So who should be in the Bok squad?

We're getting close to that time of the season again. And Bok "selectors" everywhere are getting tense about who deserves the green and gold.

Photo: Sasol Springbok Images

Here's my early selection with second choices in brackets.

First Choice	Second Choice
1. JD Moller - Stormers	[Lawrence Sephaka - Cats]
2. John Smit - Sharks	[Gary Botha - Bulls]
3. BJ Botha - Sharks	[Eddie Andrews - Stormers]
4. Bakkies Botha - Bulls	[Johan Ackerman - Sharks]
5. Victor Matfield - Bulls	[Ross Skeate - Stormers]
6. Luke Watson - Stormers	[Wikus van Heerden - Cats]
7. Schalk Burger - Stormers	[Juan Smith - Cheetahs]
8. Pedrie Wannenberg - Bulls	[Joe van Niekerk - Stormers]
9. Ruan Pienaar - Sharks	[Fourie du Preez - Bulls]
10. Jaco van der Westhuyzen - Bulls	[Meyer Bosman - Cheetahs]
11. Bryan Habana - Bulls	[Odwa Ndungane - Sharks]
12. De Wet Barry - Stormers	[Wynand Olivier - Bulls]
13. Jaque Fourie - Cats	[JP Nel - Bulls]
14. Breyton Paulse - Clermont	[Akona Ndungane - Bulls]
15. Percival Montgomery - Sharks	[Bevin Fortuin - Cheetahs]

I've tried to follow Jake White's logic of considering the incumbent and the impact of their team and Super 14 positional selections on their performance. I have also condsidered the incumbent in Joe van Niekerk's case - he has played to little rugby to be included purely on form - although he is beginning to look good.

At front row I think I'll be caned by some for leaving out OS, but I believe JD Moller has won aclaim from opposing sides. BJ Botha is the popular new cap on the other side of the scrum. Many will feel Sephaka and Andrews are quota selections as reserves, but I have been impressed with their recent form. I also believe Sephaka has not had enough starting game time. He looked particularly good against the Force.

Ross Skeate is selected out of position (5 instead of 4) as cover for Victor Matfield - but that is because I see them as similar players - modern athletic locks.

Johan Ackerman is a great backup for Bakkies - imagine playing 60 minutes against Bakkies and the Ackerman comes on - there's some "enforcer" for you!

Combinations are important. Besides this, I think that starting combination of Luke Watson and Schalk Burger are deserved in their own right. Both have played with 80 minute commitment every match. Pedrie Wannenberg breaks the provincial combination as starting eigth man - he has been immense for the Bulls.

Ruan Pienaar makes my starting scrumhalf spot - he is a huge talent. Fourie du Preez makes reserve as an incumbent.

Flyhalf is tough because we have not seen Jaco van der Westhuysen play there domestically. But his touches look good from fullback, and Jake picked him from Japan as flyhalf previously. It is a tough call for reserve flyhalf, but Andre Pretorius has played in a losing side and Meyer Bosman is the incumbent "future" player.

Centres - what a headache! No one has set the world alight this season. Barry has started playing again since being dropped from 13 and then returning at 12. He gets the spot as incumbent and with a glimmer of hope. Jacques Foruie gets 13 - without us seeing him there for the Cats. You know what they say about class and form - hopefully it's true. The Bulls pairing get the reserve spots. One has to worry about creativity here though. If only Habana had some game time at centre. There is no place for De Villiers based on his utterly inept defensive performance this Super 14. Joubert might have class, but his form is so long gone that he cannot make this squad. I somehow think Jake White will go with the incumbents though.

I would take a pasting on the Keo boards for my wings, but I think they're deserved. Habana picks himself. Paulse's experience in France could be huge factor for the world cup. I have no idea how well he has played for Clermont though. He makes the spot as incumbent. Akona Ndungane has showed hunger and commitment with flair on attack for the Bulls. Odwa Ndungane makes my reserve spot together with him showing similar hunger and flair to that of his twin brother.

Monty has had a quiet Super 14. He hasn't exactly done anything wrong, but he needs to look to join the line more on attack for the Boks. Fortuin is another new cap as reserve - he's tried hard for the Cheetahs and looked good.

