises is the way to go for each Country,then they could revert to the old Npc/Currie cup system rather than two tier as now.
TV with better revenue would inspire more with a stronger contest,instead of some of the walk overs.Yes 50-10 is great the first time you see it.BUT if you see it week after and you support the weaker sides you walk with your feet.

Too right Biltong. The system is unwholly fair as it stands. As a Crusaders fan, I have to remind that we didn´t get to play the Rebels and Brumbies last year who were cellar dwellers. The Reds got to play them twice. That´s home advantage right there, even though we didn´t have a home...

I agree 4 franchises per country is ideal and they all play one another. SA and NZ could even start a home conference system outside the competition with North vs South in NZ for example that takes the remaining players left out of the franchises but who could be drafted into their home franchise if required due to injuries. Or a Super 16 one year to decide the top 8 and the bottom 8 get two teams battling for promotion and the top bottom two teams battling out against relegation.

Kia, a two tier system is of course in my opinion for a number of reasons the best option.

I would change the qualifying slightly though.

Let's say the current agreement for television rights runs till end 2015.

That means the teams must all know that only the top 8 teams for example will compete in the first tier.

Realistically if it is two tier, it will allow for more teams for two reasons. The top quality teams go into the 1st tier and the other teams into the second tier.

Now financially it will increase gat revenue as well as television rights.

BUT. let the 8 teams play home and away. this will provide the most fair round robin, no team will be able to hide, or his his favourable alternative year to get to the final. It will be same for every one. the whole tournamnet will be over in 20 weeks.

Then New Zealand and SA would probably want something that compromises for the lost opportunity and time for their NPC and Currie Cup. Australia wants to expand as well. Allow each country to add more teams. Lets say SA can in total have 6 teams, New Zealand 6 teams and Australia perhaps a total of 4 teams. Give Argentina the opportunity to add a team, and those 10 teams can play in a single round robin tournament.

The bottom two teams from tier one plays relegation and promotion matches against the top two teams from the second tier.

Even if SANZAR wants to expand it to more than a total of 18 teams, they can. As long as it is kept strength vs strength and the tier one must be home and away round robin.

Let´s make it happen mate.

Maybe SA should tell SANZAR to stick it where the sun don't shine and join Europe. You guys are the main money makers after all.

gowales wrote:Maybe SA should tell SANZAR to stick it where the sun don't shine and join Europe. You guys are the main money makers after all.

It is a bit of a conundrum for us.

Do we walk away from competing against the best other two teams in the world and risk falling behind their methodology ( most ar of the oopinion we are already, whether just at our international level or super franchises as well is debatable)

Do we follow the money, which for many reasons such as travel, time zones etc. is defenitely benecial for us.

Of perhaps we should just get administrators strong enough to handle the Australian and New Zealand administrators who seems to be voting together all the time. Why do we for example agree to share television revenue in equal amount if we bring in 60% odd of it in?