The Stormers - tolerating mediocrity for far too long

Today's match against the Waratahs might be the worst rugby match I have ever seen.

The Stormers did the equivalent of arriving at work at 09h00, playing minesweeper, taking lunch, going to the sick room for a lie down and leaving at 17h00.

These guys are supposed to be professionals. So treat them that way. Pack some on the plane home. Fire some and never consider them for colours again. Jeez, in business I'd withhold salary for their being absent.

The sad fact is that the Stormers have been in terminal decline for years. And the reason is clear to see. Tolerance of mediocrity.

I groaned when the Stormers had their second loss of the season and Jean de Villiers claimed the performance was pretty good but the result had just not gone their way. He asked the crowd to continue supporting the team. Today he smiled in the post match interview, claimed they were happy with the defensive performance, they could take heart from the defensive strength and that they had improved from last week. And he "joked" that the Waratah's turnovers may not have been legal.

Jean you're a nice guy but you deserved a punch. Fact is you have captained the team to 5 losses from 7 starts. Not once have you showed any regret or that losing any game is just not good enough. And when you're losing, it's best to keep your mouth shut about refs and other teams.

But Jean is just the idiot we have to endure during the post match speeches.

Naqelevuki is the incompetent clown who's laughing all the way to the bank on his expat salary earned for a stroll around the park. Januarie's money is clearly not making it to the bank - the pie shop on the corner must be raking in record profits.

Jake White was right. Schalk Brits might as well be playing for the other side in scrums and line outs. Did someone say, "But what a lovely goose step?" If the backs could actually rely on seeing their fellow backs inside and outside them, perhaps they'd look a bit more confident and make a few yards. Brits and Bekker's athleticism might be wonderful for men of their position's but let's measure our players on their primary responsibilities. I'll give Bekker a break because he's got a sore toe and not on the tour, but Brits should join him on the couch back home. His lineouts and scrumming are diabolical.

Watson is one of our best performers in the loose. And he looks like one of the few players who is playing 80 minutes and exerting himself. But jeez, Luke please try passing the ball when you're in the line.

The Stormers cry foul at the mention of their "light five" tag, but as they pull their heads out their arses - where the Waratah's shoved them - I'd like to hear them to cry contrary.

But let's not exonerate the backs. When last did you see a Stormer chase a kick? When did you see a back run onto the ball, straighten the line and draw his man rather than flip a gentle pass towards the wing along with 15 opposition players. Let's face it, the Stormers look as likely to score a try from phase and set play as Bafana are to win the world cup.

Rassie you're a nice guy too. You claimed the side lacked a little belief in your post match interview. Not good enough mate. You have two Springbok assistant coaches on your team. You have a Springbok-studded side. You talk about poor execution of tactics and positional kicking. Take responsibility. Hold players accountable.

Guys. You're not far off the time the Newlands crowd booed the team and Gert Smal off the park. Frankly you're lucky you're overseas.

Chickens come home to roost

Jeez I'm disappointed.

The more things change the more they stay the same. One year ago I wrote about problems in Bok rugby. We've won a World Cup and had a change of coach since then. But the ruck and protection of possession problems are the same.

I wrote that Matfield was not even a captain's arse. Maybe that's changed. Maybe he is just a captain's arse. When Jake White took over he introduced Prozone and summarily sent Matfield home from Australia - apparently due to his refusal to get stuck in. After yesterday's match, our lineout supremo walked off the park and lamented the team's breakdown performance. I counted his attendance at about 3 rucks during the game.

If Pieter de Villiers favours players who read the game situation and adapt, how does our captain excuse understanding the problem and doing nothing about it?

In the various reviews and thoughts I've noted on this blog, I've typically lamented South African sides unwillingness to get stuck in in the loose. Under the ELVs, the need to secure quick multi-phase ball has been elevated further.

On this away leg, we have relied entirely on Schalk Burger and Bakkies Botha to secure any ball at the breakdown, with some assistance from Joe van Niekerk and Juan Smith.

