Ken Borland

Ill-equipped leadership is something which really hits a nerve when it comes to South African cricket, largely due to the incompetent and self-serving Board and CEO which the game here had to labour under between 2017 and 2019.

So it was distressing this week to see the new CSA Board suffer their first mis-step, showing the same sort of reactionary leadership of their predecessors rather than the proactive management that is required of a billion rand organisation.

The Proteas have been grappling amongst themselves with issues of a new team culture for these changing times, especially since Black Lives Matter has made such a dramatic impression on the global sports environment. And the anti-racism message of that movement should hit particularly near to home due to the notorious history of our country.

Unfortunately, the team have not been able to come up with a unified response to BLM. It has not been a good look to see some of the team kneeling, others standing; some with fists raised, some with hands by their side.

But the CSA Board has failed to provide strong leadership in this regard. It’s not as if this issue has suddenly sprung upon them. How to properly acknowledge BLM has been a problem for the Proteas for more than a year. A proactive board would have known the spotlight would be on the team at a World Cup and would have ensured proper engagement was held with the squad and a solution found before the tournament. The sort of engagement that happened on Wednesday night once the crisis was already in full swing.

Instead, like a poor captain moving his field around in response to a boundary being hit, CSA chose the ham-fisted route of not consulting and issuing a directive, on the morning of a crucial game.

The national team have had their fill of arrogant administrators having the audacity to run cricket as their own fiefdoms, and the timing of the edict, and the fact that it came out of the blue without any consultation, was bound to cause some push-back.

Quinton de Kock’s initial refusal to take a knee, even though he is a product of a mixed-race family, caused near hysteria in this race-obsessed country of ours. Personally, I believe it is the right thing to take a knee for Black Lives Matter, but what worried me more about De Kock’s actions was that he was willing to leave his team in the lurch, pulling out of a crunch game two hours before the start, because he was very annoyed at being forced to make a gesture.

But many of his critics should perhaps take the beam out of their own eye before they try to remove the speck in De Kock’s eye. How many of them are anti-vaxxers? Because that is a similar issue of personal freedoms versus common good.

How many of those who viciously labelled the 28-year-old as a racist would be willing to make a gesture when it comes to protesting Farm Murders?

Because in many people’s eyes, rightly or wrongly, Black Lives Matter is as politicised an issue as Farm Murders. Just as there surely can be no moral objection to Black lives mattering, surely all farm murders are wrong?

This is where education is so important. CSA should have sat down with the players a long time ago and explained exactly what Black Lives Matter means in a South African context and what exactly the team would be supporting and protesting against should have been thrashed out and finalised.

A neck-and-neck contest such as the 100^th Test between the Springboks and the All Blacks last weekend invariably comes down to decision-making and South Africa forwards coach Deon Davids on Monday admitted that they could have made better choices in the last 10 minutes of the epic encounter in Townsville.

The Springboks were leading 17-16 and their brilliant pressure game continued to produce opportunities for them to close out the game. But unfortunately, front-foot ball, when the momentum was with them, was kicked away too often and the All Blacks were able to counter-attack and earn the penalty which fullback Jodie Barrett slotted to give them a thrilling 19-17 victory.

“We’ve looked in-depth at our game-management in the last 10 minutes. You must remember the players were under tremendous pressure, there was a lot of pressure towards the end and great intensity.

“But we will be the first to say we could maybe have made better decisions at some stages. But things happen and there are different reasons for why things go wrong.

“Sometimes it had to do with communication. A player has to decide what to do in a split-second based on what is in front of him.

“But we will need to learn from it and, based on the quality of players we have, I am sure we will be better this weekend against the All Blacks. We try to paint scenarios based on what we expect and past experience, and the challenge is then for the players to make better decisions,” Davids said.

The 53-year-old former Southern Kings head coach is also a backer of having good mobility in the loose trio when playing New Zealand. Kwagga Smith’s outstanding performance certainly justified his selection in the starting XV, while Siya Kolisi led from the front in a wonderfully defiant performance that suggests the Springboks management will stay with the same balance amongst the loose forwards.

They have a potential problem on the bench though because replacement flank Marco van Staden, who made a real impact when he came on in Townsville, has suffered a shoulder injury. He did not train on Monday and must be considered doubtful for Saturday. Jasper Wiese is the obvious replacement, but is a tighter loose forward than the pacy Van Staden.

“The players bring different strengths and we know Kwagga’s fast over the field, he’s an explosive runner and he has a very high work-rate. Against New Zealand you need players than can give you that.

“Duane Vermeulen and Siya are both ball-carriers, lineout options and they play well in the wide channels. So it’s a combination that can deal well with our plan and what the opposition will bring.

“In terms of selection, we lost the game in the last minute but it’s a different situation if you win. We will be asking questions over what is necessary to get a good result on Saturday and in terms of what we are building towards.

