Pulling the strings
15 Jul 2010
Springbok assistant coaches Gary Gold and Dick Muir have had a major influence on the team’s playing philosophy, writes Gavin Rich in SA Rugby magazine.
In the movie Robin Hood, the hero plays a defining role in the battle that enables the English to beat off an intended French invasion.
The English monarch, King John, seeing the French surrender, asks who they are surrendering to. One of John’s right-hand men points at the Robin Longstride (later to become Hood) character, played by Russell Crowe, and says, ‘They are surrendering to him’.
No doubt the king is aware of the role that Robin has played in saving England, but at the same time he is jealous of his popularity. He reacts by declaring Robin an outlaw of the state.
Why are we starting off a story about the Springbok assistant coaches by retelling a Hollywood screenplay? Because there may be a little of King John in Springbok coach Peter de Villiers. His public tirade against his management team in April could only have been sparked by dissatisfaction that others were being credited with the Springboks’ success.
In the end, the coach’s threat to sack staff never amounted to anything, and the same management team that ended the last international season were working with De Villiers when the Springboks started the new one.
What De Villiers was doing, or so it emerged, was just blowing off steam, doing a bit of sabre rattling to warn his management members while at the same time sending out the message to the public that he is the boss.
To understand why there would be a need to do that you have to understand that like all of us, De Villiers is human. That means he does have an ego, and while publicly he did all the right things last year by staying in the background when the players celebrated the Tri-Nations triumph, privately it must rankle with him that he didn’t get full credit from some sections of the media and public.
That the Springbok team is run by committee should be obvious to anyone who has read John Smit’s autobiography. It should have been clear to anyone who understands the game that the Springboks did not achieve their success against the British & Irish Lions and in the Tri-Nations playing the off-the-cuff rugby that De Villiers spoke about when he first took over.
Behind the scenes a long battle was being waged in 2008 to get the Boks back to the game that won the World Cup just a year earlier. The players were part of that battle, but the assistant coaches were also facing each other across the trenches, with the different philosophies of Dick Muir and Gary Gold having an impact on the initial formulation of policy, as well as the evolution that followed.
To explain all of this, it is instructive to go back to the article I wrote on the assistant coaches for SA Rugby magazine in May 2008. At the time they were being appointed, they were clearly not being recruited as assistants who would just follow the head coach’s policy, but would be part of policy formulation.
The problem was that even back then they knew they had conflicting views on how the game should be played, though they tried hard to make it seem like a positive.
‘I know Peter’s style from his time with Western Province [he coached the Disas], and obviously I know Dick from what he has done with the Sharks, and I would say that in a subtle way we do have different philosophies,’ said Gold. ‘Neither philosophy is right or wrong, but while I believe there should be some structure, I think Peter and Dick are what you could call “heads-up coaches”. They like their players to play what’s in front of them.’
Gold went on to say that Muir probably wouldn’t disagree that it was only when John Plumtree arrived as his assistant that structure was brought to the Sharks in 2007, and it was then that the Sharks evolved into the finished article. Gold was right, Muir didn’t disagree.
‘It’s about striking the right balance between structure and letting the players make the decisions, and I think your ability to get this right depends heavily on where you are with the players in their development,’ said Muir. ‘Looking back, I think that in a manner of speaking I was trying to run with players who at the time just weren’t ready to run. I firmly believe that if you have the complete product, in other words players who are experienced and developed enough, you don’t need structure.’
That Muir statement explains a lot. Clearly when he became involved with the Springboks, he thought the players were the finished article. Let’s wind the clock back to the first Springbok training camp under the De Villiers regime in Stellenbosch in late May 2008.
The Sharks had made the Super 14 semi-finals, so they weren’t part of the Bok squad at first muster. Muir wasn’t part of the management that first addressed the players at the Lord Charles Hotel in Somerset West.
Perhaps it explains why when the Boks went into their first training sessions, structure was not just a small feature of what they were doing – it was massive.
I watched one of those sessions with Brendan Venter, who was the Stormers defence coach at the time and is now in charge of Saracens. Venter was open mouthed at what he was seeing, and exclaimed that the structured session he was watching was the antithesis of the heads-up approach that De Villiers had been preaching in the media.