Yesterday's shambles showed an exhausted Botha and an injured Burger. Juan Smith was our player of the day - he tried everything. And our captain alternated between first center and wing. The much vaunted Pierre Spies disappeared. Kankowski made an anonymous late appearance.

One Australian report counted 35 Aussie turnovers of Springbok ball!

The problem does not require rocket scientists to diagnose. The solution is more complex. Of course modern rugby requires a balance of players in the ruck on and in defense. Often a similar balance is required on attack to provide quick support to the second phase ball carrier. But to ascribe our pathetic breakdown performance to getting this balance wrong is to ignore that some players in our Bok ranks do not like putting in the hard yards in cleaning the fringes and protecting our fetchers and scrummies.

De Villiers has done a fantastic job of gaining player support. In the press, his team have talked at their pleasure at providing him a win in Dunedin after the hard time he had taken after Wellington. The hard task now begins. Can he maintain this support and enforce disciplines? Can he point out the deficiencies in the team video sessions? Can he make a hard call and drop Matfield and Butch if their performance does not improve?

I'm going to dispense with the player ratings this week. They're pretty obvious. I liked the way Jean de Villiers and Steyn changed channels on defense and attack similar to the way De Villiers and Bobo had done in the Super 14. I though Juan Smith had a never-say-die performance and together with Burger and Botha tried to carry the team at the breakdown.

Beyond that it was a terrible performance. The gains at scrum time made in Dunedin were reversed. Schalk Brits showed his wobbly line out fallibility. Butch needs to be given Currie Cup time to find his game. Jantjies regressed from Wellington. Januarie struggled with no protection and shocking ball. De Villiers bounced off a tackle that resulted in a try. It was miserable stuff.

I'm scared to think of what injuries to Burger and Botha will do to this side.

Wow

I'm still drained. One and a half days later. What a performance.

At one stage of the match I imagined myself being interviewed as an old man - one of the last alive to have seen the Boks beat New Zealand in New Zealand. Forgive me for my doubts. Before Ricky Januarie's moment of brilliance, I thought we had been beaten again.

As South Africans we're never as stubborn as when we have our backs to the wall. Sometimes that backfires like at Twickenham in 2002. Perhaps that is when we give up on the thought of winning, but refuse to leave without hurting the opposition. Sometimes it works when we refuse to give an inch as we wait for a moment of weakness.

205 tackles to 89. Talk about not giving an inch. Januarie's try. Talk about maximum return on a moment of weakness. It was classic Springbok trench warfare. Repelling waves of All Black attacks in the second half. Talk about belief.

Reason to celebrate

Bryan Habana cried tears of joy at the end. Teammates erupted in joy when Januarie scored. South Africa rejoiced that not only had they built on their world champion status, they had done it in the best way possible. By beating the pretenders to their throne, at the venue where they have never won. If the All Blacks could have named an occasion to prove their claim that the Boks would have lost the World Cup to them had it not been for a poor call by a referee, it would have been a Tri-nations match in Dunedin.

But it was more significant than just that. As is so often the South African case, it was an occasion when many harboured doubts about South Africa's first non-white coach and after an acrimonious week of accusations and counters between the All Blacks and Boks after Wellington.

Reason for hope

Pieter de Villiers was magnanimous in victory yesterday. In the immediate post-match interview, it was easy to see the relief as the coach pleaded for patience from South African fans. He said we were not yet the best but that we would grow.

South Africa is again rated the best team in the world according to the rankings and the reigning world champions. It would be easy to claim greatness.

But stand in captain for the last eight minutes of the match, Jean de Villiers was equally humble.

For good reason. South Africa returned to the familiar recipe of playing off their opponents mistakes. It is a game that few other nations can succeed at. It demands sacrifice of bodies and pain, absorbing pressure and believing in your team mates. It took 22 tackles from Schalk Burger and the turnaround of a pack beaten into submission the week before.

We have some way to go before we create our own opportunities and before we start as favourites against an All Black team at full strength. But that is a journey that starts with winning matches away and building momentum.

