Nothing to learn
20 Aug 2012
MARK KEOHANE, in his weekly Business Day column, said the Springboks did what was expected of them at Newlands.
Expected win. Great win. Not a ‘good enough’ win. Just a win?
Why don’t we deal in reality?
Does it scare us? Does it make us think? Does it make us responsible? Does it confuse the escapism of sport because it forces us to be satisfied? And if we are satisfied, does it mean we can’t feel a different sense of satisfaction a week later?
The Springboks don’t lose against Argentina in South Africa. Traditionally they win by 20 points. There was one occasion when they won by a point. There was another when they won by 54. On balance it is 20.
They also don’t lose in Argentina. There was one occasion they nearly did but that was because Springbok coach Harry Viljoen in 2000 did the unthinkable. He challenged a mindset. He told his players they were not allowed to kick the ball and they produced rugby for 40 minutes never played by a Springbok team.
It was a masterstroke, but the point had been made at half-time. And instead of applying logic so the point could be made the next time, he refused to believe in the reality of the situation. The Boks were not conditioned enough to play a match of rugby for 80 minutes without kicking the ball. Mentally no one was conditioned to accept it was possible.
Argentina, who wouldn’t come out of their change room after half-time because of exhaustion in being forced to tackle for 40 minutes, defied the IRB rules and stayed there for 20 minutes instead of 10.
They knew the game could not be called off. They knew they couldn’t play without legs. We forget that. We call it a lucky win. The day the Boks kicked the ball for the first time on 73 minutes and Braam van Straaten kicked a 78th-minute penalty to win the game 37-33. The day it all nearly went so horribly wrong. The day Harry showed he belonged in business and not rugby, apparently. The day Braam’s kick restored sanity, stereotype and allowed our minds to rest.
We won. We should have lost. So South Africans said.
One British newspaper columnist wrote that it was the day the Boks defied the accepted norms about kicking and not keeping the ball; that it was about possession and not field position; and that it was about what we wanted to make it and not what others wanted us to believe it to be.
But he said it would never be remembered for how it all could have changed forever; it would be used as an example of why it should never change. Apparently we nearly lost when the story should have been about a victory of the evolution of the game and the mind of the player.
The Boks, 12 years later, beat Argentina with the tested formula of giving us what we have always had. Now it isn’t good enough. The social networks are a reflection of the comfort in what has always been done and not what can be done. A day before the Test, some feared the Boks could lose. Some said they just had to win. Some said it should be 20 points. And when they won 27-6 some said they failed because they did not score a bonus point.
Argentina said they were happy. They had been competitive. South African coaches were not happy but at kick-off they would have taken a 20-point win. Why not now?
The All Blacks, having beaten the Wallabies 12 out of the past 15 times, won for a 13th time in 16. They apparently had not won; it was the Wallabies that had lost.
Wallabies coach Robbie Deans said his team were not where they wanted to be but they would be there next week. They will be in Auckland, where they haven’t won since Moses parted the Red Sea, but there will be condemnation in Australia when they lose on Saturday and outrage in New Zealand if the All Blacks don’t score the four-try bonus point.
What can we learn from Sydney and Cape Town? Nothing. What should we have expected to learn? Nothing?
The big guy simply strangled the little guy. Why dissect it? Unlike 2000, nothing was produced that shocked, surprised or made us think. And we remember 2000 for the day the Boks nearly lost, when it was the day rugby came so close to winning forever.
Mendoza and Auckland respectively will provide no new insight because it is still a big guy strangling the little guy and applying a formula that allows for the minds to be comforted and not challenged.
This weekend it will be 10 to the Boks in Mendoza and possibly 20 to the All Blacks in Auckland. It is expected, but it will not be good enough.
Rugby, as we want to know it, isn’t ready for the unexpected although too many are never satisfied with the obvious.
653 Comments
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 … 14 » Show All
20 Aug 2012, 09:20 am
I think this is by far your best column of the year, if not ever.
20 Aug 2012, 09:30 am
uh….ok?
