There has, since 2008, been comments over and over again that Peter took a world champion side and screwed it up, because he could not maintain and improve on that team’s performance. In 2008 we had a poor tri nations following the World Cup victory, but in 2009 we white washed the All Blacks, beat Australia twice and we beat the British and Irish Lions.
We need to look at the World Champion side in perspective. Were they really as good as we thought they were, being the World Champions?
If I understand these comments correctly, we are talking about a group of core players which Divvie rightly or wrongly refused to change from South Africa’s successful World Cup campaign.
This core group of players, as far as I am concerned is the following 13 players, who have still been pretty much a feature of the current Springbok side:
Bakkies Botha; Schalk Burger; Bismarck du Plessis; F du Preez; J Fourie; Bryan Habana; Butch James; V Matfield; JP Pietersen; DJ Rossouw; John Smit; Juan Smith; Frans Steyn.
It is actually very difficult to pick up any matches where all of these players played, but I did manage to pick up three of them. On 9 September 2009 vs Samoa (Word Cup), on 14 October 2007 vs Argentina (World Cup) and on 20 October 2007 vs England (World Cup). We won all those matches. And hence, these players became World Champions, all of them.
There are not any more matches where all of these players featured in Jake White’s era. Yes, not even against Wales after the World Cup.
Now, the perception is that Peter took these players, and made them losers. This is when we look at a team who played vs Samoa, Argentina and England, as opposed to a squad who played New Zealand, Australia and the British and Irish Lions.
These players never played together against New Zealand and Australia. But if we look at Jake White’s record since he started as coach of the Boks, with any of the above players in the squad, his record vs Australia and New Zealand reads:
Australia: Played 11, won 6, lost 5. = 55%
New Zealand: Played 9, won 3, lost 6. = 33%
Overall: Played 20, won 9, lost 11 = 45%
These results include the Tri Nations in 2004 which South Africa won, where any of the World Champion Springboks played. The players that many say, Jake White brought to the fore…but interestingly, 7 of these players were part of Rudolph Strauli’s squad in 2003…
In any event, the only time Jake White beat the All Blacks in preparation for the World Cup, was on 2 September 2006, with 1 point, at the Royal Bafokeng Stadium, after losing 5 test matches in a row and after being booed off Loftus Versfeld the week before. The side that beat New Zealand on this day included 6 of the World Champions core.
On 23 June 2007, Jake white’s side included 8 of these core players. I should perhaps also mention the inclusion of CJ van der Linde, BJ Botha, Ruan Pienaar, Jean de Villiers and Wynand Olivier in this match. Although they didn’t play in the World Cup Finals, they were pretty much “Jake White’s boys” as well. This team lost to New Zealand in Durban by 5 points. This loss prompted Jake White to send a second string side to Australia and New Zealand for the remainder of the Tri Nations in preparation for the World Cup.
Is it really true to say that Jake White created a Champion Side which should not lose to anyone? This side only really beat England (if they are even worth mentioning) and didn’t do anything worth remembering in the tri nations. Is it true to say that Peter de Villiers destroyed this team? And this whilst the same critics are saying he must bring in new players and not keep on playing with Jake White’s team? Which in essense is actually Strauli’s players from the 2003 World Cup…if you think about it…
I mean, in 2004, Jake took over and with some of these players he won the tri nations. In 2005 he slipped to second place and in 2006 and 2007 he finished dead stone last. So he took a champion side in 2004, and made them chumps on his way to the World Cup, and then redeemed himself by winning the World Cup. Is this the Champion side that Peter took over? A side that won 9 matches out of 20 against our toughest opposition? Yes, they were World Champions, but hardly unbeatable. And as superbul mentioned on his comments, Jake hardly took over a bunch of rookies as is suggested. Yes, he did take over a team in disarray after Rudolph had to try and rescue the Harry Viljoen era 18 months ahead of the 2003 World Cup, and he did well to turn them into a winning side. I am not out to diss Jake, but merely ask the question if the squad that De Villiers took over is REALLY as good as is the general opinion.