Yesterday marked the beginning of that journey. It marked the move from Pieter de Villier's stated desire on beginning his job, to improve the team by 40% and introduce a new brand of attacking brand of rugby. At least he made these claims whilst chasing the core of the World Cup Bok team and returning players from Europe to create a platform for growth. Yesterday marked a return to this sensibility. Before we can seek to retain ball as the All Blacks did in the second half, and attack our opponents through multi-phase ball, we need to create the belief first based on our strengths.

Where to improve

We almost fell victim to the All Black second half surge yesterday. We played for most of the game without the ball. We kicked many balls straight back down the middle of the park. We committed limited numbers to the breakdown and won precious few turnovers. Our chase on our kicks was often poor and our support of the ball carrier not always optimal.

It asks a lot of a team to repel more than 10 phases, kick the ball downfield, and then have the ball run back and repel again. Often games like yesterday's are lost by fractions rather than won by similar amounts.

But the guts and bravery are the platform to change that. It is easier to improve a winning effort than a losing one. It creates the space for players like Butch who is struggling for form and who had another poor game yesterday. It creates the space to begin to target weak opposition rucks for turnovers. It creates the belief required for first phase set piece moves.

Having said that the improvement in last week's effort in Wellington was appreciable. Most notably in the scrums. Hats off to the South African forwards and the coaching staff. Matfield was certainly better and imperious in the lineouts. JP Pietersen's selection was a masterstroke. Bismark du Plessis was solid in the scrums and the loose. Thanks goodness his lineouts held up too.

Januarie deserved the man of the match based on a two week effort. I thought he was even better in the Wellington losing effort. But the moment of brilliance of this week won the game for the Boks, and his mongrel boosts the whole team.

Looking ahead

Robbie Deans represents a huge threat. His tactical appreciation combined with Australian skill levels pose a real challenge in Perth. Together with the loss of Bismark du Plessis to a banning and Butch's lack of form, the Boks will have their work cut out.

I believe the challenge will shift from a physical one to tactical nous. Our kicking game will have to be pinpoint. We have to force territorial dominance and from there look to create opportunities off lineouts and around the ruck and maul. Our support play will have to improve as will our chase of our kicks.

I believe the shift will require a commanding game from pivot. Given Butch's form, I'd want Grant on the bench and Steyn in the starting lineup. I think the World Cup final backline lineup matches the need. I'd use Steyn at first center and Monty to alternate kicking from the flyhalf channel. Of course this is a tough call on Adi Jacobs who I think has been outstanding. Grant covers Steyn at first center too though and gives extra options.

Bismark du Plessis' ban is a headache. I'd fly over Adriaan Strauss from the Free State which I see is also the Bok coaching staff choice.

My lineup for Perth:

15. Montgomery 14. Habana 13. De Villiers 12. Steyn 11. Pietersen 10. James 9. Januarie 8. Van Nierkerk 7. Smith 6. Burger 5. Matfield 4. Botha. 3. Van der Linde
2. Brits 1. Steenkamp

Reserves: Jantjies, Grant, Pienaar, Bekker, Watson, Strauss, Mujati

Player ratings from Dunedin:

Montgomery - 6: Added experience and calmness to the team and got the Boks off to a good start by goaling his kicks. Fielded the ball well with one or two exceptions.

Habana - 6: Hardly involved on attack. Solid in defence.

Jacobs - 7: Fantastic defence and marked two weeks of showing up his critics and repaying his coach's faith in him

De Villiers - 8: Another brilliant defensive performance and another leader on the field. Should be captain in Smit's absence.

Pietersen - 7: What a return. First try of the season after an awful Super 14. Brilliant selection by De Villiers.

James - 5: Really out of form. Some poor kicks, a missed tackle that led to the All Black try and regression in his defensive technique. Perhaps his form is contributing to his trying to make his mark on the game through being overly physical.

Januarie - 8: Just fantastic.I thought he was even better overall in Wellington. But his try was one of those moments to remember - it won us the match and repaid the hard defensive work put in by the whole team.