20 Aug 2012, 09:32 am
deep dragons
20 Aug 2012, 09:35 am
incoherent ramble
20 Aug 2012, 09:37 am
You make good points. 12 years later we continue to see the occasional glimpse of what could be. It usually happens when the Boks are under the cosh and are forced to keep ball in hand. Then we sit up and watch them play rugby instead of kicking and chasing. We wonder what’s happened and why it stops happening once they’re ahead again. Against the Anzacs it’s too little too late usually and we scratch our heads and say , “but they can do it, why don’t they do it more”. After the match the coach murmurs some platitudes about our “traditional strengths” and “accuracy of execution” and its deadliness when it’s achieved. But we never really hear that we should be running and passing more. We hear about “earning the right to go wide”. We see excellent forward based defence and sometimes even domination, but seldom does anyone go wide. And we grind on grinding out games and patting ourselves on the backs for our “ugly wins”. And we watch the All Blacks winning both beautifully and ugly. We who love the game see the talent and its squandering with kicking and chasing. We saw the Sharks and their passing and offloading and also their brutal forwards. They could do what the Kiwis did. How come it all changes when they’re in the Boks? Whatever Viljoen tried to do, we’re still waiting. Must we content ourselves to the occasional glimpse of possibility? Is the new coach aware of these possibilities? Or do we have to wait another dozen years with moments of promise and promises broken before another coach emerges who takes us beyond our “traditional strengths” and has the boldness to create some new traditions and take our rugby where it can and ought to go?
20 Aug 2012, 09:41 am
@flanka-4:
yep….Keo trying to deal with reality.
20 Aug 2012, 09:44 am
keo is finally having his charlie sheen moment
20 Aug 2012, 09:46 am
Good article, the Boks are not on top form – just remember though:
Half the team (Sharks) have flown to Australia, South Africa, New Zealand, South Africa and now Argentina in 6 weeks for 5 games.
That’s tough.
20 Aug 2012, 09:47 am
Keo 100% correct,
@rex-5: Sharks did not just get to that point of throwing the ball around, you expect the New Bok coach to take huge risk right at the start??? lets say he did and we lost a test?????? can you imagine the insults in here that would be thrown at him???
Of course we all want running inspiring rugby, you have to first take into account the injury factor, and of course untill he has settled he is playing a no of players Like morne that he knows and feels comfortable with
20 Aug 2012, 09:48 am
@goyougoodthing2-8: eish mate dont make excuses for the Sharks players , the WP masses will be on you case now for the next year
20 Aug 2012, 09:55 am
@sharks_lover-10: No excuses, in fact I did not see the post above before I commented.
In truth, I belive that HM is not coaching the wide, passing game, but he is wise, you don’t win a SuperTrophy by being stupid. That said, the Bulls Super Glory really did ignite after him, when they destroyed the Chiefs, that was sublime.
20 Aug 2012, 09:55 am
I am however interested in one particular line Mark:
And we remember 2000 for the day the Boks nearly lost, when it was the day rugby came so close to winning forever.
I believe it was written how PDV wanted to change the face of SA Rugby in 2008, clean out the old-guard completely and play a brand of Bok rugby we have not experienced.
Certain individuals however convinced him to bring back John Smit, Matfield (in Europe at the time) and persist with Percy for a while because they were supposedly key for sustained success of the RWC champions.
Now not having the full details of exactly how much PDV wanted to change the game in 2008, but knowing he had a particular brand of rugby in mind which did not conform to our ‘traditional’ strengths or mindsets which was systematically broken down to the point where the senior players coached the team (as was claimed extensively) was this also not perhaps a point in our rugby history similar to what Viljoen tried in 2000?
20 Aug 2012, 10:01 am
@goyougoodthing2-11: I know it aint excuses bro , i was being sarcastic lol
20 Aug 2012, 10:02 am
‘The Springboks don’t lose against Argentina in South Africa. ‘
Give the great Hugo Porta his credit, after all, it is an official SA test (and officially recognised by the IRB – see their test points scored statistics in their own yearbooks). We all the know the Jaquar side that beat the Boks in Bloem in ’82 was in fact the full Argentinian test side (no Uruguyans or Spanish in the run-on XV).
20 Aug 2012, 10:09 am
@PissAnt-12: What a load of BS. PDV brought Smit back because:
1. The players did not respect him (he didn’t have a clue)
2. He needed someone to stop the ship sinking.
Years later he repaid Smit by playing him well past his sell-by date, wasting Du Plessis best rugby and most probablyt losing a RWC because of it.
It’s easy to say you want to play in a certain way, but when you can’t coach for s,,,t it doesn’t help anyone.
