Brendan Venter

For all the criticism I levelled against Argentina for their negative play in the Loftus Versfeld test, in stark contrast, they deserve a world of credit for their impressive display in Salta.

In theory, the second-ranked Springboks should have destroyed the side placed 12th in world rugby. However, in practice, three main factors determine the outcome of a match:

They are, your own team’s performance, the performance of the opposition and, last but not least, the standard of officiating delivered by the assigned referee on the day.

SuperSport

Admittedly the Springboks weren’t at their barnstorming best but, from a purely analytical and objective point of view, the home side were exceptionally strong in all facets of play.

The Pumas scrummed supremely, contested the lineouts skilfully, defended fiercely, attacked with purpose and penetration and kicked the ball into space at the right moments.

Meanwhile, Steve Walsh, who often blows hot and cold, enjoyed an efficient outing with the whistle.

While the Springboks’ natural inclination will be to look inwards, having played their “get out of jail free” card, I believe those critics who have chosen to pick apart their performance and even question the players’ level of effort, have done so from the comfort of their couches.

One such example is the condemnation of Juan Smith’s 52-minute performance in Salta.

While I agree with the maxim which states that you’re only as good as your last game, I believe the 2007 World Cup-winner deserves far more respect from the wider rugby public.

Furthermore, for some critics to call the 70-test veteran’s patriotism and commitment into question is grossly unfair. For me, Smith epitomises the spirit of a gallant fighter.

Former US President Theodore Roosevelt summed it up succinctly when he once uttered, in a now-famous speech, “It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles… The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming…”

Indeed, I have failed almost as many times as I have succeeded but crucially I have never lost sight of the fact that it’s so much more than simply winning or losing or the final score.

I have discovered that it’s the process rather than any singular achievement which matters most and, by definition, my overall coaching philosophy is built upon this very foundation.

While I have fulfilled professional coaching stints with the likes of London Irish, Saracens, the Stormers, the Sharks, and the SA under-20 side, I derive as much, if not more, satisfaction from my non-remunerated current coaching role with Paul Roos. My duty is not as a head coach but rather as a support player to their coaching staff and to the school.

My son, Brendan, is in grade 8 at the school and, instead of selling pancakes which some of the other parents do, I chose to give back by offering my coaching expertise at no charge.

I enjoy the concept of coaching irrespective of the level at which I’m involved. I take great delight in attempting to come up with a plan and galvanising people in a certain direction.

For me, rugby coaching has become a hobby which is not that far removed from my day job as a medical doctor, because at the heart of both vocations it’s about working with people.

Returning to the Juan Smith case study, while he remains a brilliant player, I believe he’s an even greater human being, which is why his value to his country remains immeasurable.

As a supporter, are you able to weigh up a player’s holistic worth to the team cause or are you hypercritical of each and every performance?