Venter was even more confounded when he heard some of the regular Stormers codes being called out, and saw the Springboks running Stormers drills and moves. Stormers coach Rassie Erasmus was also watching from the stands at the Danie Craven Stadium.
Understandably, Gold became unpopular with Erasmus for a while, and he was also in hot water with De Villiers when I wrote in the Weekend Argus that the Springboks were employing Stormers strategy. I know this because Venter, a good friend of Gold’s, told me as much.
But Venter wasn’t the only person I chatted to during that Stellenbosch camp. The players were more talkative in those early days about the De Villiers reign, and one of them told me towards the end of the camp that everything had been well on track and the squad had been heading towards a structured approach before Muir arrived and, in his words, ‘messed it up’.
The Boks continued with what they started, however, when they played the first game under De Villiers against Wales in Bloemfontein. For the first 50 minutes it was text-book traditional Bok rugby, with Butch James playing one of his better games of that year. The Boks won comfortably.
Unfortunately, though, they scored a couple of long-range tries once the Welsh were forced into a massive catch-up game in the second half, and this must have duped De Villiers into leaning back in the direction of the Muir heads-up approach. We media probably didn’t help when, in praising the Boks the next day, we noted that little had changed in overall strategy since the World Cup.
It was heads-up rugby that the Boks played in the early part of the Loftus game, only the heads were clearly missing – it looked like chicken-without-heads rugby. The Boks won in the end, but they nearly ran themselves out on their feet, and the Welsh were allowed to be far more competitive than they had been in Bloemfontein.
This pattern of doing well with structure one week and then forsaking it with near disastrous results was to continue for much of the season. For instance, the overly frenetic approach of Wellington was followed by a more controlled and structured approach in Dunedin, and the Boks scored a historic victory.
But instead of going to Australia retaining the same approach, the Boks telegraphed an intention to become more attacking by dropping Percy Montgomery. The Boks lost in Perth, and they lost 19-0 to the All Blacks at Newlands playing rugby that was a long way from the tried and trusted Bok template.
And so to Durban, and the match against the Wallabies, where the chasm in the camp in terms of the intended approach was made obvious to the media by the massive differences in the utterances of the players, the two assistants and the head coach.
At the media conferences during the week, Jean de Villiers spoke about the need to play from the right positions on the field and to kick when on the wrong side of halfway, and Juan Smith spoke about the virtues of structure. So did Gold. But when Muir spoke he was clearly speaking heads-up rugby again, and he and De Villiers seemed convinced there had not been any error with the strategy in the Newlands disaster.
Behind the scenes a meeting had taken place, at the behest of the assistant coaches, between players and management at which a new way forward was formulated. Under pressure, De Villiers was forced to let the players have their way – but judging from his and Muir’s statements, they didn’t know what that way was.
The return to structure didn’t bear immediate dividends in Durban because some 50-50 calls went against the Boks early on. When they fell behind they lost composure, and it was clear not all the players were on the same page. Neither were the coaches, for The Mercury reported afterwards that two different strategies were suggested to skipper Victor Matfield by the respective assistant coaches at half-time.
History shows that a return to direct rugby saw the Boks score a massive win over the Wallabies in Johannesburg in the final Test of that Tri-Nations, and but for a slight wobble in Edinburgh, the template was retained for the end-of-year tour and into 2009.
Of the two assistants, Gold played the more important role in the success of the new player-driven culture because his understanding of the need for a structured approach led him to act as an interface between the players and the other coaches.
Percy Montgomery, when he was with the Boks last year, also played a massive role in preaching structure, and in the Tri-Nations he played a bigger role than merely performing the duties of a kicking coach.
The reality is that strategy within the Springbok set-up has never really been driven by De Villiers – there have been occasions, such as in the beginning in Stellenbosch, when Gold was clearly allowed to have influence. There were other times when Muir had more influence, usually coinciding with a heads-up playing style, and of course, over the past 18 months the players have been steering the ship.