20 Aug 2012, 10:11 am
@goyougoodthing2-15:
Do yourself a favour…
Ask Keohane about the meeting he and Riaan Oberholzer had with PDV…
20 Aug 2012, 10:13 am
@goyougoodthing2-15:
And I don’t know how you call bringing back Smit stopping a ‘sinking ship’ or that players did not respect him when Smit played as captain in the first test PDV was in charge of.
But I would like you to explain it though.
20 Aug 2012, 10:16 am
@PissAnt-16: Riaan knows as much about rugby as PDV…
Why don’t you ask the Provincial CEOs what they think of PDVs’ rugby nouse.
20 Aug 2012, 10:17 am
@PissAnt-17: The players respected Smit, not PDV… that much was and is clear. No matter what public salutations flowed between them all, the fact is, without Smit and Matfield, the Boks would have lost a whole lot more under PDV.
The man is not only stupid, he is arrogant to boot, a lethal combination.
20 Aug 2012, 10:17 am
@goyougoodthing2-18:
You mean all the ex-teachers in charge of our rugby?
20 Aug 2012, 10:18 am
@goyougoodthing2-15: Niave.
20 Aug 2012, 10:18 am
There was ntohing to learn in the result but plenty about how the argentines would compete.
And i was very impressed with them. This weekend will be a very tough game albeit i believe the boks are still able to step it up afew gears. These argies will take the ozzies very close in oz and i am definately backing them to do the business against them in argentina.
The way their forwards operate as a collective and absolutely flood the breakdown was awesome. Sure, alot technically illegal withregards to falling off your feet and falling the wrong side….but tactically sound. And this is where our attacking threat is going wrong. Our breakdown work is still pish as we are not able to retain the ball long enough in the collisions to build pressure and throw defenses out of shape.
Our believe are defensive structure is also partly to blame with everyone fanning out. I would hypothesize that to win this comp it is better to be the second best defensive and attacking side than it is to be the best defensively and worst attacking wise…same as superrugby
20 Aug 2012, 10:23 am
@PissAnt-20: No, that would be the referees and Presidents
But then, I suppose we can look at our current president, he who used to support the All Blacks, our CEO who, rumour has it, has some lingering questions around a certain cookie jar back home and it all makes sense… a shambles from top down.
20 Aug 2012, 10:25 am
@goyougoodthing2-18:
The same CEO’s that wanted to fire Jake White in 2006 because the okes in the pub they visited believed Jake did not know what they were doing?
@goyougoodthing2-19:
Listen bud, you made an unqualified statement, in fact, it was a load of rubbish.
Smit wasn’t brought back to help a sinking ship, the ship did not even leave the docks yet when he was called in.
The only ‘fact’ we have to deal with here is Keohane with Oberholzer convinced PDV to retain senior players and conform to a specific style of play.
The rest of the garbage is emotive nonsense claiming you or anyone else know or knew exactly what went on in every player’s head and their relationships with one another and the coach.
If you have not noticed, my post challenged a belief of Keohane in his column with regards to Harry Viljoen and what he wanted to accomplish or a mindset he wanted to instill in Bok rugby – the same thing PDV wanted to do but were otherwise convinced by the same person (Keo).
I am not interested in discussing the coaching ability or capability of PDV, if you are unable to see this simple fact then move on.
20 Aug 2012, 10:29 am
@goyougoodthing2-23:
Sorry I am just in a kak mood today.
20 Aug 2012, 10:34 am
@PissAnt-25: No worries, each to their own.
I noted what you said, sure.
20 Aug 2012, 10:34 am
@goyougoodthing2-15: get keo to tell you again what pdv said about smit when he met him & rian to “spruce up” div’s cv…
20 Aug 2012, 10:34 am
Wasnt it Louis Koen who made that kick?
20 Aug 2012, 10:37 am
@Transformation-27: When rugby turns to politics… it’s a sad day.
Should PDV have been made coach, probably not, was he thrown under the bus – most definitely yes.
20 Aug 2012, 10:39 am
@goyougoodthing2-26:
Uncalled for, sorry. I need to get some sugar in my body to improve my mood!
20 Aug 2012, 10:43 am
@PissAnt-30: As I said, no problem.
In my opinion, as said above, PDV was thrown under the bus, by the guys who voted for him.