Now, if we look at Peter de Villier’s record with this team, vs Australia and New Zealand, once again, it is apparant that this team has not played together (all of them) since the World Cup Final. If we look at the results including any of these players, the record is as follows:
Australia: Played 9, won 4, lost 5. = 44%
New Zealand: Played 9, won 4, lost 5 = 44%
Overall: Played 18, won 8, lost 10 = 44%
So, Peter has lost 1 less game and won one less game, and played two games less than his predecessor. The last team that lost against New Zealand at Soccer City included 7 of the 13 core players and the one we lost against Australia on the weekend included 9 of them.
The last time the team beat New Zealand, in 2009 at Hamilton, 9 of the 13 players were involved. This was only the second time that any of the World Champion players managed to win in New Zealand. Surprisingly, both times were when Peter de Villiers was coach. The first time any of them beat New Zealand away was in 2008 in Dunedin, where also 9 of these players featured. And of course, Percy. And these were players who only managed to win 3 of their previous 9 encounters against the same opposition, none away.
Looking further, these players were also involved in the 2009 defeat of the British and Irish Lions. We beat them in Durban with all but Schalk and Butch of these players, and the Loftus test featured all but Butch. The world champion side, bar Butch, beat the British and Irish Lions…
To me, it seems a bit presumptious to say that Peter should not lose any matches with this core group. The core group only managed 8 wins against our Tri Nations opponents when Jake White was coach. Why should now be any different? While Peter was coach, the core group managed to win 8 matches against these opponents as well, and in the meantime the laws have changed so much to favour the running styles of these sides, yet, the core group have managed to almost keep up with the pace.
I do not buy into the popular view that Peter took over a well oiled machine who should trample over any opposition. Yes, he took over a squad that won the World Cup. My opinion at the time was that it was stupid to replace White at all, because he just started getting things right…but they did replace him, and his management team. And we are lucky that we didn’t to extremely worse with an entire new management team and the fact that Peter went to France to bring John Smit back to keep this core side together is a huge contribution to that. It often does happen that when new management takes over, you go through a dip, you adapt and you improve. Jake White somehow got things together in his first year. He then took a long dip, and only re-surfaced when we won the World Cup. I think it is also important to note that there were not fundamental changes in the Laws of Rugby during Jake’s tennure.
Peter de Villiers started off with a dip by losing against New Zealand in their first meeting, then he beat them, and then lost three on the trot. He then won 6 out of the next 7 tri nations matches, 5 of them consecutive victories. Laws changed fundamentally during this period, and despite the Stormers and the Bulls keeping up with these changes, the Springboks didn’t, whether it was because of referee interpretations from the Northern Hemisphere being different, players being overplayed or unfit or just plain fat or bad coaching doesn’t matter, we still lost 4 in a row and lost 5 out of 6.
From this point of view, I cannot agree that Peter de Villiers has destroyed the World Champions. He has done pretty much just as well with them as Jake White did. Who knows, had Jake White been able to stay on amidst a poor relationship with SARU and constant political pressure over coloured players, he might have actually done much better than his successor. But it isn’t Divvie’s fault that Jake was out of favour with SARU and I think, overall he hasn’t done worse than Jake did. There might be other coaches who may have done better up to now, but they might also have done worse. We cannot say for sure, because it didn’t happen.
If we look overall at Divvie’s record with matches involving any of these players, he has won 22 out of 35 tests. A record of 63%. Other than the tri nations record, this includes a win rate of 4/4 against Wales, 4/4 vs Italy, 1/1 vs Argentina, 1/1 vs Scotland, 1/1 vs England, 2/3 vs the Lions, 1/2 vs France and 0/1 vs Ireland.
Overall, with the same players, Jake White’s has won 36 tests out of 54. A record of 68%.
Other than the tri nations record, this included a win rate of 4/4 vs Wales, 3/3 vs Argentina, 4/4 vs Scotland, 5/7 vs England, 1/4 vs France and 2/4 vs Ireland. He also had 100% wins against Samoa(2), Fiji(1), USA(1), Pacific Islanders(1), Uruguay(1), Namibia (1) and Tonga (1).