But the senior players cannot be fall guys because they are seen as indispensible. The assistants may be more expendable to De Villiers, which explains why it was management who were in the line of fire when he thrust out his chest and proclaimed ‘I am the boss!’ That was what De Villiers’ media outburst was about.
In order to do so, he had to find a suitable fall guy, and his fellow management were easy targets.
By Gavin Rich
– This article first appeared in the July issue of SA Rugby magazine
218 Comments
Pages: « 1 2 3 [4] 5 » Show All
15 Jul 2010, 14:51 pm
@PissAnt(PissAnt)-148: There is no answer and we all knew that all along, but i commend you for persisting…
15 Jul 2010, 14:52 pm
@PissAnt(PissAnt)-148:
What makes you think he has an answer??
Didn’t he ignore you when you asked him for his ‘detailed analysis’
15 Jul 2010, 14:55 pm
@stormersboy(stormersboy)-151: @wpw(wpw)-152:
We can only afford guys a fair chance to explain their claims, but I guess there is no point in this instance. Pity.
Will have to sift through 3000 posts on SuperSport now to find it…
15 Jul 2010, 14:56 pm
@rossoneri(rossoneri)-149:
Wanted to include you in my previous post but the system did not allow me too.
Anycase, out for now.
15 Jul 2010, 14:57 pm
@PissAnt(PissAnt)-148: you should no better.
When confronted with facts or challenged he is quick to run away.
You are wasting you time taking him seriously. I tak ehim a bout as seriously as I do Gavin Rich and most of the journos on this site.
15 Jul 2010, 15:05 pm
@PissAnt(PissAnt)-153: I think it’s posted on wwwDOTmoveonDOTorg…..
15 Jul 2010, 15:13 pm
The ”journalists” on this site are blind bigots who wouldn’t know the difference between rugby and ice hockey.
They’d be of more use working for Die Son or huisgenoot.
On a serious note our 3N campaign rests on saturday’s result.
Another AB victory and its goobye
15 Jul 2010, 15:19 pm
@PissAnt(PissAnt)-154: Thanks.
15 Jul 2010, 15:27 pm
@rossoneri(rossoneri)-147:
hey Roossoneri…
just dropped in for an update and saw your comment…
very cool of you…
thanks
15 Jul 2010, 15:28 pm
@ufo(ufo)-159:
apologies for the double ‘o’…
15 Jul 2010, 16:00 pm
@Papoose(papaown)-128: shot charlie, oja padi
@rossoneri(rossoneri)-147: cheers Rosso
it’s all in the name of banter
15 Jul 2010, 16:20 pm
Overheard at Bok training session…
*PdV talking to players*
Muir: “Coach! Coach! Coach! Coach! Coach!
*PDV continues talking to players*
Muir: (hopping up and down) “Coach! Coach? Coach? Cooooaaach!!!
PDV; WHAAAT????
Muir: Coach I wanna run with my Lions gameplan on Satruday like we talked about!! Serious I reckon we can sink these Kiwi b*stards if we open it up more!! Defence is for p*ssies, we must go for the jugular!!!
PDV: Watse kak praat jy nou?
Muir: Coach I’m serious! You don’t have to worry anout defence if you attack for 90 minutes!! Serious! I’m telling you we can score 10 tries, I just need the chance to prove it!!
Muir: Ja but ****, you know, the Super 14…you know the swallows circle when the jackals howl…
Muir: Ja but look at thois assh*les I had to coach! They all too fat or too small….and that bliksemse Rose screwed my whole gameplan for the season…
PDV: Jirre I told you before…!
Muir: Sorry coach, but serious I was talking to Smitty and he reckons I’m right and we can score 24 tries, I know it coach, serious!
PDV: Hell ****, wat’s fout met jou oe? Jirre they look like 2 muis-p**sies!!
Muir: Sorry coach, we only left the karaoke a bit late..
PDV: How late? Jissus, stand still man!
Muir: Sorry coach, very late coach, but it’s ok, we slept in again and I had 4 Red Bulls…it’s all good coach, the players love us now! Thats the main thing!