Mind you, these are the same people who have now voted EP in – rightly or wrongly. The vote was always going to go their way anyway as the smaller Unions would have voted in any case, but the WP and Cheetahs too… no need for it, other than to undermine the already fragile big Unions – with politics at the fore.
20 Aug 2012, 10:49 am
@Jeez-28: No, Louis Koen saved our behinds in 2003 in SA in PE: espnscrum.com/statsguru/rugby/match/24466.html
20 Aug 2012, 10:52 am
@PissAnt-1:
Agree.
@rex-5:
Well said.
@goyougoodthing2-15:
This is not news24.
Behave yourself.
20 Aug 2012, 10:56 am
@goyougoodthing2-15:
“1. The players did not respect him (he didn’t have a clue)”
The players must be all a bunch of cowards for not saying how they really feel about PdV in their memoirs.
“2. He needed someone to stop the ship sinking.”
Are you saying that Jake White left PdV a sinking ship? John Smit was brought back from Europe BEFORE the first game was even played under PdV.
20 Aug 2012, 10:59 am
All that needs to be added to the bottom of this article is that there are known knowns – things we know we know, there are known unknowns – things we know we don’t know, and there are unknown unknowns – things we don’t know that we don’t know.
I trust that clarifies the matter.
20 Aug 2012, 11:03 am
@PissAnt-30:
Personally, I’ve never agreed with the vilification of Viljoen. He attempted to change the mindset and approach that was instilled into the players. It would have taken a while to remake the traditional Bok approach, but I salute him for trying. Besides, that was a one off experiment and lesson, that could only be conducted in a test to prove a point.
20 Aug 2012, 11:04 am
@nama1-34: In answer:
1. The players such as Smit made millions from PDV, they know where their bread is buttered and it would be a political hot potato to nail the first coach of colour.
2. Without Smit he knew full well that the players would not listent o PDV.
This is my viewpoint, based on my conversations with actual people. I don’t need you to agree with me.
20 Aug 2012, 11:06 am
@David-36: Carel dup was another one…..
20 Aug 2012, 11:07 am
@David-36:
there was nothing wrong with Harry’s vision.
The problem is that he couldn’t handle the pressure and lacked the character to see it through.
20 Aug 2012, 11:09 am
was
20 Aug 2012, 11:11 am
@gunther-39:
Same problem PDV had.
20 Aug 2012, 11:12 am
@The Sharks rugby pedigree is packaged as dog food-38:
I was just about to add that. Strange that 2 coaches who were not “traditional” in their approach got axed.
20 Aug 2012, 11:13 am
@PissAnt-41: PDV also chose the two worst coaches in all of rugby as his assistants.
That made no sense.
He either was a bad judge of character or, as you say, he lacked character and therefore needed weak men under him.
20 Aug 2012, 11:14 am
@goyougoodthing2-29: to get back to pissant’s point, keo is being hypocritical when he carries on about <b"And we remember 2000 for the day the Boks nearly lost, when it was the day rugby came so close to winning forever." when from 2008 he and his cronies where the champions if “playing like robots” “playing to our traditional strengths” “playing with structure” and recently “EXECUTION OVER INNOVATION”
20 Aug 2012, 11:15 am
After reading Keo’s article,
I’m not sure whether he is off the Cola or still mixing his drinks.
Expected column, Great column, Not a ‘good enough’ column,…… Just a column,?
Why don’t we deal in reality?
I’ll go with……………………………Unexpectedly a great piece.
20 Aug 2012, 11:15 am
Quote of the weekend though: Morne Steyn saying that it’s great to have a Northern Hemisphere team in the rugby now…
20 Aug 2012, 11:17 am
36 david
You missed viljoens boks at twickenham then…they were superkak, only for strauli better them a year later.
20 Aug 2012, 11:18 am
@Transformation-44: Keo flips and flops wherever the bread is being buttered.
He caused so much trouble back in the day, being far too close to the Boks…
20 Aug 2012, 11:18 am
David….all bok coaches get axed.
20 Aug 2012, 11:19 am
Actually an awesome article. One of Keo’s best.
“One British newspaper columnist wrote that it was the day the Boks defied the accepted norms about kicking and not keeping the ball; that it was about possession and not field position; and that it was about what we wanted to make it and not what others wanted us to believe it to be.”
Anyone know what article Keo refers? Interesting to go and revisit this.
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 … 14 » Show All
Have your say
You must be logged in to post a comment.