Van Niekerk - 7: Much happier behind a stronger pack. Played more of a linking game. Made some good tackles.

Smith - 7: Good defensive effort in the tackle and at the breakdown.

Burger - 8: Did the work of three men. The Boks were totally reliant on him in defence and at ruck and maul time. He needs support. If he were injured again, the Boks would be in serious trouble.

Matfield - 7: A much better performance. Has to be given credit as captain for the team effort. Was brilliant in the lineout. Still not a force at the breakdown leaving all the cleaning to Botha and Smith.

Botha - 8: Just incredible at the breakdown. Physically and psychologically hurt the opposition with his cleaning out and tackles.

Van Der Linde - 7: What a turnaround. Restored strength to the front row and removed the All Black dominance in the set piece.

Du Plessis - 6: Some great tackles and a solid lineout performance.

Steenkamp - 7: Did well at scum time and again made tackles all over the park - second only to Schalk.

Reserves:

Bekker - 7: Came on and got stuck in. Made his tackles and helped fill the immense role Bakkies had played prior to injury.

Watson - 4: It was strange to see him on. Again, not really his style of game and he did not look like he wanted to be there.

Steyn - 6: Slotted the winning conversion under pressure. Added another kicking option. Kicks downfield allowed the All Blacks to run the ball back, however may have been playing to a pattern.

Jantjies - 6: solid replacement.

Mujati, Pienaar: not on long enough for an assessment.

Coaching staff - 9: Real guts to turn it around from Wellington. Humility to acknowledge they got it wrong and change the pattern. Selection of Pietersen was inspired. Guts to return Monty for Jantjies despite the latter's really good performance last week.

A tale of two halves

Jeez. Gutted. Another test in New Zealand test lost.

That first half was a vintage All Black Springbok clash. All the intensity, bravery, passion.The rucks were ferocious and the defence committed. Thrilling stuff and I definitely got the feeling I was watching the two best teams in the world.

It started with the Haka. As always, it seems like you can tell so much with the way New Zealand lines up for the challenge. The hunger was apparent. And it just looked like it was a team out to prove they were not completely dependent on Richie McCaw. The pre-match hype about "South Africa's best chance in New Zealand" and "Take them with McCaw out" must have inspired the All Blacks to play for Soialo.

I think the All Black side always hits you at a million miles an hour out of the shed. They were no different today. What made this vintage was the Bok counter. John Smit was every bit Captain Fantastic. He led the challenge at ruck time with Burger and Bakkies in fantastic support.

But it was clear even when we were playing so well that Matfield was a spectator. Maybe it was because the All Blacks managed to keep the pressure on and force our kicks and lineouts on their own throw. The first 7 lineouts were all All Black throw-ins and they won them all. Matfield was anonymous and deserved a rocket for his lack of presence at the breakdown. It has never been his strength and it has always been very clear he would rather play center than graft in the rucks. The exception was against the All Blacks at Newlands in August 2005. Somebody should play that match to the Boks before every All Black test. Matfield should have in on permanent repeat. It was the perfect Bok pack performance in 2005. It was nowhere near that today. It said everything that we had an extra player in the rucks when Monty came on.

Speaking of pack performances, the All Black front row is without peer in World rugby - because of their props. Somerville and Woodcock were unbelievable. If we had got the go-forward in the pack in the first half, this might have been a different game. Somerville and Woodcock made sure that didn't happen. Nothing against Steenkamp, Van Der Linde or Mujati - and especially Smit or Du Plessis. The counter was courageous but always on the back foot.

I thought our starting back row was inspirational. Burger, Van Niekerk and Smith were fantastic and it was questionable subbing Van Niekerk in the second half. Burger and Botha carried team at rucks and Botha deserves all the plaudits in the world for that. The two also showed an enormous work rate around the park making tackle after tackle. Those talking of Matfield being off the pace considering his recent play in the French second league should consider Burger has had 20 minutes since his knee ligament injury.