PDV: Ja no, it’s nice, we all big chommies! Good morale and all that! The sharks were jumping but now the flowers have bloomed and all the dice have fallen into place.
Muir: So can I, coach? Please? Pleeeeeeaaase??? Smitty said it was cool if you were said yes…
PDV: Jirre **** ek weet nie man….when did you speak to him?
Muir: At the karaoke bar. After I sang “Singing in the rain”
PDV: Jou d**s! That was the f*kken bouncer you were talking to!
15 Jul 2010, 16:22 pm
@Atreides(Atreides)-162: was brendon venter there? How about rassie?
lol
15 Jul 2010, 16:27 pm
What the hell is all this jirre going on here.
15 Jul 2010, 16:30 pm
@Atreides(Atreides)-162: Very good.
15 Jul 2010, 16:37 pm
@Transformation(Transformation)-163:
when boredom sets in….
15 Jul 2010, 16:38 pm
Muir and Gould are pulling each othger ‘string’
15 Jul 2010, 16:40 pm
@Transformation(Transformation)-163:
and did rassie have his disco lights there…???
15 Jul 2010, 16:54 pm
I’m not a Muir fan. And if he has too much influence on our defense we are going to struggle.
PDV had a great record at U21 level (like Jake) and now at test level. I’m pretty sure he knows his rugby. Don’t think we have won a U21 WC since PDV and Jake.
Gold has no real track record of success and as is stated Muir sucked until Plumtree came around and the Sharks had a lot more Bok influence as well.
Anyway..
and ROFL
162. Atreides(Atreides) :
15 Jul 2010, 16:56 pm
I meant until the Sharks play had influence from Bok players that had come from successful bok structural setup. They must have brought those back into the Sharks setup.
15 Jul 2010, 17:00 pm
i think Os has been hanging out too much with Skopskiet!
Os speaks from experience
2010-07-15 16:04Email | Print
Os du Randt (Gallo Images)
Ken Borland
Wellington – When Springbok consultant Os du Randt speaks, it is with the gravitas of a legend of the game and the two-time World Cup winner had a message for both his team and the lawmakers ahead of Saturday’s Tri-Nations Test against the All Blacks in Wellington.
Messages are sometimes judged not so much by their content but who they come from, but Du Randt, with 80 Test caps and two World Cup winner’s medals, has impeccable pedigree.
So when he says Springbok teams can have a tendency to “fall asleep” he is speaking from experience.
“I’m involved with more than just the scrum. I’ve been away from the system for just three years, so I can tell what has changed and what has stayed the same.
“One thing that has changed is that the confidence within the team has really grown. For four years we were always trying to prove ourselves at the highest level, but now the whole world accepts that we are one of the best teams around.
“But then some aspects of our game can become a bit lax, sometimes it seems like we are just going through the motions. That’s maybe what happened last Saturday, so I had to speak hard to the boys, get their minds right and refresh the guys’ minds about stuff they already know.
“It makes no difference the number of Tests you have played, every now and then you will get a wake-up call. The big challenge for management is not allowing the team to fall into that trap of complacency. South Africans have a tendency to sometimes be asleep, it happened to us in 2006 [the infamous 49-0 thrashing in Brisbane]. Sometimes it seems we must first be rapped over the knuckles, then we want to play!” Du Randt said.
The giant loosehead said he believes the Springboks will be quick to bounce back from their flat showing last weekend in Auckland, and he will be expecting further improvements in the scrummaging.
“I felt the team looked genuinely good, there was a good vibe, heading into the Auckland Test. In retrospect, maybe we were practising at 200km/h and we might have overlooked some of the small finesse things.
“The depth in our scrum is unbelievably good, we have a whole clump of test caps on the bench. A guy like Gurthro Steenkamp, it’s unbelievable how he has restored his rugby after he was destroyed in England at the end of last year.
“I thought the scrum was good against France last month, because they have given us lots of problems in the last few years. Everyone remembers what happened against Leicester last year, but the scrums are still 50-60% from where I want them to be. With the size and power that we have, it’s common sense that our scrum should be much better. It’s just a matter of getting all the forces lined up,” Du Randt said.