Where did the intensity come from?

Picture: thestormers.com

Wow!

If the Bulls and Stormers had played each match with the intensity they started today's games, they'd be one and two on the log. If they'd finished with today's intensity of the Sharks and the Cheetahs second halves, they'd be unbeatable.

Perhaps most pleasing is that the Boks are beginning to put their hands up and the young stars are pushing them hard.

Where was this level of commitment and belief earlier in the season. It seems that South African teams approach the Super 14 with the dread of the coming overseas tour. Then they hate the tour, and then they play to restore pride when they come back.

But equally, the players did the basics right today. It is amazing how commitment translates into good basics. It is also amazing how commitment rubs off. Rayno Benjamin has shown poor performances this season - today he worked hard

Bakkies Botha and Victor Matfield piled into rucks with Pedrie Wannenberg today. Tim Dlulane struggled for the ball in the trenches. The Stormers committed numbers to the rucks today. De Wet Barry was his abrasive best. Defensive patterns worked and players attacked the gain line. Schalk Burger and Luke Watson bristled with aggression and were immense today - probably the best loose performance of the season. Big Joe was fantastic on defence and with some attacking play could be back to his best. Ross Skeate looked tomorrow's Victor Matfield. Peter Grant showed the promise he hinted at at the beginning of the season. Neil de Kock played his best all round game this season, and given his performance against the Chiefs, could challenge for the Boks - together with Fourie du Preez and Ruan Pienaar.

Coming back from deficit positions, although not quite, John Smit took it to the Bulls forwards with support from the young impressive Keegan Daniels and the old heads of Ackerman and later Albert van der Berg. For the Cheetahs, Bevan Fortuin and Giscard Pieters tried hard as they have the whole season - their role in sweeping line movements that brought their final try almost won their match for them.

Both the Bulls and the Stormers showed they could lead for 80 minutes. The defensive effort shown by the Stormers during the second half against the best provincial side in the world was particularly pleasing.

But most pleasing was 15 man performances.

These are pleasing signs. Why do they come in the dying moments of South Africa's Super Rugby seasons?

Second nature to the All Blacks - unknown to SA

I've been harping about SA sides' (and particularly the Stormers) pathetic kicking away of possession.

This is a question put to Dan Carter during a Cape Times interview:

The Stormers' back three have looked very shaky under the high ball. Is that something you'll be looking to exploit?

I haven't watched the games, but cheers, I'll keep that in mind! (Laughs) They are obviously pretty skilful players. We like to test players, but the kick is only as good as the chase. Hopefully if we launch up-and-unders the chasers keep a good line. The pressure that you put on is what makes it a good kick.

I hope the idiots who kick away our possession were reading.

Is this the most inept Stormers team ever?

Last year the fans booed Gert Smal after a dismal Super 12.

If there was any fairness, this year the fans would lynch the players.

Jean de Villiers played as though his mind was somewhere else today. After last weeks pathetic defensive effort, today's was shocking.

The Stormers wings have not got a clue about putting in a hit - and shy away from contact. The Stormers rush defense is worthless when the opposing team knows they merely have to break inside the opposing, rushing wing. He will not tackle and there is a better than even chance of slipping De Villiers' shoulder-high effort.

The wings also need to look for work - they must have the worst work-rate in the super 14. Nokwe will not join a ruck, even if he is the second man.

Having sid all of that, Benjamin looks far better chasing a man down from behind.

Chavanga tried hard and does make some good tackles. But crucial errors liking taking the ball over the 22 before kicking out are unacceptable at this level.

Joe van Niekerk seems to think he is above putting in the hard yards and threw two shocking passes. His second half performance was altogether different. If he can improve his backfoot game to be as good as his frontfoot one, he will be an awesome player.

Naas Olivier is a great prospect, but his line kicking tonight was shocking.

Speaking of kick, the Stormers think it is a four letter word. They have no idea how to receive them and their pathetic use of them gifts opponent's possession. All that was needed to be said, was said here.

De Wet Barry is a different player at 12 and looked much like his old self. Besides putting in a massive defensive effort, his distribution looked slick tonight.

