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?
gbs @ 30
i never said he was a saint
i
said
that when reading some of the comments above (and listening to some of the supporters around me) i certainly do get that impression!! when i do remind them of things like #28
the only thing i get are blank stares!!
31@ Ashley:
Blank stares….. you taught them well!
gbs @ 32
😆 ag jou gat man!!
33@ Ashley:
Hahaha
gbs @ 34
onthou jy die geval van hougaardt en jsmit wat ge-sub was teen nz vroeër in die 3n?
onthou dat dit was agv erge krampe (hougaardt) en ñ besering (juan)?
…
vind jy dit nie snaaks dat, alhoewel die media daai inligting gehad het, dat ek omtrent nêrens enige mention daarvan kon opspoor nie?
dink die 1ste wat ek daarvan GELEES het, was hier op RT!!
…
vind jy dit ook nie snaaks dat, alhowel baie joernaliste bewus was daarvan dat juis daai 2 subs die grootste besprekingspunt rondom daai game was, omtrent niemand van hulle die rede vir die subs bekend gemaak het nie?
35@ Ashley:
Asbak, die Media is die Media… en soms goed futtup….
Maar mens, mens kan mos onmoontlik nie alles aan hulle toeskrywe nie…
Kom ek gee vir jou nog ‘n voorbeeld…
Na die Loftus Toets 2 weke gelede, sê Snorrie mos daar in die Na-wedstryd persfonferensie “The Ozzies have dancers in their backline, hell and they don’t even need music to dance”.. of woorde baie tot daai effek…
Snaaks was dit beslis, maar my jinne man…. kan die man hom nie behoorlik gedra en ordentlik uitspreek nie.
As ons ‘n Stand-Up Comedian wou gehad het as Bokke coach, het ons mos vir Rihad Moosa of Emo Adams of The Cousin of John Flismis aangestel, nie waar nie? Maar nooit vir Eddie Murphy of Chris Rock nie, hulle vloek te verskriklik…. en dit sou ‘n forken foutjie wees!
Die man se mond hol weg met hom en hy is sy eie grootste vyand…. en dit alleen is 1 moooooooooooosa probleem.
gbs @ 36
lol
ek speel net bietjie “devils advocate” bru
maar met ñ goeie doel … mens staan soms verstom om te besef dat dinge wat jy glo (veral die wat jy glo die gevolg is van jou eie gevolgtrekkings) eintlik die gevolg is van baie subtiele buite invloede, lol
…
soos met uysh in sy artikel sê
waar kom die gevoel vandaan dat
1. die span wat pdv ge-erf het, world beaters was?
waar kom die gevoel vandaan dat
2. hierdie span amper nie eens teen die ab mag verloor nie?
…
btw
net ñ laaste opmerking. ek sien dat jw weereens in die media bekend gemaak het dat hy belangstel in die afrigterspos.
my vraag is:
1. is dit omdat hy ñ groot liefde vir sarugby het?
hmmmm miskien, maar is sy liefde vir die span definitief dan groter as bv dié van pdv?
2. of is dit omdat hy weet dat al wat hierdie span makeer is die terugkeer v ñ paar sleutelspelers en ñ klein tweak hier en daar!!
ek is meer geneig om met #2 saam te stem!!
..
ja, ek haat dit om te verloor
en
ja, ek haat dit om in hierdie posisie te wees
maar
hel, wys my enige span met een hand op webb ellis op dié stadium
en
ek wys jou ñ span wat sal moet deal met die pressure van expectation!!
36@ grootblousmile:
But the facts of the matter are that Messrs Hoskins and Marinos (and their cronies) will make no real attempt to fix the problem.
They’ll sweep it (once again) under the carpet, and after a (maybe) disastrous WC start looking for someone to fix things.
SARU = Poor corporate management run by (mainly) spineless individuals with no idea of what is best for the sport of Rugby in SA. (IMO)
scrumdown @ 38
just a question … if jw was sacked in 2006
do you think we wouldve won the wc in 2007
and
why do you believe so?
39@ Ashley:
Ashley, I don’t believe we would have.
Irrespective of what anyone thinks about JW, I believe he was the “glue” that completed the squad.
Just as PdV has his faults, I personally think it’s too late in the day to get rid of him. (Not that I believe SARU would.)
If reports are to be believed the players seem to like him (for the most part) and he seems to be a decent man manager, which I think is important.
As far as his Rugby capabilities are concerned, I don’t count myself qualified to pass comment.
I do think he should be given a couple of ABLE assistant coaches in place of the 2 he now has.
I’ve always said that I don’t believe tricky Dicky is even Provincial quality and IMO the S14 this year proved it.
SARU has unfortunately placed itself in a difficult position by not taking simple steps like appointing PdV a spokesman and must now eradicate themselves.
I’m sure that Mr Hoskins Esq’, being from the legal profession will manage to do so, but unfortunately I’m not sure that he / SARU will do enough for the Boks to retain the Webb Ellis Trophy.
scrumdown @ 40
hmmm, quite a few valid points in there!
..
just an observation … isnt it strange that around 2006 we also thought that allister coetzee (also backline coach) couldnt even coach a cc team? 😉
41@ Ashley:
Ashley
Your point is valid, with many bloggers having slagged Alistair good and solid when he was with JW.
