25 November 2002

Boy oh boy … I feared something like this might happen, but never allowed myself to believe it really would. England 53, South Africa 3. A thrashing, a humiliation … torture for a Springbok fan! After record losses to France and Scotland, it got even worse as South Africa suffered its worst ever defeat in a rugby Test.

Here are some of my thoughts after the gloomiest day in South African rugby history.

Previously the Boks had given up more than 50 points only once, but on that occasion they did at least score quite a few themselves in a 55-35 loss to New Zealand.

The most terrible thing about the record loss at Twickenham was, for me, the inevitability that England would score and keep on scoring. It wasn’t as if the men in white would enjoy a purple patch and then be held out by South Africa’s traditional defensive ferocity. It was a rout, plain and simple.

The Boks were decent early on, but after lock Jannes Labuschagne was sent off England, to their credit, exploited the 14-man Springbok defence with precision.

Thuggery costs Boks
Labuschagne deserves villain status for being given his marching orders after a late shoulder charge on England flyhalf Johnny Wilkinson, yet I believe two other Springboks contributed to his red card, and their names are familiar ones when ill-discipline is discussed: James Dalton and Robbie Fleck.

Early on in the game Dalton was called over by referee Paddy O’Brien, along with England scrumhalf Matt Dawson, after the pair were involved in a tussle on the ground. Slow motion replays of the incident appeared to show that Dalton was the instigator. A little later Robbie Fleck threw a punch at England winger Ben Cohen who, to his credit, never retaliated. The referee once again had a word with the players.

Now, had Labuschagne’s stupid charge been the first indiscretion by the Boks, he might have got away with a yellow card from Mr O’Brien, but seeing as Dalton and Fleck, as always, felt the need to get their licks in early on, South Africa had already received sufficient warning that foul play would not be tolerated and the second-rower was sent off.

That is part of the problem I have with South African rugby; we are sometimes incredibly slow to learn from our mistakes. To my mind, neither Fleck nor Dalton are going to stop making dangerous tackles or throwing stupid fists or elbows because they have been doing so for so long with nothing ever done about it.

South African rugby needs players capable of keeping their heads. At the top level, players need to think clearly to execute a game plan; giving away penalties and earning warnings and cards does not help the Springboks in any way whatsoever. The pity of Labuschagne’s red card is that it happened to him and not to one of the usual suspects.

Some people expound the idea that South Africa should return to its traditional strength and win games by dominating up front. That is laughable. The game is fully professional, players no longer have to juggle playing rugby with earning a living, and northern hemisphere players are every bit as big and physical as southern hemisphere players.

It needs much more to win at the top level today than being more physical than the opposition. One could argue that the Boks were in fact more physical than England in their 53-3 hiding at Twickenham. England coach Clive Woodward thought the South African tactics were dirty, and going on the result these tactics were not very effective.

Mallett's views
Former Bok coach Nick Mallett had a go at South Africa's rugby administrators after the record loss, and I believe the outspoken Mallett made some excellent points. Writing in The Sunday Telegraph, he laid the blame firmly at the feet of the men running South African rugby.

Mallett said he submitted a plan in 1998, when he was coach of the Springboks, charting the way forward for South African rugby. “Much like (England coach) Clive Woodward has in place now”, he said.

The present coach of Stade Francaise added: "Power had to be taken away from the provincial presidents; private enterprise needed to come into the Super 12 franchises; the national coach needed a say on the whole coaching structure, and a development coach needed to come in.

"It was voted out by all the presidents of the provinces", Mallett continued. "Since the 1995 World Cup the politicians have been patting themselves on the back and letting the game slip away. Now it has come to this."

I see a professional, business-type approach behind Mallett’s ideas, and surely that is what rugby is about today. Players are professionals, it's a big money sport, but in South Africa administrators have in many instances been slow to embrace this vision.

Another area Mallett identified as a problem is that of finances. The British pound has lured a fair number of players from South Africa to the UK, and Mallett believes that some of the players plying their trade in Britain could make a difference to the Springbok team. However, the policy of the South African Rugby Football Union (Sarfu) is that no player playing rugby outside of South Africa should be considered for the Springboks.

Lack of new ideas
More interesting, though, is another point made by Mallett. Sarfu maintains that only South African-born coaches be appointed at provincial level. This, however, means that “there is not the cross-pollination of ideas that takes place in Britain.”

I couldn’t agree more. The biggest improvement in northern hemisphere rugby, I believe, has not come from the players themselves, but from the coaching those players have received.

There is no doubt that five years ago there was a considerable gap between the southern hemisphere superpowers and the northern hemisphere’s top sides, but that superiority no longer exists. Why? Because the northern hemisphere has enjoyed an influx of top coaches from the southern hemisphere, which has helped the north to improve at a rapid rate while countries such as South Africa have stagnated.

For years now I have also felt that the administrators do the players no favours by sending them on a tough overseas tour into the northern hemisphere winter. The tours have taken place in late October/early November after a year that begins in January (the first Super 12 matches take place in February). By the time the end of year tours come round, the players have taken part in the Super 12, the Tri-Nations competition and the Bankfin Currie Cup. They cannot be expected to be at their peak after 10 to 11 months of hard, physical rugby.

For the good of South African rugby, a limit has to be set on the number of matches a Springbok can play in a season.

Good administration vital
Mark my words, administration is of vital importance to the success of professional sports teams. I have two favourite examples I like to name, one from the world of cricket and one from rugby.

Free State cricket was for many years mediocre, with the province campaigning in the B Section of the then Currie Cup. When the administrators finally got together and put a plan in motion to improve the game by building a new stadium, employing an excellent manager and looking after the players and the game, the province improved in leaps and bounds. In no time the Free State had won a number of one-day and four-day titles, and today they remain in the upper echelons of South African provincial cricket.

Natal was for many years one of the better teams in the B Section of rugby’s Currie Cup, but that was the limit of their success. When some far-sighted and ambitious administrators decided to do something about Natal rugby’s status, their vision resulted in a superb rugby stadium, a powerful team that has been a regular challenger for the Currie Cup title since 1990, and consistently large crowds at Sharks games.

Sarfu, unfortunately, is run on a reaction basis. When something happens, Sarfu reacts to it; the organisation is not pro-active, and its dealings with the players have in the recent past often been tinged with animosity. How unfortunate, because the players are the biggest asset that Sarfu has at its disposal.

Successful teams mean greater support, and success also means there is more money to go around to more people at all levels of rugby. Where is the big plan, the vision to ensure that South African rugby becomes a consistent challenger for the number one position in the game? There are enough players and there is enough passion and sponsorship for rugby to make this happen, but the foresight is lacking.

It is time that administrators worked selflessly for South African rugby and stopped serving their own interests. The sport needs people with vision that view the Springboks as the most important team in the country, followed by the provinces.

With that focus, I believe we can again scale the heights achieved by the 1995 World Cup winning team and Gary Teichmann’s record-breaking side of 1997/98. It is, however, going to require a team effort from everyone - administrators, players and supporters.

In the meantime I will continue trying to digest that 53-3 humiliation while retaining some hope of a brighter future ...

	Paris 1999, Rugby World Cup: A defeated England team walks off the field as the Springboks triumph 44 -21. That days feels very far in the past now.

	South African Rugby Football Union  Planet Rugby  Super Rugby  International Rugby Board  Rugby Football Union (England)