For once Kobus van der Merwe's substitutions were spot on. At the 50 minute mark, the injection of Pietersen and Grant made all the difference and some slick passes by both got the Stormers going.

The new attack raised the defence to, and the Stormers did well to hold out the Reds in the final 20 minutes.

If there is any mitigating factor, then it is that it is very difficult to reverse momentum. When you're under the whip, everything seems to go wrong. Hopefully this victory will give them some forward momentum.

Not a lot to cheer about. This was a pathetic Reds team. All that can be hoped is that the Stormers will use the momentum.

What can South African sides learn from the Waratahs vs Brumbies?

Man, what a match! Skill, passion, the works.

I think the biggest impression the match left with me was the patience and confidence shown by the Waratahs. After the start made by the Brumbies, and the incredible defence that shut down every move the Waratahs made, it would have been easy for this one to have got away from the Tahs.

But pin-point kicking for position got the NSW side back into it. What a difference from the desperate aimless stuff that characterises SA sides kicking.

The other thing that looked different from SA sides was the workrate of both sides' players. Man, are SA sides fit enough? George Smith and Phil Waugh were at the top of their game. Sailor and Tiquiri looked for work everywhere. Most impressive was the cleaning out at ruck time. What a difference quick ball makes. It is dependent on forwards getting to the point of breakdown quickly, and both the Tahs and Brumbies forwards did that. It also means running good support lines and running into areas where you team can support you.

There were mistakes, more-so for the Brumbies after Bernie Larkham went off, but generally the handling was in a different league to that of SA teams.

Larkham's injury certainly impacted the Brumbies. But SA sides can learn from the Waratah's performance.

Sadly confidence breeds this kind of success and SA sides are woefully short of that.

Stormers torture their fans again

Watching South African Super 14 rugby is a bit like going to the dentist because you like the laughing gas. There might be a high, but there's a whole lot of pain too.

Man, what an average Chiefs side. Watching this from the stands you'd have to say they're eminently beatable - and with bonus points too.

But frankly, the Stormers couldn't put away a game against a barefoot primary school side.

When things are in downward spiral, you lose confidence. But not only do the Stormers lack confidence, they're bereft of ideas. You can guarantee that if they have the edge in possession, they'll kick it away after the fifth phase.

And then desperation starts to set in and they start to make basic mistakes.

Irritated as I am, I think the following areas would be worth concentrating on if you believed this team had a hope.

Rush defense - you have to be fully committed

De Villiers and Joubert were woeful on the rush defense today. If you're going to employ this defense you have to ensure the opposition receive man and ball at the same time. Hesitant efforts ensured that the Chiefs were able to offload inside passes and put runners away.

Midfield - you've got to tackle first time

The rush defense is tough to pull off. But there is no excuse for feeble attempts at a tackle. Marius Joubert- how many times will you be pinged for high tackles and how many times will you be bumped or handed off before you finally start going low?

Jean de Villiers - were you actually marking somebody or looking for the intercept?


Back three - they've got to understand their positions

With Chavanga, Benjamin and Nokwe, you'd expect the Stormers to be running most sides ragged. I guess that might have been the plan. But sadly, the back three were exposed for lack of positional nous today. Wings, you've got to know when to lie deep and cover your touchline on defense.

You've also got to commit to the high ball, whether it's been kicked onto you or whether you're chasing it. You have to get off the ground and contest it in the air. If you are caught too deep, get down on your haunches, keep your eye on the ball and collect it safely by scooping it up your forearms.

And friggin hell, if you're going to put that pace back there, back it and run the ball hard. Why do we persist in kicking everything straight down the middle?

Line kicks - they've got to go out

On the subject of kicking, man, make sure of your touchfinders! Naas Olivier looked good on individual attack tonight, but he bombed his touchfinders. The disease caught, and De Villiers and Burger gifted possession away that ultimately resulted in tries.

Up and unders - if you kick, contest

Personally I think they should be a fineable offence, but if done well (and used sparingly) they have their place. Critical to an up an under, is:

• They need to come down with snow on them


• They need to go a chaseable distance


• They need to be chased by a number of players


• The player who kicked must chase and then contest the ball in the air


• The supporting players must be there when the kicker comes down.