Backline - encouraging but not controlling

In the back, the back three proved to everyone they were safe under the high ball. Now and again Ndugane's positional play may have been questioned as Carter kicked into space behind his wing. Carter was every bit the world's best flyhalf today - on attack and defence.

Ndugane and Jacobs showed their critics up with solid defensive efforts. Jacobs showed good touches on attack too and was directly responsible for putting De Villiers into space to create Habana's try.

But the player of the day for the Boks was Januarie. He is back to his best form. He used to be the perfect player against Gregan because he managed to get up Georgie's nose. Today he was much more than that. He played the scrummie role to perfection. Quick service and getting the ball out without enough protection from clearing players at the ruck. He kicked from the base and controlled his aggression. It was mystery why he was subbed by Conradie.

Second half psychology

We lost the match when we came on psychologically behind in the second half. World Champions who had just scored going into the half time break 8-9 behind should have inspired the team to come back believing it was only a matter of time before we took the lead. Instead those first 15 minutes were all All Blacks as we looked devoid of tactics. Butch needed to seize control. He was strangely off today and coughed a lot. Maybe he was sick. If so, it needed a decisive substitution early in the second half.

Steyn was not the player to take control. While his 60m almost-drop was astonishing, the charge down of his kick from his line was all-too familiar. I would have brought Monty on at flyhalf early in the second half and brought Steyn on on Odwa's wing to add some spark. Monty would have added an experienced controlling head. Odwa was courageous but was bounced off in three tackles due to a high body position. If he starts next week he has to go lower and drive into the tackle.

Our substitution tactics showed the coaching team tried to change the team to play to the ball and catch up rugby. The need for Watson for Van Niekerk and Steyn at flyhalf at 60 minutes were the result of the wrong tactics at the beginning of the second half.

The other aspect of our play today that worried me greatly was lack of support for ball carriers at the back or out wide. We conceded a number of turnovers as the All Blacks committed numbers to the chase. Conversely we never committed numbers to the chase.

Dunedin challenge

I'm not sure what the injury situation is, but Bekker coming on for Bakkies must have been injury enforced. That leaves question marks over Smit, Bakkies, Van Der Linde and Butch. Which is a serious worry for Dunedin.

The pressure is now on De Villiers. He has lost his first test and the loss breaks the Bok 12-match winning run. We have to sort out the front row prior to Dunedin. Gold's work will be cut out for him. De Villiers must consider his substitution strategy too. He has to use the Bok World Cup Final experience better. By merely re-constituting that World Cup Final backline, he'd add confidence. He needn't start with it - Jantjies was brilliant today - but if he'd reorganised 5 minutes into the second half today, I think Jantjies, Steyn, Jacobs, De Villiers, Monty, Habana would have looked like he'd brought on the stars to close out the game.

We've never won in Dunedin. Decisiveness is required to change that next week.

Ratings

Jantjies - 8: A very good performance from South Africa's form fullback. Solid under the high ball and good on the counter.

Ndugane - 6: Solid generally, but bounced out of three tackles close to his line. Needs to drive into the tackle with lower body position.

Jacobs - 7: Under huge pressure to prove his coach right going into the match. Set up the Bok try. Solid in defence.

De Villiers - 6: Should have been made captain when Smit went off. Solid and committed in the tackle. Great run to put Habana away. Also drove forward in the tackle making valuable metres on attack.

Habana - 6: Covered well around the park and scored a good try. Seldom put into space but was not really the weather for his kind of rugby.

James - 5: Strangely off. Needed to control the game but never looked confident. Coughed a lot and looked sick.

Januarie - 9: Outstanding. Under pressure on our own ball, was always there to clear before conceding a turnover. Courageous tackling. Controlled aggression.

Van Niekerk - 7: Grafting role required in the weather which he played well. The scrum never dominated resulting in a lack of a platform for his usual pick ups from the back.

Smith - 6: Solid grafting role. Vintage blindside play in the first half where he was required to play the hard yards.