I think if you look at the opposition, they have rendered pretty much the same results.
Yes, we had a bad season. A very bad one. And I know it isn’t 2006, but this is a new management team who is there purely because Jake didn’t get along well with Oregan and they wanted him out. I doubt they’ll let him back in. But this side isn’t destroyed. Strangely enough, it is perhaps even stronger, because they have the experiences behind them which they have, they adjusted to a new coach and management style and have adjusted to many law changes and just as they think they are unbeatable, like in 2009, they get brought down to earth and learn more lessons.
It is a pity that we need to keep learning lessons every time we get a new coach and management side. If we want to be as dominant and consistant as New Zealand and on top of that win the World Cup every four years as well, we should just perhaps look at what else they are doing differently, like keeping to a coach for more than 4 years.
Going on Peter’s record to date, I still support him, provided he gets in help to sort out our defenses.
I am not a Jake White hater. I supported Jake White just as much as I support Div and I find it interesting that we are reading the same comments about Div now as we read at the same time in 2006 about Jake. I think it is only fair that I support Div the way I stuck with Jake as well. As mentioned in my previous post, the difference to me would come in if Div can admit his mistakes like Jake did and get in help to fix it. If he doesn’t he must go. Jake got in Eddie JOnes, what will Divvy do?
Statistics are meaningless.
The whole debate about whether we should blame PDV or not is ridiculous.
We cannot see the wood for the trees.
It is very clear that PDV is an embarrassment to SA rugby in the way he has conducted himself.
It is no good fooling ourselves with comparisons about how many games he has won or lost.
The fact is that he does not have the rugby brain to hold down this job and just as bad he is an embarrassment every time he opens his mouth.
He is terrible for our image as South African rugby lovers.
We have gone backwards under his lack of leadership both on and off the field.
He might be a nice guy who is well meaning but he is no more an international rugby coach than those mechanics he was once talking about.
@ tight head:
Amandla Tighthead Amandla
1@ tight head:
I’m afraid but I agree with Tight Head on this one.
What my own eyes have seen and what I have personally heard from the man’s mouth, no stats to the contrary can convince me.
Let me qualify this… we’ll be lucky to make the World Cup Final… and it will be a major miracle from heaven if we win the World Cup with Snorrie at the helm.
I’ll take bets on this…. any takers?
Met Uysh, those stats are rather interesting, but sadly doesn’t ell the whole story.
Let me ask you thid firstly, what if the new ruck law interpretations came in last year, and didn’t suit our gameplan last year?
We would have been in deep shit (sorry GBS, maar moet so nou en dan vloek)
The fact is that looking deeper into these stats will also tell you that we are at 3 wins out of ten matches against the top opposition teams, Ireland, France, OZ and NZ.
And it is only getting worse.
Then add to that the fact that PDV is too proud/obstinate to accept any form of criticism.
He refuses to admit something is wrong, so he also suffers from denial.
How the hell can we believe this man is going to fix anything?
Julle is besig met karakter moord. Jake was net so hardegat, het ons net soveel afgepis. Hou op net hammer en google bietjie die koerante en web blaaie oor Jake se loopbaan, veral 2006
My opinion is purely based on results. We can have the best spokesmen and bulls@tters, but if the results are not there, you have nothing. I cannot comment on unproven “facts” like pdivvy being an idiot or not having a rugby brain. He pretty much had a similar record as JW and won a jnr world cup and since I personally am not a coach I will not criticize on any coaches abilities, only results. That said I did mention that unless div gets in help like jake did, he must go. If he really believes that conceding almost 4 tries per test does not show we have defensive problems, he is in denial. Now i believe THAT is a stat you would concur with…
@ Met Uysh:
Look I will support any coach that is honest and open to suggestion.
If PDV start changing his tune and agrees he needs help, by all means give the man help, but for goodness sake I for one am bloody fedup with gifting NZ the upper hand due to refusal and denial of problems.
We have more depth than most countries in the world, why not show that on a rugby field.