They attacked badly too

Attack - run straight

It is the most basic lesson of attack: if you do not straighten the line, there will be no room for the guys out wide, and no chance of creating space for runners joining the line. If there is a disease in South Africa's backline play (besides the "chip and chase"), it is abysmal running lines on attack. Which is sad considering the pace we have.

If you crab across the field, defending sides don't have to worry about complicated defensive patterns - the drift defense copes easily.

Mauls - a new form of attack

New to South Africa that is. Mauls are dangerous if they get stopped - the ball goes to the opposing side. However, considering how rucks are being contested, and the fact that a maul can gain ground if executed well, it is a valuable option. South African sides appear to be using it more and better.

The commentators credited Nick Mallet for introducing a French-style cork-screwing style to the Stormers maul. It was giddying to watch, but very effective.

Rucks - commit and get quick ball

Speaking of rucks, I understand the danger of overcommitting on defense. But some supporting players would help. South African ruck ball is static and we concede far too many turnovers. There are some lazy players out there. Jake White's pro-zone would expose the. But you can spot them walking along on a few TV shots too. New Zealand sides kill us there.

Supporting play

Our supporting play must be the poorest in world rugby. Clive Woodward developed an entire gameplan to ensure team-based support play (split field accountability shared between backs and forwards). Even if not specifically addressed in your game plan, the principles are taught in schoolboy rugby - if you're not up in support, you're never going to score any tries, and you're going to concede possession.

Neil de Kock - if only everyone had his heart

Man, Neil de Kock gives everything. Perhaps he overdoes the box kick, but given the slow ruck ball, that is not surprising.

The number of cover tackles (sure and low) made by De Kock tonight was staggering. Where others looked scared on defense, De Kock made first time tackles around the ankles on players three times his size.

Summary

Sadly it is again a tale of basics letting a South African side down. Every man needs to front up for this. For all Schalk Britz' bravado in his response to Jake White's criticism of his line out throwing, he looked poor in this basic. It improved during the game, but the first five had to be cleaned up at the back after he missed his jumpers. Every player has something basic to work on, and that means there is a lot to do before we start seeing South African sides contesting the top four spots.

Time for radical change

It is time for radical change. South African rugby is in danger of losing appeal. No one likes watching a losing team. And if results speak for themselves, then we have to be brutally honest and say that is what our teams have become - losers.

It may be unkind to refer to our Boks this way, given their global ranking and their Tri-Nations results, but. Let's keep this to the facts - they lost games they should have won last year, and it takes a brave man to bet on consistent winning performances against all comers.

But the Super Rugby is where our house of cards is creaking. Administrators have ignored results for years, protecting their interests on the back of loyal paying support and TV revenues. As angry supporters turn their backs on struggling teams, and advertisers ponder the wisdom of spending their millions of sponsorship rands, one of two outcomes is likely - rugby becomes / remains a minority sport or a radical change is sparked.

Before we consider how such a change might be sparked, let's diagnose the problem. There is a lot of diagnosing going on.

Dan Retief believes our club rugby needs an overhaul.

Joel Stransky and Naas Botha believe our coaching needs a new structure.

Nico le Roux, a South African ex-pat who has been living in New Zealand for the past five years where he has been involved as a skills coach and technical advisor to Waikato and North Harbour (NPC), the Chiefs (Super 12), the Junior All Blacks and All Blacks, believes that our players skills and reading of the game are below par, and our gameplans have been slow to evolve.

Kandas believes that our competition structure needs to change.

PissAnt believes that the answer lies in commercialising the unions and better player pay management.

Rasputin believes our players need to be stronger and better conditioned.

Gavin Rich believes our players need to think a little harder and Dan Retief wondered if our players had the brains to do that.

And there are a vitriolic bunch of forum commentators such as Tackler that scream quotas in their bitter voices.

Our rugby has many other issues, such as violence and poor facilities, but if we have only limited resources and need to pull some big levers to change things, which ones should we choose?

Competition structure

I believe we're stuck with the bloated Super 14. I think the way of dealing with this might be indirect. Let's limit the Currie Cup A-section to 6 teams playing one another on a round robin basis, with a final and semi-finals, bringing in the Spears. The top 5 teams go through to the Super 14 the following year. This would ensure that there are no protracted arguments about promotion relegation as the promoted team and relegated team would have played one another during the round-robin.