Burger - 7: Unbelievable to consider he has had 20 minutes of game time since knee ligament damage. Huge tackles and workrate. Cleared rucks and led the forward charge.

Matfield - 3: Very poor. Complete lack of commitment. Possibly because he denied a starriing role in the lineouts early on by All Black tactics. But you have to question him not getting into first gear given the importance of the match.

Botha - 8: Wow. Tireless work rate at the rucks, controlled aggression, got around the park in support. Fantastic.

Van Der Linde - 5: Suffered in the scrums. Left with an apparent injury. Things actually looked like they improved when Mujati came on.

Smit - 7: Hugely valuable as a captain, scrummager and in the tight loose. His loss to injury is extremely worrying and robbed the Boks of direction in the game.

Steenkamp - 6: Good workrate around the park and improved in the scrums as the game went on.

Substitutions

Montgomery - 6: Showed the experience in putting a kick for position into touch downfield when nothing else was on. We needed the tactical appreciation throughout the second half.

Mujati - 6: Did very well considering doubts over his ability to stand up to the All Black front row. Looked like he improved the scrum when Van Der Linde went off.

Steyn - 5: Almost pulled off a 60m drop. But the charge down of his kick from his line showed his mercurial nature. He has never looked as good as when he played inside center in the World Cup. It seemed this allowed him to play a role where less decision making pressure was required and he had the support of experience on his inside and outside. Given how Jacobs played, he needs to re-establish himself as a first choice in the squad - and the coaches need to agree his role is at 12.

Watson - 5: Not the game for Watson - weather and match position didn't suit his style.

Du Plessis - 6: Started very poorly and got in the way of good attack ball in the backs. Gradually improved.

Bekker, Conradie: Not enough game to comment.

Coaching staff - 5: Got the second half completely wrong. But disrupted by losing Smit.

Use clubs to kick-start transformation

There have been a few headlines over the past few days about the changing role of clubs in South African rugby. But I wonder if clubs can play a far more fundamental role in the transformation of South African rugby.

When I was at school, soccer was not available - it was looked down upon. It was pretty much an unspoken rule at junior school that everyone had to play rugby in winter and cricket in summer. At high school, hockey was an alternative to rugby and waterpolo was an alternative to cricket. Those who wanted to play soccer typically joined a club like Rygersdal - who had age group sides.

I wonder if this is not the way to provide rapid access to rugby to township schools? Why couldn't clubs like Villagers and False Bay start junior sides and attract township talent? In my mind this would solve a number of problems:

1. Club rugby has faced declining fortunes with a drop in profile since the advent of professionalism


2. Good players at school level often don't make the step up to play rugby at club level - offering age group rugby would provide a feeder programme


3. Rugby has floundered in the townships due to lack of facilities and skilled coaches.

Of course there are a number of problems:

1. Transport from township schools to club facilities


2. Applicability to very young age groups (e.g. under 9s and 10s - should they be travelling to practices and matches at non-school premises?)


3. Availability of coaches during working hours


4. Ability of fields to support more play


5. Ability to find space in existing school schedules.

I am sure solutions could be found to each of these issues. For example, when I played club rugby a nearby school field (literally across the road) stood unused except for once every year when the annual sports day was held. I understand this was either due to lack of interest in sports from the kids or lack of staff to coach sport. Immediately this says to me that there is an opportunity to gain an extra field for the club and potential age group players from the school. With regard to coaches, I am sure varsity players schedules may allow them the flexibility to coach during working hours.

Maybe some clubs do offer age group rugby. Maybe they do see townships as a potential source of players. If you know of these examples, please comment.

My point is that I think that if we look for opportunities to take rugby to the masses there will be opportunities to strengthen the game. Club rugby is an option in doing this.

If we take a business minded approach to this and employ marketing minds, I am sure we could capitalise on the World Cup success.

Some months ago I watched a Carte Blanche insert on train surfing. I was astounded to hear from the kids that they mostly train surfed to gain the admiration of young girls. It made me think. Maybe we should be marketing sport to young township girl spectators. If they were enarmoured with the thought of big strong rugby-playing boys, I am sure we'd soon find young boys clamouring to play the game.