The 37-year-old’s message to the lawmakers is that he would prefer to see the scrums go back to the days when the only calls the referee made before the set-piece were “crouch” and “engage”.
“It’s always a problem because each referee is an individual and will have a different speed to his calls. They are also under pressure not to have a lot of scrum re-sets, so it makes it difficult for the front rows because they have to stay tense for four, five, six seconds. It means you have to work hard on your discipline. And if you don’t get that split-second edge on your opposition then you won’t have what you need to get a right shoulder, for example.
“When I grew up, it was just ‘crouch’ and ‘engage’, and I still believe that’s best. You could stand much further away and basically just storm together.
“I accept you need to look at the safety factor, but maybe they should just use ‘crouch, touch, pause, engage’ at school. At the moment it’s like a speed limit: You don’t like it, but you just have to accept it,” Du Randt said.
15 Jul 2010, 17:01 pm
@Hondo(Hondo)-167: each other’s “poepstrings”?
15 Jul 2010, 17:03 pm
So is this what’s being printed in SA rugby magazine nowadays?
Gavin Rich this is some of the most pathetic drivel i’ve ever read….piss poor.
15 Jul 2010, 17:03 pm
Have not been here in a while but what a shite article!There is so much vagueness and suggestion in behavioural patterns observed through heresay accounts.So perhaps there are differences in the Bok coaching camp on how we would approach the game strategically.And yes, perhaps a little bit of confusion sets in now and then. These headless chickens of 3 coaches have a Lions and Tri Nations title as well as a win record second to no other Bok coach in the pro era. Outgunned the magnificent Robbie Deans in Aus last year with a massive surprise running game from the 1st kick off.
I would really like to know from Gavin Rich what he considers the “perfect” coaching style/game plan needs to be. Seems we smashed McGeechan, Deans and Henry with these so called 3 stooges!!! This is enough in my books to warrant a crack at the next years World Cup for all the current coaching staff even if we win 30% – 40% of our games from here on.We saw what continuity did for a mediocre win record such as Jake White’s, so lets afford our coaches the same grace as its silly to expect that we go to New Zealand, Aus (even the NH) these days and win everything. But when it comes to series (Lions) and competitions (Tri- Nations) these coaches (and players) have proven themselves. The laws have changed and they are now making mistakes (which is what happened after the World Cup mind you)…they will learn like they always do! But calling for sackings and sowing divisions is not going to help the continuity.We are stuck with these guys and SARU would be stupid to fire any of them for results at this stage. And believe me that we will lose a couple more games between now and the World Cup. And lastly, I do not believe any other coach like Heyneke would have achieved more had he been the head coach after World Cup 2007. You have to remember that the players have also failed in their execution (even “heroes” like Spies) and a coach cannot have full control of this.Everything has to come together to consistently dominate and hence this group of players and coaches need to stay together and be supported by us.
15 Jul 2010, 17:07 pm
@Transformation(Transformation)-171: It would be interesting to gather Os’ thoughts about Jannie Dup. Personally I have never been a fan of the latter.
15 Jul 2010, 17:12 pm
@Smallzm(Smallzm)-174: when jake was in charge, his two assistant coaches were just puppets listening to him and being spoone fed, they had no input, of philosophy of their own, if they did how do you explain gert smal’s silence around the fact that we played without a fetcher for all those years? coaching was not done be “committee” as it seems to be currently, jake called the shots and only listened to eddie! that is gavin rich’s preferred way of coaching!
15 Jul 2010, 17:45 pm
176. Transformation(Transformation) :
I’m pretty sure Gert Smal had a lot of input. Jake has said it himself, he was very lucky to have Smal and Coetzee as assistants. Look what Coetzee is achieving with the Stormers. Gert decimated our forwards especially the line-out when we played against Ireland.
Jakes philosphy was not that you didn’t need fetchers but that you couldn’t have a dedicated one that hampered the rest of the set pieces like line-out and scrum. Every player on the field needs to be able to get over the ruck if needed and pouch a ball. JDV does it quite nicely and Du Plessis was good at it. I remember De Wet Barry being quite a decent poacher.
