Ken Borland

I had great expectations for the new-look Springboks last weekend against Wales and I thought a young and energetic team under a fresh coaching staff would play with real vigour and physicality. So it was a surprise to see them play so ponderously and under pressure they seemed scared to take the initiative and impose themselves on the Welsh.

It was strange to see a guy like Ivan van Zyl, who at the Bulls is always keen to move the ball, to keep the flow going, suddenly slow the whole game down. He normally plays an up-tempo passing game, so why did he become a box-kicking player in one week?

To offer some perspective though, it was a difficult away Test and it was obviously just a money-making venture to send them all the way to Washington. It was the  Springboks’ choice  to have only one training session in Washington, and a captain’s run and then play. An international coach has a lot of time for planning and preparation, with Rassie Erasmus resigning from Munster in November,  they had those alignment camps, but they chose not to have training camps which possibly came back to bite them in hindsight.

The conditions were the same for both sides, the Springboks really needed to play a lot more adventurously. Obviously Wales also did a lot of kicking, but whenever the Springboks fielded the ball they tended to slow things down, a whole line of forwards involved in the ruck very slowly setting up the box-kick, and it meant there was no width to the chase. That whole set-up tactic also gives time for the opposition to drop men back to deal with the kick they know is coming because there is no attacking shape, and it’s made easier for them because the chase is so narrow, the Springboks exposing themselves out wide. The big problem for the Springboks was that Wales were able to deal with their kicks and showed more adventure; they were able to put in attacking kicks on the open wing, regain possession and put more pressure on the Boks.

On the positive side, the Springbok set-pieces were good, they scrummed well and were able to get their own lineout ball well, forming the driving maul easily and quickly. Marvin Orie also had the measure of the Wales lineout at the end of the game and was able to steal some crucial balls.

The defence was not up to scratch according to Erasmus, but I didn’t think it was too bad, they had good line-speed when they were set and generally kept the attack from getting gainline and momentum. There are things that they need to put in place better, but they’ve got time now ahead of the first Test against England.

The first try conceded was because of the ball just squirting out at a ruck, while the scrumhalf try after that came after a very poor kick-chase and there was a blocker in the line who took out our props. I don’t understand why they are front-line on a chase, you don’t want to expose them to wings or fullbacks. The Springboks then did not get set in the pillar area, they were moving outwards at pillar two when Tomos Williams broke, which is a basic error.

Obviously they regrouped at halftime and the Springboks’ line-speed forced an error and Travis Ismaiel’s intercept try brought them back in the game. Having been 14-3 down, they did well to get back into it.

But then came the last try conceded by the unfortunate Robert du Preez. One had to ask where the blockers/screen were around the ruck? There was massive space left which enabled Wales to come through easily and put pressure on the replacement flyhalf. Two chargedowns in a passage of play will definitely lead to a try at this level.

While Du Preez had his problems at the end, I also didn’t feel Elton Jantjies controlled the game that well. Van Zyl also did most of the kicking and I think it was probably an instruction for them to kick from scrumhalf because that’s what worked for Rassie at Munster, but then he did have Conor Murray, the best scrumhalf in the world!

Apart from the Springbok scrum being good, they were also very flat and direct on attack from the scrum and they went hard over the gain-line. Jantjies did a lot of this too, but then that means the flyhalf is on the floor for the next two rucks and by the time he is back up on his feet he has static ball, which is why Elton used the outlet of a kick-pass so often. No flyhalf enjoys not having quick ball because that’s when the defence dictates and rushes, and a static flyhalf easily has his wide runners picked off.

The Springboks now need to get back to their best quickly for the England series, which everyone is really looking forward to. It certainly is interesting, as it always is with Eddie Jones and his words off the field. He’s under pressure and deflecting from the fact that England have lost their last four games, which is quite a run and includes their worst ever loss at Twickenham, against the Barbarians in their last outing. They are coming in with no confidence and they rarely win in South Africa – three wins in 13 Tests – so Eddie could be staring down the barrel of seven successive defeats if the Boks hit their straps.

The Springboks are also under pressure though because a world ranking of seven is certainly not where a side with the strength and rugby culture of South Africa wants to be. But it will be a completely different game to Erasmus’s first one in charge, playing at altitude at Ellis Park, which is a super-quick, big field with quick ball.

It’s a bit strange that England have gone to Durban to prepare and have not come straight to altitude. Maybe they wanted to escape winter on the Highveld, but they are definitely going to feel it at the back end of the game and they will need a strong bench to cope. At altitude you have to use 23 players.

I am looking forward to seeing Willie le Roux back at fullback, and with Handre Pollard at flyhalf it means the Springboks have left and right-footed kickers. Willie is tremendous at seeing things on the field, he has great vision in terms of spotting space, and chips and other little kicks -plus he’s lightning quick -to exploit it. He’s also very safe under the high ball.

John McFarland was the Springbok defence coach from 2012 through to the 2015 World Cup, where they conceded the least line-breaks in the tournament and an average of just one try per game. He won three SuperRugby titles (2007, 09, 10) with the Bulls and five Currie Cup crowns with the Blue Bulls as their defence coach. In all, he won 28 trophies during his 12 years at Loftus Versfeld.

He is currently the assistant coach of the Kubota Spears in Japan.

It’s been a really poor year for the Springboks under any circumstances and nobody can hide from that, but now is the time for true leadership.