NZ ahs less moeny than we have, they have a smaller population, last year they hailed us for bringing back the fiecest rivalry in world rugby, and what do we do, we fuck it up.
Big difference is that JW actually had a plan and told us exactly what his plan was and that forsaking wins leading up to RWC2007 was part of the plan.
PdV has never had a plan, and I don’t think he has one for RWC2011 either.
Nobody will convince me that anything he has done since 3N last year has any sort of planning for RWC2011 attached to it.
I for one could see much evidence of the game plan in the past 6 games. There were positives and also negatives. Just because Div doesn’t tell the whole world what his plans are doesn’t mean there isn’t one. JW’s sacrifices was also just after we lost vs Nz in the home leg of the 2007 3n. Not in 2006. And even that plan did not go down well with the public. But if you feel strongly that no-one will convince you, then no one will. Maybe thats how Div feels, as he has only received flak even before his first test.
biltongbek wrote:
agreed. Amazing what the Kiwi’s have managed to achieve in Rugby in the professional era, considering their small population….passion and a hunger for rugby goes a long way.
met Uysh@10 — stick to the Klippies mate. PdV tells the whole world what he thinks on any subject, from gouging lions to suspected murderers. Fact is, neither he or his sidekicks have absolutely any idea what they are trying to achieve, and are way too slow to adapt.
true. They’ve had great coaches and legendary players. The genetics of the pacific islanders also plays a big role, just look at Lomu, Umaga, Nonu, Roco, Sivivatu and the likes. I doubt sa have ever dominate them like we did last year.
And how is That a fact Pam? And no need to get personal, mate.
Met Uysh — record from 3N last year speaks for itself. Not trying to be personal sorry.
Personally I like Klippies….there is only one problem…daardie goed is van dooshare en bakstene gemaak want n ou wil net naai en baklei as jy dit drink.
Pam Anderson wrote:
he planned to lose 5/6 , he planned to concede 22 tries, he planned….. come on get real.
3 n last year? Do you mean this year? Even so, I cannot see as fact that the coaches have no clue of what they want to do. There was a very distinct move away from the kick and hope game in the last few games as opposed to what won us the comp last year. There was clear intention to use Smith to carry the ball at angles from rucks. Also the use of Burger and smith to eliminate pocock, which worked at loftus and less so at bloem. There is a clear strat on defense to rush up on the outside. Aplon executed it perfectly. Hab’s and Jdv on wing couldn’t because they lack pace. It didn’t work with them, but it was the plan. The lions did the same thing to good effect vs wp, they have the pace to do so. As i said, i can see the plans and the changes to adapt, they just did not work as it should and that is why they need some1 to help out. Just my view, don’t think they are genius though.
Interesting point of view. I agree that Jake White can’t walk on water and he’s record was not as great as everybody now remembers.
But Peter De Villiers is not making the grade, amongst others:
1) No forward planning e.g.
* don’t plan for a defense coach and then want to borrow WP’s one when he already has a full time job
* Did not plan for a replacement for Schalla last year and Brussow was (luckely) called up at no 99
* Had no plan for the 3rd Lions test. Kirchner was called up on Monday (!) to play for the Boks the first time on Saterday.
2) Management
* Recruited 2 assitants whith dubious records and philosophies.
* He did a very good thing to get Smittie and Victor back from France, but now no one is sure who is in charge- players or management. Apparantly Butch was recalled because the senior players wants him back. Is there a line between players and coaches?
3) Team selections – now we Saffas loves to select our own Bok teams but here is some obvious examples:
* January (need I say more)
* Out of form Habanna/ Spies (ties in with Management)
* Adi Jacobs
4) Inconsistant performances -in 2008 almost loose to Scotland and then blew the Poms away. Same against the B&I Lions 3rd test.
I have met Pieter briefly last year at Wembley (against Saracens). He made the effort to chat to me, which I appreciate a lot, but he is not the man to lead the Boks. And that is what a coach ultimately must do, lead the team.
Excellent argument londonbull. Thanks.
londonbull, i want to comment on a few of your points, but am on my mobile and will do so in the morning. But your comment reflects objectivity and are fact based and I value that.