He liked big tall loosies and yes it worked. Louw will be a better long to option for that reason as well, but he has lots to learn still based on last weeks game, let’s see how he goes this week.
15 Jul 2010, 17:50 pm
@Mike H(Mike H)-177: no specialist fetcher worked????
Highly debatable….
It worked in favour of the aussies and kiwis ….not boks….
we were plods at the breakdown….george smith and mc caw toyed with us for bloody years….
luke should have been there…
now i am late
cheers
15 Jul 2010, 17:51 pm
jake was a moron
15 Jul 2010, 17:52 pm
@Smallzm(Smallzm)-174:
I dont expect reporters to be experts in coaching, or playing for that matter.
But if you are not going to make the effort to at least research the latest trends and developments on these fronts, study the different philosophies or theories associated with it, then please spare me your opinions on it.
Then simply sit in a presser, record the bloody thing and print it verbatim. At least your credibility will be in tact.
15 Jul 2010, 17:55 pm
But there is a belief amongst reporting ranks that if you have written **** for long enough, or watched enough games, then you are automatically an expert on matters.
I would dare to suggest the average blogger on Keo has more rugby watching hours behind him than most reporters in SA.
15 Jul 2010, 18:05 pm
179. grant10(grant10) :
You’re a moron – Jake is a legend and saviour of SA rugby
15 Jul 2010, 18:06 pm
This is the type of article that any ****(son), Tom and Harry can use to spin any web of lies and intrigue the way they want to and can.
But what it shows to me, again and again, is that non-Blacks control and can do what they want to, to rugby using whatever means they desire (think *** tapes as the somewhat extreme to pull some deviant into line).
Never trust most of them because this is a penchant derived from having to live, and worse, defend a system, nay, in fact, a culture of lying with more lying to attempt to pull the wool over the eyes of the majority.
But this story, distorted as it is, has some useful bits of the so 10 pieces of the puzzle that I need for the fact that Pdiv allowed himself to be blackmailed because it, for him, was the lesser of two evils to some measure of ill-found glory. That still makes him a skunk though.
15 Jul 2010, 18:26 pm
@PissAnt(PissAnt)-181: Hi been following your ‘debate’ with dracula today, hilarious. Actually wanted to know, is there material on the net available that further explains this X,Y,Z axis approach versus the australasian scavanger-type style? Cheers
15 Jul 2010, 18:31 pm
@rugby911(rugby911)-184:
Hi,
Quite a bit actually.
One of the better sites out there to get theories from coaches is the coachingtoolbox site which is NZ based, if you follow references from there (authors etc) it will open up quite a bit of resources you can follow and trace for information.
If there is anything specific of interest to you let me know and we can take this offline and I can point you in specific directions saving you sifting through thousands of websites.
15 Jul 2010, 18:33 pm
@PissAnt(PissAnt)-185:
If it is still up and running also check the alltimecoach website’s sport section.
15 Jul 2010, 18:34 pm
@PissAnt(PissAnt)-186:
Of particular interest to you might be to research the name Pierre Villepreux especially if you want some clarity, or a better explanation of this so-called heads up rugby which is butchered by people on this site.
15 Jul 2010, 18:46 pm
Thanks@PissAnt(PissAnt)-187: really appreciate the heads up, will have a look at that. Just generally interested at upping my knowledge, this will help a lot.
15 Jul 2010, 18:50 pm
@rugby911(rugby911)-188:
No probs, there is a lot of BS out there but the more you read the more you will spot it as-well.
As a general rule, the coachingtoolbox is a great resource if you are just starting out.
15 Jul 2010, 18:51 pm
Oh and never, ever trust any website that asks you for a subscription fee for information, they are the worst resources.
Most national teams websites also have a lot of coaching sections included in their sites (including the IRB), from there you usually get to learn more and more resources you can follow individually.
15 Jul 2010, 18:57 pm
@PissAnt(PissAnt)-190: yup already burnt my fingers on ‘Better Rugby Coaching’ Steve Cottrell is the editor, a lot of hot air!
15 Jul 2010, 18:58 pm
@Mike H(Mike H)-177: “and yes it worked” are you sure? Go read post #115 and marinate on it!
