Urgent need to find a Springbok game plan

Act now, or be embarrassed witnesses of a doomed 2011 Rugby World Cup campaign. These are the options available to the South African Rugby Union (Saru) after the Springboks stumbled to defeat against the number-8 ranked team in the world, Scotland.

Ollie le Roux, a former Springbok prop, told Business Day that players perform as well as they are coached. “And we have too much talent in the team to play that badly. Peter (de Villiers) and his entire management team, including the technical staff, have to take responsibility for the team’s performance,” he said.

“Saru needs to admit that it made a mistake, fire De Villiers and find someone else to coach the team because with Peter there we won’t win the World Cup.”

Cast your thoughts back eight years. In 2002 the Boks lost to the Scots with Rudolf Straeuli as coach. Saru did nothing, and did not even act after the South African team were comprehensively outplayed and humiliated (3-53) by England at Twickenham.

It is history now that New Zealand inflicted defeat upon the Boks in the quarter-finals of the Rugby World Cup in 2003, beating them comprehensively by 29-9.

Saru never acted when it was clear that Straeuli did not possess the game-plan, the vision or a new strategy to revitalise South Africa.

The Scottish team was woeful against New Zealand, losing 3-49 to the All Blacks. On Saturday, they played with greater accuracy and discipline than the Boks. Sure, Stuart Dickinson was below par as the referee, but South Africa’s game-plan was as atrocious as Dickinson’s application of the rules.

Afterwards Victor Matfield lamented the wet-weather conditions, saying: “It is a tough one. Everybody is putting us under pressure to play more expansively, but the weather did not allow us to. You can’ play too much rugby in the wet.”

He is right. South Africa did not play too much rugby in the wet. Scotland should be credited for most of the rugby that was played.

South Africa made too many errors and relied on the high kicking to give away possession, like they did on numerous previous occasions during the Vodacom Tri-Nations.

This was supposed to be a tour on which the Boks would evolve their tactical approach, but nothing has happened.

England’s technical director won’t need to spend too much time with the England team to assess the Boks’ tactical approach to the game at Twickenham on Saturday. That meeting should not last beyond 10 minutes, instead of an hour.

The Boks will take the ball through a few phases at the start of the game, and Ruan Pienaar or Francois Hougaard will then use the high kicks in a doomed attempt to unsettle England’s back three.

England will graciously accept the Boks’ offering and run at them for the next 10 minutes, putting the tired legs of Jean de Villiers, Francois Steyn, Gio Aplon, Matfield, the Du Plessis brothers, Juan Smith and Pienaar or Hougaard under enormous pressure.

England will most probably win it, and De Villiers will manufacture a new excuse or blame the referee.

Dickinson awarded seven straight penalties to the Scottish team on Saturday from the 15th to the 30th minute of the game. It was during this period that the Springboks lost their composure and momentum. They never regained it.

But the question must be asked why the Boks did not try a Plan B, C or D on the resumption.

Le Roux said: “In the wet weather we needed to play typical Test rugby where your flyhalf kicks for the corners and the forwards drive and smash the opposition up front.”

The Boks never tried that route. With their up-and-unders, they indirectly repossessed the opposition. Kicking for the corner flags and pressure by the wings would have forced the Scots to kick for touch and offer the Boks another opportunity at the lineouts to use one of their few strengths, their ability to gain yards through the rolling maul from that phase of play.

South Africa’s dream of a Grand Slam is no longer. But they could still avert a Grand flop by beating England and accounting for the Barbarians, also at Twickenham.

They can do it by opting for a game-plan better suited for their heavyweight pack.

If they don’t change their dreaded game-plan they won’t change their destiny, and defeat against England might be on the cards.

This England team specialises in turn-overs and the superb long-distance solo effort against the Wallabies which set up the 35-18 defeat of Oz was an example of the type of rugby of which they are capable.

If De Villiers and his troops use the same plan that failed so miserably against Scotland, the South African coach must prepare himself for another review when he returns home. But history might repeat itself.

Saru will probably fail to act, as was the case eight years ago with Straeuli, with disastrous consequences 10 months from now.