Ken Borland

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.

As we have seen so often in rugby, making changes to long-standing rules of the game almost invariably brings unexpected consequences and there has been a lot of talk recently about doing away with one of cricket’s most famous traditions, a move which I believe will boomerang badly on the sport.

South African captain Faf du Plessis was the latest to bring up doing away with the toss, although his beliefs lost some credibility because they came straight after the Proteas had been mauled in their two Tests in Sri Lanka.

Various high-profile Australians have also backed the ending of the toss, but again, these comments were mostly made after they had lost the Ashes in England.

Proponents of the eradication of the toss propose that the visiting team just gets to choose whether they want to bat or bowl, thereby supposedly removing home advantage, which the anti-toss advocates say has become a major problem in world cricket.

Happily, a couple of months ago the ICC Cricket Committee discussed doing away with the toss and decided that it was an integral part of the game and should be spared.

No doubt they had a better grasp of the actual facts surrounding the issue. Home ground advantage has always played a role in cricket, as it does in just about every sport, but winning or losing the toss actually does not have a major effect.

In this decade, the team winning the toss still only wins 43.78% of Test matches, so it is not a massive advantage. There is a slight benefit because only 35.13% of teams that lose the toss go on to win the match. Historically, Australia are the only side that wins more than 50% of the Tests in which they have won the toss, and even then it’s just 50.49%, only slightly higher than their overall success rate of 47.16%.

I believe giving the visiting team total control over what they do first would have a major bearing on the game, which is where the unintended consequences come in, especially in countries like India or New Zealand.

It’s fair to say the weather is out of the control of the people who prepare the pitches in those countries and they can only do so much to negate the effect of overhead conditions. Doing away with the toss would grossly undermine teams like India and New Zealand – in the heat of the sub-continent, dry, dusty, deteriorating pitches are almost inevitable and India would be batting second every time; conversely, New Zealand is usually pretty damp and overcast and the Black Caps would find themselves sent in to bat every time.

It would happen often in England as well that the home team would automatically have to bat at the most difficult time and it could also affect the Proteas at home.

What it boils down to is the ICC actually using the mechanisms they already have in place to ensure fair conditions – they already have rules in the playing conditions when it comes to unfair pitches and they just need to enforce them more diligently, especially when it comes to the sub-continent and even some South African green mambas.

The perception that away teams are struggling does have some basis in fact. In this decade, the visiting team has lost 51.75% of Tests, up from 46.40% in the 2000s. It is interesting, though, that the away team has been winning Tests in the last 20 years at pretty much the same rate as they have been doing through the history of the game.

It is, of course, the number of away draws that has dropped significantly in recent times; down from 47.31% of Tests in the 1960s to just 20.76% in this decade. That is obviously a positive but it also points to the rise of T20 cricket and batsmen being able to hit the ball but not defend against the turning, seaming or swinging delivery.

The problem is not the toss, it’s modern-day batsmen being ill-prepared for foreign conditions, and sometimes the ICC allows the home union to get away with cheap shots in terms of pitch preparation.