Finally, I am sure further lateral examples would show potential. What about schools who lack rugby playing numbers. Schools like SACS, Rondebosch, Bishops and Wynberg (to name a set from a very small area of South Africa) have from 5 o 8 teams per age group. Other schools battle to find the numbers to fill the positions for one team. Should we be precious about disallowing kids from other schools where rugby is not offered to join schools where it is, or see this as an opportunity? Of course I am not talking about creating open clubs at schools, but merely highlighting that there are some schools where rugby battles to survive because of lack of playing numbers and others with underutilised facilities. There must be an opportunity to put that right.

What do you think?

Soweto dropped from Boks ticker tape parade

On the same day that that shining liberal, paragon of rationale and good sense JJ Harmse* saluted SARU for their role in helping the Boks win the World Cup, the geniuses in the Rugby administration dropped Soweto from the Johannesburg ticker tape parade. Instead, the parade will now focus on paying tribute to the sponsors with a trip past Vodaworld in Midrand, Sasol in Rosebank and ABSA in the city.

In the last two weeks we had well wishes from the ANC Youth League and Young Communists League prior to the final, President Mbeki at the final, Nelson Mandela visit Boktown and millions of black Bok supporters in the fan towns in the townships during the game. Then Cabinet had an entire cabinet meeting in Springbok regalia. And the sports ministry reversed its open antagonism to the Springbok colours, logo and coach.

And then SARU dropped Soweto from the ticker tape route. Maybe it's just me, but saying "We're going to have to drop Soweto from the route" out loud just sets off all sorts of alarm bells. Hell, if I say it in my head it sounds ridiculous.

What an opportunity missed. Imagine Bryan Habana holding the trophy aloft in Soweto. The symbolism and promotion opportunity just couldn't be beaten.

Funny, I thought ticker tape parades were about fans. Guess who pays the huge bank charges, high petrol prices and crazy cell phone rates that make the Bok sponsorship deals possible - the fans. If you wanted to thank the corporate staff, have a combined function.

Instead of having taken a trip via Vodaworld and stopped off at Sasol for lunch, logistics could have been eased by going directly via Sandton, the CBD and then on to Soweto ending up at Nasrec for a combined sponsors' function. As it is, the team is ending up at ABSA Boktown, Monte Casino.

They way they keeping shooting, I can't believe SARU have any feet left.

A suggestion SARU - announce tomorrow that you will be bringing the trophy to Soweto for a send off prior to the Wales/Barbarians tour.

*Every word is sarcasm - JJ Harmse should be writing on a blog called "The Blue Bulls are all that matter"

**Take a look at the fan response to the article on News24 - clearly the stupidity of the move is acknowledged by almost all rational South Africans.

Bokke bo!

So this is a post high on drunken spirit and emotion.

The team hoists President Mbeki high with the Rugby World Cup - Picture: Reuters

It's 03h00 and the end to a fantastic week. The tension was phenomenal. Those who thought this was going to be another 36-0 whipping were always going to be wrong. Finals aren't like that. They draw out the best in people.

Let's start by giving England credit. They were magnificent. To recover from that loss to the Boks in the pool match and come back to make the final beating Australia and France along the way was special. If you doubt the strength and quality of the side, look at their statistics going into this match. The English forwards were immense. Not just at scrum time, but at the breakdown too.

Today was all the better performance by the Boks because the English went into this match with nothing to lose. The pressure was on the Boks. You could see it when they ran onto the field. Their pale faces and steely looks spoke of the unbelievable tension they must have faced going into this match.

Further, this match was not just about winning the World Cup for south Africa. South African life is never that simple. It was about playing for a coach who had a gun to his head. It was about playing for a game that was under pressure to put demographics before victory. It was about giving a nation relief from the assault on its psyche from crime and the difficulty of rebuilding the South African dream.

