Ken Borland

Springbok coach Heyneke Meyer returns to South Africa this morning and will face the press after a disappointing end to their World Cup campaign; my question to him would be “Why do you think you deserve to continue in your post, what progress has been made over the last four years?”

In my opinion, there has been no real progress. There is no meaningful silverware to show, the good results have been cancelled out by some truly awful results, a world ranking of three is nothing to shout about, and, as clearly shown in the dour win over Argentina in the third-place playoff, Meyer cannot even say the game plan has evolved under his watch. And he continues to cause outrage when it comes to transformation – his treatment of Rudi Paige, Lwazi Mvovo and Siya Kolisi showing that he just doesn’t get it when it comes to that vital issue.

Meyer is an honourable man, as passionate as anyone when it comes to Springbok rugby, and he says he wants to be part of the solution that will fix the problems. But in my eyes he is part of the problem; his emotional excesses and fear of losing rub off on the team. The Springboks have not shown the ability to adapt to what is happening on the field, they are too stuck in a rigid game plan.

Watching New Zealand deservedly win the World Cup final clearly showed the direction the Springboks should be going. The All Blacks are peerless when it comes to vision and adaptability on the rugby field and it was surely destiny that Dan Carter would be man of the match in winning the World Cup final.

Meyer seemed to be heading in the right direction in 2013 and 2014 when he tried a more up-tempo, ball-in-hand approach; two epic Tests against the All Blacks resulted and Ellis Park was sold out as she hosted two of the best games of rugby I have witnessed.

But the coach failed to build on those performances, losing his nerve in this World Cup year and retreating back into a conservative, unambitious game plan that was easy to counter. Losing to Japan was bad enough, but the Springboks had the added ignominy of being called “anti-rugby” and being as boring as Argentina were when they first joined the Rugby Championship in 2012.

The fact that his team struggled to beat an Argentina side missing nine first-choice players last weekend rams home that Meyer has not added anything to the Springboks. Replacing him at the helm of a team that clearly needs renewing, especially in terms of strategy, is the only sensible option because Meyer has shown that he cannot take the team forward.

On a positive note, a big high-five to the England Rugby Union for hosting a top-class World Cup. A pleasing feature of the tournament was the improvement shown by the minnows: apart from Japan’s incredible heroics, there were also no massive hidings as rugby showed it is a truly global game.

Even the referees, who are under the harshest lens, stepped up and, barring one or two mishaps, the officiating was of a high standard, helped by a greater reliance on the TMO.

SuperRugby completes the first month of its 2015 season this weekend and it’s not surprising, given the generally low standard of officiating, that the referees and their assistants have been in the spotlight this week.

There has been furious debate about whether the laws of the game were correctly applied at Loftus Versfeld last weekend when the Bulls beat the Sharks; and there is uproar steadily building as well over referee Nick Briant’s performance yesterday in Hamilton, especially towards the end of the Highlanders’ shock win over the Chiefs.

The Loftus Versfeld furore was mostly about Law 12 – the knock-on or throw forward, but perhaps the way to avoid these controversies that do serious damage to the game (nobody wants to watch a sport where the officials decide the outcome rather than the athletes) is to go to Law 6.

This law is about the Match Officials, but nowhere does it say they have to be competent!

In the white-hot arena of top-class rugby, mistakes will inevitably happen and nobody should crucify referees over those. But when a person sitting in a box in the stands gets several replays of an incident and still can’t make the correct decision, then questions need to be asked. The problem is that officials are way above the law and there is no accountability; their decisions never have to be explained. It’s a prime breeding ground for matchfixing, but WorldRugby is in denial of that as well.

The forward pass incident at Loftus has been dressed up as a technical issue involving the direction of the hands being obscured at the time of Jesse Kriel’s pass. TMO Johan Greeff believed the evidence was inconclusive, never mind the ball clearly travelling metres forward on its way to Francois Hougaard. It was such an obvious forward pass that most people picked it up while watching the game live.