15 Jul 2010, 19:03 pm
@rugby911(rugby911)-184: please guy, don’t start pissant on the de-merits of deck rugby!
please
15 Jul 2010, 19:09 pm
@rugby911(rugby911)-191:
Oh he is a first class ***.
@Transformation(Transformation)-193:
Hehehe…
There is a lot of merit in deck rugby, just in the right circumstances!
15 Jul 2010, 19:10 pm
@Transformation(Transformation)-193:
Plus it would be no fun getting into that now, Grant10 is gone…
15 Jul 2010, 19:14 pm
@PissAnt(PissAnt)-194: sure thing, just enjoy taking the piss
15 Jul 2010, 19:17 pm
@Transformation(Transformation)-196:
I know, lately on here I do the same…
Pity, I miss the real rugby debates.
15 Jul 2010, 19:18 pm
Anycase I must make food for my sick wife and child.
Ciao
15 Jul 2010, 19:31 pm
Pulling the strings
1.” Springbok assistant coaches Gary Gold and **** Muir have had a major influence on the team’s playing philosophy,…..”
2. ” That the Springbok team is run by committee should be obvious to anyone who has read John Smit’s autobiography. It should have been clear to anyone who understands the game that the Springboks did not achieve their success against the British & Irish Lions and in the Tri-Nations playing the off-the-cuff rugby that De Villiers spoke about when he first took over.”
3. ” Behind the scenes a long battle was being waged in 2008 to get the Boks back to the game that won the World Cup just a year earlier. The players were part of that battle, but the assistant coaches were also facing each other across the trenches, with the different philosophies of **** Muir and Gary Gold having an impact on the initial formulation of policy, as well as the evolution that followed.”
4. ” The reality is that strategy within the Springbok set-up has never really been driven by De Villiers….”
5. ” But the senior players cannot be fall guys because they are seen as indispensible. The assistants may be more expendable to De Villiers, which explains why it was management who were in the line of fire when he thrust out his chest and proclaimed ‘I am the boss!’ That was what De Villiers’ media outburst was about.”
The above quotes are just some gems of the intrigue that is S.A. rugby, so seemingly democratically and non-racially run but to me and others so very seedy and canned.
This is just one of the missing puzzle pieces(5 or so still needed) which points to PDiv. allowing himself(and to an extent forced) to be blackmailed to be able to earn some of the glory(ill-found nontheless) that his psyche craved as the the non self-respecting underling.
It is clear his controllers working through the Gold, Incense and Muir(gone wrong) agenda gave him very early attention after his appointment in Dec. 2007(much non-Black anger) and the first physical expression thereof was Div’s rushed trip to France and the U.K.(Fe.2008) to beg some of the delinquent “2007 WC seniors”(I used these words first in May 2008 already)to return(Smit, Matfield, Monty, James).
When he(Div) was acting out of line later they quickly reeled him in(E.L.tapes). It is abundantly clear who was dancing and who was pulling the strings of the tunes.
Also a look at his first squad against Wales had few of those ’2007WC seniors”; no FDP, Bakkies, Burger, Monty,Smit and Matfield(both minimal?) but came the last game before that 2008 TN most were back in place despite not performing really with the new elvs.
By the eoyt all available “seniors” were not only back but rumoured to be in control(LW dispelled) and at last performing to their abilities and getting winning results – see how ‘positive player -power can be or alternatively make or break a coach..
Can there still be doubters who question that PDiv is now where he had no intention of wanting to be even just from a rugby standpoint – he truly is just now trying to save face and the sometimes good results have just confused him more about this glory that he so wishes to attain.
Those who choose to ignore the real playing out of the facts can continue to be delusional even if another wheel does not fall off this Sat.
Be careful a nut who screws and bolts may still hog the headlines. Will it be Burger or danie or even replacement Flip as frustration upon frustation is heaped on the tourests?
15 Jul 2010, 19:41 pm
@ET(ET)-199:
Tourettes or tourists?
Pages: « 1 2 3 [4] 5 » Show All
Have your say
You must be logged in to post a comment.