“We are excited to get another chance to put it right and we are proud of the players because they implemented the plan very well, but we lost a nailbiting match,” Davids said.

Apart from blood, guts and glory, and enormous set-piece prowess, the Springboks could not bring enough to the table with ball in hand, leading to a gripping 19-17 defeat at the hands of the All Blacks in an epic 100^th Test between the two great rivals at Townsville on Saturday.

The Springboks were superb in playing their trademark pressure game. The scrum was dominant and their lineout was majestic, reducing the All Blacks jumpers to just standing and watching. When New Zealand had the ball, they were harried and bashed by a feisty defence, with the Springboks also causing the Rugby Championship winners big problems at the breakdown as well.

But pressure is meant to create opportunities to score and, apart from four penalties by Handre Pollard and a gifted try to Sbu Nkosi after a dropped kick, South Africa did no show enough intent with ball-in-hand. In fact, on a couple of occasions they had front-foot ball, in control of the game, on the New Zealand 22, and they chose to turn possession into a 50/50 contest by launching bizarre up-and-unders.

The strategy of kicking everything away cost them in the end as, after Pollard had given them a 17-16 lead going into the last 10 minutes, a frazzled All Blacks side began to get desperate and coughed up more ball. Which the Springboks kicked straight back to them.

Eventually it was a brilliant angled, long-range penalty by fullback Jordie Barrett that snatched the spoils for New Zealand with just two minutes remaining.

The All Blacks started the match in chilling fashion as, with not much on for them in their own half, hooker Codie Taylor stepped superbly and burst clear and one pass later wing Will Jordan was racing over for the try.

But as much as they tried to up the tempo, speed the game up and stretch the defence, the Springboks managed to drag them back into slow-mo rugby through sheer bloodymindedness. Siya Kolisi was immense as a harrying presence and Kwagga Smith was tremendous at the breakdown.

The kicking game tested the wits of the All Blacks three and, apart from Barrett, they did not look secure. But the Springboks were not smart enough to then capitalise on the turnover balls presented.

Their supporters were left praising an incredibly brave, stout effort, but also mourning what should have been if they had just backed themselves with the ball-in-hand a little more.

Scorers

New Zealand – Try: Will Jordan. Conversion: Jordie Barrett. Penalties: Barrett (4).

South Africa – Try: Sbu Nkosi. Penalties: Handre Pollard (4).

Given the great rivalry that exists between the two teams, it would be stupid not to expect the Springboks to find some extra motivation against the All Blacks in Townsville on Saturday, especially since it is the 100^th Test between the only two sides to have won the World Cup three times, but South Africa’s veteran eighthman Duane Vermeulen said on Tuesday that he was approaching the milestone fixture as just another international.

Given their unfocused displays in the last two matches against the Wallabies and Vermeulen’s slow return to full fitness after ankle surgery, it is understandable that the 35-year-old does not want to be distracted by any of the fanfare this week.

“We will take it as just another Test match; yes, it’s the 100^th match against the All Blacks, but we want to compete in the Rugby Championship and try and still win that competition. We are playing New Zealand and we will go out and give it our best whatever the occasion; the fact that it is the 100^th Test is for the people who write books.

“We can only talk about the ‘now’, the past has gone but we just want to improve on last week. New Zealand play a whole different style of rugby to Australia and we have got to prepare accordingly,” Vermeulen said.

Since the first Test between the teams – coincidentally also 100 years ago on 13 August 1921 in Dunedin (NZ won 13-5), the All Blacks have won 59 times and South Africa have 36 wins, with four matches drawn. But since the return from isolation in 1992, the Springboks have only won 16 of 62 Tests.

Nevertheless, South Africa are still New Zealand’s greatest rivals with the highest winning percentage (36.4%) against them of all opposition. Due to the travel restrictions imposed by Covid, this match is being played in north-eastern Queensland. The Springboks and All Blacks have met at a neutral venue on four occasions, all of them during World Cups, and South Africa’s only win came in Cardiff in 1999, 22-18.

South Africa need to beat New Zealand in successive matches for the first time since winning three in a row in 2009 to regain the Freedom Cup, which the All Blacks took off them in 2010.

Brodie Retallick, the talismanic New Zealand second-rower who has never lost to the Springboks, said his team are certainly embracing the history of the occasion.

“You can’t underestimate them. We’ve talked about the fact that it’s the 100^th Test between the two nations and they are the World Cup champions, it’s the first time the All Blacks have played a World Cup champion in a long time. So we’re going out there to give it our best shot and hopefully take it to them.

“Where they’ve caught us the last couple of times, when they did, was through their line-speed defensively. They’ve outmuscled us and we haven’t been able to break them down through our attack and then they’ve punished us. So physically, you’ve always got the set-piece battle but you also have to deal with their line-speed,” Retallick said.