The B-section is a bit of a headache and is where the scope for radical action lies. Can we afford a B-section provincial set-up and to strengthen our club rugby? I doubt it. Of course, not having a B-team for the A-section teams makes succession planning and talent spotting difficult.

Perhaps the way to go is to have the provincial B teams playing in a localised club competition during the Super 14. This allows the exposure of clubs to senior level rugby and should see the provincial B team emerge as the winner. But the kicker is that the winner goes into a national championships taking place during the Currie Cup and held as curtain raisers to the big 6. This does offer a carrot to clubs to perform.

Perhaps the top two B-teams / clubs could represent us in a global competition.

I am not sure we can afford a major intercontinental club championships. I also think our clubs need to bridge a divide between age-group rugby and provincial rugby - not themselves be elevated to super status.

I think the solution to this one is complex, but I do believe it involves holding our Super 14 teams accountable for performance (through relegation), making our Currie Cup more focused and raising the visibility of our clubs.

Restructure the pay pool

Again difficult to do, because unions will argue that how they structure their pay pool is up to them. SA Rugby might argue that they deserve a say due to the allocations they dole out.

I think the essence of a solution is to treat the pay pool on a portfolio basis. A portion should be allocated to contracted Springboks, a portion to contracted provincial players, a portion for promising players, and a portion for performance.

That last portion is the big deal. Making it meaningful means impacting the other portions. There are only two ways of doing this - reduce the number of contracted players or reduce the amount you pay them. I would argue for the former. We have to make contracts lucrative to keep our players in South Africa. Now imagine if a player can become wealthy through being contracted and competition winnings. More to play for for everyone.

I understand SA Rugby operates on a similar basis to this at the moment, but I doubt the performance based portion is big enough. And, vice versa, I think too many players are too secure in their contracts.

A sidenote to this is that I think a portion of the Springbok budget must include money to buy Springboks out of Super 14 and provincial games. This together with the right to do so, would give our coach more say about the amount of rugby our players play.

Situate a national academy at the promoted Super 14 province

This should be for the entire year (Super 14 and Currie Cup) and players in the national academy should be available to the promoted team in both competitions.

Other unions should be required to name a squad of a certain size for their season and players outside of this should be eligible to train with the academy (I believe our Super 12 teams operate like this - hence the use of Grant Esterhuisen and Willem Stolz by the Stormers).

Should a more sophisticated draft system be used, I believe it might target 1 top player from each province. Targeting development players will not work - it removes the incentive for a province to invest in development - a complaint we are already hearing.

Jake White should direct the academy (perhaps not being available full time).

Coaching

Jake White does not want a director of rugby for South Africa. Given his success, he has perhaps earned the right to call some shots.

Clearly though, SA skills and perhaps coaching are not up to scratch. Perhaps something can be done to make provincial coaches accountable to White for players skill levels and fitness. The most practical way to doe this is to give White a say on their pay review meetings. If coaches were aware that White had a say in their bonus, they might be more cooperative.

This cannot be one way traffic. White must be required to give coaches monthly feedback and scoring during the year.

Governance

The most difficult yet crucial issue of all.

What we have does not work. It is biased to the interests of the majority by number and mitigates against the success of the best outcomes.

I believe a modified corporate board structure might work. Rather than partisan regional representatives, perhaps members can be elected representing constituencies. Those that spring to mind are: the players, the sponsors, the coaches and the referees. It is difficult to see how fans / supporters can elect a representative, but perhaps someone, somewhere is aware of somewhere, perhaps in soccer, that this is done. But sponsors should have supporter's interests in mind.

What is clear is that our regional representation does not work and results in sub-optimal decisions.

Conclusion

There are many issues in SA Rugby. Radicalism must be managed with caution. But this may be the last season the watching fans and sponsors maintain their support.

The chance of radical change is limited given South Africa's rugby governance system. The chances of a criminal voting for the death penalty are slight.

Will SA Rugby see the potential of an implosion made of deserting fans and sponsors? I am sure it is coming.