Come join my pool in SuperBru, the ultimate T20 Champions League prediction game! It’s easy – just go to the website and enter the pool code barbglum to join my pool, R-T Cricket T20CL.
Website: http://www.superbru.com/t20champions
Pool code: barbglum
Pool name: R-T Cricket T20CL
So daar is die nuus nou uit, dit was omdat die Sharks en Cheetahs gekerm het, dat sekere bokke nie kan speel nie. Lees dit by Supersport:
“The decision, which is understood to have been made after there were complaints in the conference call from the Cheetahs and Sharks about the Bulls getting their Springbok players back, does not serve the best interests of South African rugby at all.”
“All players have been given a programme by the Springbok conditioning and medical team and will follow this under the supervision of the provincial conditioning teams and in consultation with Springbok management. The contracted players will report to Cape Town on 4 October for testing.”
Nog ‘n probleem. Die Bokke kan die 6de weer speel vir hul provinsies, so hul moet dus saam hul provinsies. Maar, nou moet hul 2 dae voor die tyd aanmeld in die Kaap. Gooi dinge lekker deur mekaar vir sekere provinsies wat nie naby die Kaap is nie.
Die feit dat die ‘gentleman’s agreement’ verbreek is dat sekere spelers weer kan speel al is hul gekontrakteer (bv. Bakkies, CJ en Bismark), beteken seker nou dat Gurthro ook nou vir die Bulle kan speel van Saterdag af, en dan mag SARU nie kerm nie.
Die middeweg sou gewees het, soos reeds genoem is, beoordeel elke gekontrakteerde speler op eie meriete, en neem dan ‘n finale besluit.
22: geweet die vrystaters is bang vir Bakkies, maar nie geweet hul is so bang nie ? 😀
20: Look forward to it
bdb22& 23: Wys jou ook hoeveel van die Bokke se probleem le by SARU. Maak dit rerig sin dat Gutro vir die Bulle kan speel maae Bakkies nie? Dit is nie snaaks dar die Sharks en die Cheetas gekla het nie, maar moes SARU toegee?
Despite New Zealand’s long-standing dominance of their trans-Tasman rivals, Henry doesn’t believe confidence will be an issue for the Wallabies on Saturday following their win.
“They’ve got very skilled footballers, always have done,” said henry.
“The South Africans gave them the opportunity to express that last night and they expressed themselves exceptionally well.”
South Africa sent plenty of traffic at Wallabies five-eighth Quade Cooper, but Henry said the end result proved that didn’t work and the All Blacks will adopt a more diverse approach.
“I think if you concentrate on one area I think you’ll find that’s a negative and I think at the end of the day the Boks’ found that a negative,” he said.
“I thought Cooper defended pretty well … You’ve got to have some variety in your attack and play the game with a bit of width which we’re trying to do and not concentrate on any particular individual.”
met uysh
very very well said!!
gbs @ 3
after beating raped at loftus, the sa media went to nz’s press conference saying that they just came from the conference held by jw
they then under a lot of laughter told gh that jw’s answer to their questions was “but they’ve got carter and mccaw”
henry then answered with “well, we’ll see what we can do about that” which again draw a lot of laughter from the sa press!!
..
just one of the instances where it became clear that the sa media (and supporters) had their knives in for jw
and
wanted to get rid of him!! a far cry from what most people think of him nowadays aint it? nowadays he’s a saint, someone who could and still cant do no wrong!! just read some of the comments above, and you’ll get the idea!!
#28
shouldve been “after BEING raped”
28@ Ashley:
Jake is no saint and never was, he also suffered from Media Foot in Mouth Disease… but at least not as embarrassingly so as Snorrie.
My critisism of Snorrie pertains to the game he wants the Bokke to play, the lack of respect for defence… and of course the inability of his and his 2 assistant’s knowledge of the game.
Users Online
Total 145 users including 0 member, 145 guests, 0 bot online
Most users ever online were 3735, on 31 August 2022 @ 6:23 pm
No Counter as from 31 October 2009: 41,237,106 Page Impressions
_