Hugh Bladen said that Percy Montgomery was too scared to go outside this week in case he got a cold. You could see the pressure of a nation's expectations in his eyes. Francois Steyn's pale face betrayed the pressure on a twenty year old expected to play a faultless game. And Victor Matfield's gaunt look spoke of the pressure on a man expected to win every lineout.

The English ran onto the field with a plan. The often recited criticisms of the Bok back three under the high ball were the bedrock of the English tactic. Together of course with the assault of their pack at scrum time and at ruck ball.

What a response. I said in my pre-match report that the Boks would not turn around a deficient scrum in one week. After looking fragile in the first scrum, weren't they magnificent thereafter? Did you count the wheels on English ball? Did you see the pressure on the English backs? And what of those high balls? Let's face it Monty does not often leap into the sky and claim the high ball in close competition. He was fantastic tonight. And those rucks. The clean out by Bakkies Botha on Phil Vickery in the first half was the stuff of legends.

This was never a match to do more than required to beat the English. If you expected waves of attack with ball to the wings you were always going to be disappointed. If you believe that the disallowed try to the English cost them the game, you failed to see the Boks measuring their effort. Cutting out mistakes was always the first priority. Playing for position the second. And staying ahead on the scoreboard the most important result. If that try had been allowed, I am sure the Boks would have responded.

Once Francois Steyn forgot the script and stepped past three English defenders to put the Boks close. Danie Roussouw finished inches short. It did not matter. Whenever the Boks got the opportunity to kick at poles, Monty never looked like missing. Together with a long range effort from Steyn, those kicks progressively played the English out of the game.

We never got to see the Boks play a set move in the English 22. Never got to see an Eddie Jones inspired strike. That was testimony to the English response. There was not a lot wrong with the Bok line kicking tonight. The competition were just that good.

We also never got to see a Jonny Wilkinson drop goal. We almost saw Matthew Tait score, but not quite. We never got to see Jason Robinson cut through our defenders. The Boks were just that good.

What a victory. What a moment. What country ever hoists their president on their shoulders in the moment of a sporting triumph? To overstate the importance of this win is difficult.

Once my friends and I had finished our catered game function, I took them to a West African Jo'burg club. Along the way, the streets resounded with hooting and people waved flags from their windows. The club is 99% black and a favourite of mine for the incredible vibe and its particular music. I proudly walked in my Springbok jumper. I was hugged three times and engaged in many enthusiastic conversations. There were a number of other Springbok jerseys. This was about OUR team winning the WORLD cup.

Celebrations in Cape Town as the team wins - Picture: Reuters

Naas Botha was right in his commentary at the end of the match. We didn't make enough of the win in the 1995 world cup. We need to take everything we can from this victory. Strike a blow to the political posturing of the sporting demagogues. This victory was not about Afrikaner superiority. It was about uniting a nation behind being the best in the world. Strike a blow against a farcical administration - constructed to preserve the seats of power of past presidents and no longer relevant to the professional game. Strike a blow against the pathetic pace of transformation and take this game to the townships, the platteland and the people. That South Africa needs more Bryan Habanas and JP Pietersens is in no doubt. Given that those particular players cam from perhaps less than 10% of the rugby playing population by race speaks of the opportunity in taking the game to the masses, where the opposite percentages apply, and unleashing our talent on the world.

Finally, strike a blow against the continued interruption of coaching continuity and keep Jake White - Eddie Jones too if we could. This could be the beginning. The glitter to our crown would be to bring home next year's Tri-Nations. We are now the target for everyone that believes we did less than we should have to win this world cup. Yes Jake was wrong and politically naive to threaten the administration in 2006. And yes he needed a mentor / confidant to relieve the pressure piled upon him by South Africa's unique circumstances. I was irritated by his manipulation before a 2006 test match. He was wrong. I was irritated by his spin and defensiveness after poor results. He was wrong. But keeping him was right - is right. I was wrong.

Well done Boks. This was a magnificent performance. There is no need for player ratings. You all scored 10 out of 10 tonight.

A fan celebrates the Bok victory in Pretoria - Picture: Reuters