If TMOs are going to be seen to have made the correct decision, which is the whole point of having them, then they are going to have to ditch this whole obsession with which direction the hands were going at the time of the pass. None of that technical mumbo jumbo, nothing about gravity or momentum, is even mentioned in the laws of rugby.

Obviously momentum is going to cause a ball to drift forward if the player who passes it is running, but this cannot result in the sort of forward pass Kriel threw to Hougaard.

“A throw forward occurs when a player throws or passes the ball forward. ‘Forward’ means towards the opposing team’s dead ball line,” is all Law 12 states. It’s simple but for several years now officials have conspired to complicate the whole issue with all this talk of “the direction of the hands”.

While they are at it, the lawmakers should also make the ruck laws simpler because, as things stand in this era of “interpretation”, the World Cup final is probably going to be decided by who the referee is.

It cannot be good for the game that the Bulls can have a referee one week (Andrew Lees) who barely blew anything at the ruck and the next week be officiated by somebody who blows to the letter of the law.

Nobody wants to have a game dominated by the officials, but they currently have way too much influence on the result and spectators have started to desert rugby as a result.

Although it was undoubtedly a valiant effort by the Springboks, they can’t feel hard done by after their exit from the World Cup at the hands of the All Blacks in their semi-final at Twickenham over the weekend.

It is often said that you can’t play rugby without the ball and that is also true of territory: against top defensive patterns like New Zealand have, you’re not going to be causing many problems if you’re playing from your own half all the time.

South Africa only had 33% territory against the All Blacks – in other words two-thirds of the game was played in their own half. We saw magnificent defence from the Springboks, but we didn’t see anything else. As predicted before the game, they could only offer one-off ball-carriers, strong as they were, and no variety to their attacking play.

Much of the territory problems came down to poor exit strategies. When your scrumhalf is chiefly responsible for clearing your lines via a box-kick from the base – which by its very nature is going to be a higher, shorter kick – then you’re not going to be gaining as much ground compared to when your flyhalf, with a bit more space, can fire a long, raking touchfinder off after a couple of phases. It’s become a bugbear of mine, but Handre Pollard has a massive boot, why wasn’t it used more to drive the All Blacks back?!

The Springboks were hoping that their physicality would wear down the All Blacks, but that’s not going to happen when the opposition can match you physically and is better conditioned. In fact, it is the defending champions who did all of the wearing down, because they constantly asked different questions of the defence, as Nick Mallett pointed out.

“The All Blacks tried to attack in a variety of ways – they had Julian Savea coming off his wing, they played off nine, then they tried going to the backs with Conrad Smith and Ma’a Nonu carrying the ball, then they went to pick-and-goes and they even tried grubbers. They kept on trying different things, which keeps the pressure on the defence. They don’t just have one game plan, they have a whole variety of attacking options and we were beaten by a better team. We were lucky it was a very wet day,” Mallett said on SuperSport after the game.

There is understandably some negativity around South African rugby at the moment, but I believe our glasses aren’t just half-full of talent, they are full to overflowing, as shown by some of the wonderful Currie Cup rugby produced by the Lions, Western Province and Blue Bulls.

Experienced, visionary coaches are a bit thinner on the ground, but appointing Heyneke Meyer as Springbok coach again is not going to take our rugby forward. The high-intensity, ball-in-hand game plan which Meyer flirted with and then ditched is the way forward, but he clearly does not believe in it and/or cannot coach it.

Two of the most promising young coaches in the country, Nollis Marais of the Bulls and John Dobson of Western Province, have both gone on record in the last couple of weeks as saying the Lions’ brand of rugby, which is all about laying a platform up front and then using the ball while playing what is in front of you, is the way forward.

Lady Luck is a fickle mistress in the arena of top-level sport, but she seldom favours the team that isn’t willing to try anything; the team that hardly plays any rugby at all.