I guess he can thumb his nose at them now can’t he, but we have to ask the question “Who makes the big calls in WP Rugby, AC or Rassie”, and also, “what constitutes success”?
scrumdown @ 42
😆 jaaaaaaaaaa boet!!
#43
anyway, allistair did manage to get better results than rassie with the same team … yes, rassie did coach s14 and allistair only cc, but thats one of the reasons allistair was kept as s14 coach after that!!
whether his better results was due to better coaching or better man management or just the players have played longer together when he took over, cant be said for certain!!
whats clear though, is that the answer to this or for that matter most other questions surrounding this sport we love so much,
is definately not just “in black and white” 😉
44@ Ashley:
LOL. Ja boet. Having just resigned as an administrator in club Rugby in JHB I can most definitely confirm that very little is Black or White, “Yes” can actually mean “Yes, maybe, no or never in a million years” depending on who you’re talking to.
We do indeed have our own love affairs with a very complex (both on and off the field) sport.
45@ Scrumdown:
Just wait till someone says “Janee”….. then it’s a proper farkup!
gbs @ 46
😆
ok guys i’m out
hope to chat later on again!!
cheers!!
@ grootblousmile:
It happens a lot in Doornfontein!
Mainly between 15 guys in White and Red jerseys. Hence a complete and utter lack of understanding. Luckily people from the land of the long white cloud don’t have a cookin clue what it means so they are hoping to eradicate the term from the game plan.
Problem is thought that a certain senior administrator there keeps using the term at almost every opportunity.
48@ Scrumdown:
Janee swaer…. I understand!
What many saffas forget is this…
The world champions are 4 years older….okay not quite but thereabouts.
Many players were at their peak at that time and so by nature one gets older and slower…what PDV hqas not done is grow some Machendes and retired a few players last year.
You cant have too many players over 30 in a rugby side a year out from the world cup.
Jake white said it…tough decisions should have been made last year. The tactics and style is not wrong but there are no young legs to keep the momentum going at high intesity for 80 minutes.
@ Wallabie.:
Wallabie, Age is not an issue.
We’ve got Victor Matfield at 33, playing excellent Rugby still. John Smit at 32 is still good enough but overexcerted.Danie Rossouw 32. BJ Botha, 30; CJ van Der Linde 30. 5 players 30 and above. Remember how good was Os Du Randt at 35 in the World Cup?
The All Blacks have; Keven Mealamu – 32 (same as John). Brad Thorn – 35 (2 years older than Victor). Richie McCaw – 30. Mills Muliana, 30. The Oldest backline player between the two groups. 4 players 30 and older.
I really don’t see which of these players who are still playing very good rugby (except maybe BJ) should have been retired last year. Which all black would you say is now too old? Maybe Mills last year, but did you see how he came back this year?
Nah, age is not an issue. And you do not retire a player simply because he is 4 years older. You drop him when he is not performing his role in the squad.
@ Met Uysh:
I personally think the tight five generally can play a few years longer than the rest, Experience for example in props allow them to improve over time.
@ Met Uysh:
Du Randt survived 2007 due to the style of rugby played then…it was kick and chase all the time.
One did not need to be fit in the last 7 years of rugby…fat would have got one a place in a side.
The AB’s they have many youngsters as well.
@ Wallabie.:
So do the Boks. In fact the average age of the two sides are both 27yrs.
met uysh @ 51
add to that that jsmit will be worth his weight in gold come that close knock-out games, and why would you want to go and retire him?
would be interesting to know who exactly walla wanted to retire?
maybe he like the rest of aus feels that everone should go barring spies and habana,
who by the way are the ones struggling with form? 😉
..
great article, btw!!
@ Met Uysh:
Then the Boks have a problem with skill.
walla @ 56
since i can remember, the boks have had problems with skill
..
we still won 2 wc out of 4 attempts!!
..
btw
goodday to you mate!!
#57
not that i am ignoring the fact that we lack the kind of skills i’d like to see the boks employ at int level
… i like a lot of others hate seeing guys run into opposition players instead of hitting the gap between them, go through with a move although a gap have opened somewhere else, or see players keep the ball when theres an overlap
only
because they cant pass to that side!! 😯
…
but that said
i think sa supporters have now got what they deserve!!
when pdv first started talking about heads-up rugby etc etc etc because he felt that the game have changed,
everyone was up in arms calling his kind of rugby “helter-skelter” and wanted to get rid of it “because that is not the strength of sarugby”
..
now the same guys complain that we, unlike the ab and wallabies, have not “evolved” from the kicking game!!
yep, you even see stats all over the net comparing the amount of times we kick when compared to the wallabies and ab!!
@ Ashley:
VEry true Ashley!!
I did a post on this very issue a while ago. You can read it here:
http://blogs.sport24.co.za/uysh/edit-bok-coach-saw-the-future
Ashley wrote:
So true Ashley , we were moaning about that , now some want it. My view is still that SA never played that type of game, we were always grinding, playing structural rugby.
Users Online
Total 309 users including 0 member, 309 guests, 0 bot online
Most users ever online were 3735, on 31 August 2022 @ 6:23 pm
No Counter as from 31 October 2009: 41,822,746 Page Impressions
_