It is in times of adversity that true leadership is shown and it is time for the South African Rugby Union to bring the Springboks we all love and cherish back to their rightful place in world rugby.

They need to decide either to change direction, replace Allister Coetzee and start afresh; or back him and give him his own coaching staff going forward, allowing him to put his own stamp on the team. If they back him then they have to give him what he wants going forward.

If they decide to change direction, then they must have someone new appointed by February. The national coach needs a little time to get his systems in place and the skills program has to be continued through the year and monitored.

As for 2016, there were many changes in game plan, that was quite obvious, so I feel for the players. They also had so many different defence coaches, who would all have different ideas.

There was never any clarity on the way forward in 2016, there was very little continuity, especially in defence, which makes up 50% of the game. The biggest mistake was changing defence coaches all the time.

And then you look at the rumoured national U20 coaches, none of them have coached at the really sharp end of rugby before, even at Currie Cup U19 or U21 level. Why not appoint someone with SuperRugby experience? You need to make strong appointments in these areas, because that is the start of the Springbok pipeline, you need quality coaches at all levels. Why not appoint someone with real experience and clout and give him a four-year contract?

SA Rugby needs to put their hands up, who will take responsibility for these decisions? Where has been the leadership off the field in this time of great uncertainty in Springbok rugby? New president Mark Alexander has spoken a lot, so credit to him, but also shouldn’t the leader of Saru, who is involved in all these decisions, back his decisions?

Compare that to the situation with English Rugby Football Union CEO Ian Ritchie and Stuart Lancaster, who is an excellent coach, but Ian had the unpleasant task of firing him. He said they have to get their ship going in the right direction and they have to do what they have to do, so they appointed Eddie Jones and allowed him to choose his own assistants and management team.

I see now that Saru’s exco will have responsibility for all decisions related to rugby. It will really come down to them making the right decisions going forward.

Someone like Richie Gray, who is at the forefront of his craft, was let go and he’s now the fulltime breakdown coach for Scotland. It’s a big loss for the Springboks and you can see how well Scotland did in the November series of Tests, you can see the impact he made.

The breakdown is not just about stopping tries but also creating them because 50% of all tries are scored from turnover ball and unstructured play. So it’s about how you win the ball at the breakdown and use it.

For South African rugby, the principle thing to get right is where the money should go. You can have all the marketing you want and great structures within your company, but if your major rugby team is not successful then it all falls down. You can’t attract sponsors just to start with. The Springboks should be their major spend, they need to get that right.

In any core rugby business, the spend of budget on the team and management is normally 60%. The question must be asked: Has 60% of the budget been spent on getting the Springboks right this year and moving forward?

They’ve got the money, more than enough, their turnover is R1 billion which is a very large amount of money in any corporate business, but they haven’t shown the vision and necessary expertise in spending that money widely on the rugby front. Questions need to be asked.

There are also more than enough quality players and experienced coaches in South Africa, but most of the things that were said in the recent indaba, the previous Springbok management have said for four years – things like kicking execution, high-ball and breakdown work.

So Saru need to spend money and employ coaches to fix it and they need to work around the franchises. The franchises are very open to information-sharing and always backed the national process and way. The thing is that national coaches have to be seen around the franchises, making themselves freely available to help when and where needed.

South African rugby needs a director of rugby who is high-quality and there are enough candidates in South Africa, who have a proven record when it comes to building pipelines and structures and winning trophies.

That’s what is fantastic overseas, the interaction between the national management and the franchises, like in New Zealand and other places. England have a full-time coaching co-ordinator who coaches the coaches of the elite teams. He helps them with their professional development, it makes all their coaches better. There’s nothing like that in South Africa; here, you can win one Currie Cup and you’re the next big thing. Coaching takes time and learning, and the first port-of-call for Saru should be a support system for their top coaches.

I’ve been interested to see Dave Rennie’s name mentioned. The Kobelco Steelers, where Allister Coetzee was coach before getting the Springbok job, have a relationship with the Chiefs and Dave would spend time at Kobe as a spot-coach, where he would have developed a relationship with Allister.

As ever, contracts are a problem and Rennie has signed for two years with Glasgow, so it will cost a fair bit of money to buy him out of that and then Saru need to make it lucrative enough for him to want to come to South Africa.

Any coach worth their salt wants to coach an international team, so hopefully Saru would give the job description the weight it needs. He could be used in a whole host of possible roles, the key is getting the job specifications and expectations right.

If Allister stays on, at the end of the day he is on very shaky ground next year and there will be huge pressure on him going into the Rugby Championship. Fortunately he starts with a series against France and in June they are never at their best because their championship finishes so late and is so long. Their players are tired by June and have eased back on training.

This week will be a very important week for South African rugby, with critical decisions needing to be made and backed. The process needs to be driven by those with the real power at Saru.

Sitting in 6 degrees in Japan, a long way from the South African summer, I wish everyone a very happy and prosperous Christmas. We will resume the column in January.

John McFarland is the assistant coach of the Kubota Spears in Japan and was the Springbok defence coach from 2012 through to the 2015 World Cup, where they conceded the least line-breaks in the tournament and an average of just one try per game. Before that, McFarland won three SuperRugby titles (2007, 09, 10) with the Bulls and five Currie Cup crowns with the Blue Bulls. In all, he won 28 trophies during his 12 years at Loftus Versfeld.