Jake White, maybe it's time you went

Jake White - under pressure Photo: Rugby365

South African rugby is in trouble. As South africans our psychology is one that causes blind spots. Perhaps due to our isolation, we developed an arrogance that claimed we were the best and since readmission we have shown a hunger to be the best.

Some have said that maybe we aim too high and acknowledgement of our true capabilities is due. Some have said we should aim lower.

Perhaps because of our hunger, we have grudgingly claimed the world's number 2 position in rugby as a temporary step before we naturally claim the number one spot that is rightfully ours. Such an attitude has blinded us to the reality that is the state of our game in South Africa. We have some serious issues to overcome that are systemic in nature and not solved with sticky-tape and plaster.

Jake White did a magnificent job to haul the Boks back from where they were. Under Viljoen and Streauli it seemed that we believed that belief was enough - if we believed that we were the best, then the rest would follow. Jake White brought the sticky tape and plaster to help us improve the reality. He recognised that South African passion, defence and strong set-pieces were strengths to re-establish confidence and a base from which to build.

Arrogance is belief that ignores the facts. And just as Streauli and Viljoen showed arrogance with no apparent plan, Jake's arrogance appears to have been total belief in his plan.

The facts have shown that we have been less than a threat to the All Blacks. Yes, we more than others have competed against the Kiwis away from their home, but while coming close a few times, we have a terrible win-loss record away from our home turf. But beyond the mere facts of our away win-loss ratio that stands won 1 lost 9 against the major rugby powers under Jake White, it is the way we have played that tells another story.

The Jake White Plan was enough to get us to number two because of the reliance on passion and physicality - two attributes that allow us to beat most sides. But they would never be enough to establish us as number one. The Australians have worked for years on building high-skill attacking rugby. While their forward game has not allowed them the strength of possession to truly unleash this, the names of their backs over the last ten years shows some of the most skillful guys yet to play the game. The All Blacks do physical and passionate rugby well, but they have also had backs who have out-skilled and out-thought the Boks.

Jake White's arrogance was his failure to recognise this. He might point to injuries, transformation and his starting position as mitigating factors to his team's current fall from grace, but to do so ignores what could have been done and what has not.

When the Boks won the Tri-Nations in 2004, they had beaten the odds and raised the hopes of a nation. It was a magnificent effort. However it was not a dominating performance (a points victory) and it was done through Jake's rescue plan. It was at that time that South Africa needed to be building plan B. In business there is a concept developed by Richard Foster loosely known as the S-Curve stages of growth theory. Basically it refers to how each innovation results in increasing returns before others catch up and the returns decline. Should new innovations be spurned, the company is said to have fallen into a success trap as their innovation dies. This is shown below.

Richard Foster's S-Curve theory Picture: Emerald Insight

Gradually other teams have figured out ways to challenge the rush defence and the Boks have struggled to mount the same degree of passion required to execute the defensive game for every match. The Boks have failed to improve their attacking skills and failed to develop depth of skills and experience in each position. In short, it was difficult to see where the next stage of Bok success was going to come from.

In the meantime, massively passionate efforts against the All Blacks in Dunedin and at Newlands last year gave the Boks more belief in the ability of the plan to compete. A shocking performance against the Aussies away was quickly forgotten as the Boks beat the them at Ellis Park. The Springbok end-of-year tour proved to be a nightmare for the Boks, and frailties at fly-half were ignored.

This season, the prelude to the Boks Tri-Nations showed a very poor quality of rugby and a complete lack of acknowledgement of the Boks abysmal command of basics. Such was the ignorance of the facts, that Jake used the Boks placing in the world rankings to publicly request a contract extension. Not only had the Boks fallen into the success trap, but so had Jake White as he pointed to his record when others questioned glaring deficiencies.

White has turned around the procession of Springbok players that marked the Streauli reign. But the faith shown in his capped players has contributed to some baffling selections and some might say contributed to the lack of depth and experienced combinations.

There are so many excuses that have been offered for the Boks increasingly fragile looking state. Foremost of White's have been lack of cooperation from the Super 14 franchises and lack of power to make things happen. No South African coach has ever had more power than Jake White, and it is difficult to see how the franchises could be asked to do more than give up their star players in the manner enabled by SARU.

Growing skilled, thinking players takes time, and it would have been preferable to have been confronting the problem in 2004 than now. So what can be done now?

It would be very difficult for Jake White to maintain the level of arrogance he has after the past two months results. Perhaps this might result in a more contrite coach willing to try something different en-route to the World Cup. However, White's startling comments to the media have continued unabated.

Only the Springboks will know how much White's public grandstanding regarding his contract renewal affected the Boks. What is certain is that it could not have helped.

There has been debate as to whether, if White deserves to be replaced, there is time to do so before the World Cup. At this stage one has to question whether South Africa have a realistic chance of winning the title anyway.

If a coaching change is to happen, what way is best to accomplish it? Should it be outright, it will again be expensive and disruptive. Some have mentioned a lack of suitable candidates, but Mallet is an obvious choice despite his many critics. Du Plessis is another. But whether either would like to regrasp the poisoned chalice is another question - particularly should they see no chance of lifting the Cup. Ian Macintosh is a obvious caretaker candidate, but has shown a lack of appetite for the role in the past. Pieter de Villiers and Heyneke Meyer have been mentioned as a potential team and both have stated higher ambitions. One has to question their lack of top-level international experience given the short run-in to the tournament.

International candidates are another option but again notice is likely to be too short. The longer term benefit of attracting someone like Robbie Deans, should they even be prepared to consider the position, might outweigh the costs of the disruption.

Another option is to appoint a mentor to White. Formally promoting McIntosh to this role from selector might help give someone the power to question White's logic and provide more advice. McIntosh is the logical candidate due to White's willingness to work with him. Naas Botha is another. White is likely to refuse to work with Mallet or Alan Solomons, two other possible candidates. Du Plessis does not present himself as a likely mentor due to his amenable nature. But would McIntosh or Botha work as a mentor and would White accept the position thrust upon him given his comments regarding the possibility of a South African director of rugby being created? He would likely see the appointment of a mentor as being an admission of failure and we know White as a proud man. But given that he wanted Botha as his manager for the Tri-Nations away trip, perhaps he might. Appointing the candidate as a temporary manager is probably the best means to accomplish things anyway.

Appointing a mentor is my preferred option. I have a preference for Mallet because I believe the Boks and White need a rocket lit under them and Mallet is the most likely to give it. But Mallet and White don't talk much. Botha represents the likely candidate.

Of course there is the option to do nothing. Depending on White's attitude, this might be the best option. But I have not seen any sign of him admitting a need for a change of approach. He admitted the severity of the result versus the Australians, but such an admission was hardly a concession.

Not much can be accomplished before the remaining match on this Tri-Nations away trip, so it is likely we'll be kept guessing prior to the team's return.