Many Springbok supporters are baying for blood after another disappointing Tri-Nations defeat and Peter de Villiers is the prime target. In many ways this is how it should be. The coach must shoulder most of the responsibility for the defeat, but personally I think the players are wasting an opportunity to go to the next level and show why they're world champions.For those who believe we've already reached a higher level, by winning the World Cup, remember we did so by playing a style of rugby that won't hold up under the new law var! iations and really didn't showcase all the skills our players possess. But the question of style is subjective, with almost all coaches adding their philosophies to the basics of the game.
Peter de Villiers believes South Africa has the best talent in world rugby and it's for this reason that he believes the Springboks can play a style of rugby more suited to skillful, creative, experienced and confident players. The players are professionals and must adapt. It's wrong to think that South Africa can only play a certain style of rugby.
Style however is different to tactics and even the most free-flowing teams must have a clear game-plan to outwit and outscore the opposition. This is where many critics say de Villiers has failed, even those who support his ideals for an expansive game. Maybe Robbie Deans and Graham Henry have out-witted our coach this year or maybe their teams are playing with a greater desire to win.
Read ! carefully now…Tactically, the Boks were superior on Saturday. ! I know t hat sounds impossible, as we failed to score in the first half and lost the match, but that's the way I saw it. The game-plan and tactics got us to the Wallaby try-line on numerous occasions, especially in the first half, when we should've scored and started building the momentum. Tactics, style and a game-plan didn't fail us then, it was errors combined with tough Aussie defense that cost us. Our players just were not up to it when it mattered.
Contrary to the popular view (it seems), de Villiers is not incompetent. You don't beat the All Blacks in New Zealand by luck or without some form of tactical ability. The new coach is a rookie and that's not saying he's out of his depth. But Aussie Deans is also a rookie. So what's the difference?
I think Deans is a brilliant coach, whose ability has been proven at the Crusaders, a team that seemed to thrive with the introduction of the ELV's. De Villiers does not have the same Super 14 experience, but has inhe! rited a world cup winning team. Is he expected to win everything as because of that? Maybe that statement would've rung true if Jake White stayed in charge, the rules did not change and the Wallabies and All Blacks did not improve, but White has left and de Villiers is a different coach with a very different philosophy.
Some say it looks like he's coaching the team to fail at the moment, but I applaud his bravery to try and improve on a winning formula. 'If it ain't broke, don't fix it' is not the thinking that will make the Boks a better team.
White's team was brilliant last year and would've beaten New Zealand and Australia if needed to at the World Cup, but the players were not pushed to test their limits and express themselves on the field. I think de Villiers is the right man for the job considering we won't be the best in 2011 if we dig in our heels and stick to a dated style of play. The players need to genuinely buy into the coach's philosophy ! if they are to be successful and de Villiers must ensure that ! he regai ns the trust of the team and the nation.
