Not good enough to win

Did it matter that the Boks lost today's match against the English? For two such poor sides, I'm not sure a win or loss actually should mean a lot. It would have meant something to players and coaches who are desperate to avoid further censure from their miserable supporters. And for that reason, you could see the Bok tactics change in the second half. When Jake White sent on Andre Pretorius it was a clear message - "Protect the lead boys - let's get a win under the belt, we need it."

Of course we know that more often than not, rugby matches are lost when the leading side takes that attitude.

Watching the French versus the All Blacks tonight showed a different level. We can make excuses about our resting players. But in reality we have seldom, since the days of Mallet's reign, played with the intensity and continuity the All Blacks are now showing.

Joe Rococoko's try just before the close of the first half was leagues away from anything shown by the Boks in the last few years. All Blacks flew into rucks, close on one another's heels. Forwards and backs ran in close support and made passes the Boks dream of.

In contrast, the Boks looked prosaic against one of the worst backlines in world rugby. The English backs in general and Charlie Hodgson in particular look unable to open a can of sardines, let alone an international opposition. Similarly, their defense holds no terrors for all but the most inept attacks.

All of that said, the Boks looked better than last week.

Improvement

In the forwards, the pack looked better in the scrums. In the loose, Johan Ackerman showed a gratifying level of commitment reminiscent of his Super 14 form. Danie Roussouw tried hard and continued to make his tackles.

At the back, Enrico Januarie had another solid performance. He appears to be losing some of his excess weight. While his pass is delayed and he no longer makes the sniping breaks he once used to, he was certainly competent today.

Jean de Villiers looked good and his pass to Butch James was an absolute beaut. His lack of pass to a screaming Akona Ndungane on his inside cost his team a try though. It must be miserable to be a wing outside a centre pairing of De Villiers and Olivier. Given that, Ndungane's involvement was pleasing, none more so than his insertion into the line to attack Hodgson's channel. Only good cover from Lewsey cut him down. With all that has been said about Ndungane's pace (or lack thereof), he had no issue against the snail pace of the English backs tonight - or racing up on De Villiers' inside as the centre ran half the field only to be pulled down.

Butch James had his best match in a very long time tonight and if he had stayed on, the Boks may have sneaked a win. His grubber for Ndungane's try showed a subtlety not often associated with the Sharks flyhalf.

Francois Steyn had another very good performance. The guy is class and I am dying to see him at flyhalf for the Boks. Frankly, Jake could have called for Steyn to alternate with James if he had wanted to increase use of tactical kicks - it would have been less disruptive and given responsibility to two of the better Boks on the day.

Average

For the rest I thought their performance was average to poor. Our lineouts were abysmal. Our takes at the restarts were as poor as they have been all season. We looked unable to turnover the ball (the 17 phase attack of England on our line proving that) and unwilling to contest. Support play at rucks and in broken play was as absent as ever.

We know Jacques Cronje is not international level and today showed that again. Pierre Spies was anonymous without a dominant forward performance around him. Danie Roussouw works hard but does not look to have the pace for loose forward - either blind or open side flank. Johann Muller appears to attempt to make up for lack of pace to the ball with off-the-ball niggle.

It is hard to be critical of Wynand Olivier - his presence definitely improved our defense. But wings outside him might as well be press photographers - they'd see more of the ball that way.

Our rush defense seems to result in more lapses than not. I actually thought I spotted the Boks drift once or twice tonight. I am sure that is right approach. The drift defense should predominate and the rush should press on poor quality opposition ball.

Miles behind

To be sure, despite the improvement, this team is miles off the form of the top two teams in the world. Hugh Bladen made the comment that people who call for Jake White's head forget that this team beat the All Blacks and the Aussies a few months back. What Bladen and other fail to mention is that this is a team that fails to win the ones that count - those matches didn't. Throughout Jake White's tenure that has been the case. To be honest it is a problem that has been with us since readmission - even under Nick Mallet, winning streak aside.

We are a long way off the form of the All Blacks and the skills and flair of the French. Why is that? It sticks in my throat to admit we're just not good enough. It doesn't quite gel when all the facts are considered, such as our world beating form in the junior ranks.

Regardless of selections and coaching, winning starts by having a team who run on the field willing to die for their country, their coach and their teammates. Some argue that the description is misplaced - it is after all just a game. However, it is a game full of examples of players playing through pain, achieving beyond their apparent abilities and creating beauty where there is often brutality.

Jake White

I think this is where Jake White starts to go wrong. He is a coach who was an analyst. He is a coach who adds the contributions of 15 players and expects a mathematical answer. He believes that more height and pace and ambidexterity than the opposition equals a winning team. Perhaps that it the modern disease - we have heard Nick Mallet, a passionate former player, talk about his quest for a tall, pacey back three.

Kitch Christie seemed to be the opposite. He appeared to be someone who did what would get the best out of his players rather than what would win on the drawing board. The story of his switch in tactics just prior to the 1995 World Cup final is now legendary. He changed from a basketball-type game-plan to the traditional Bok game when Morne du Plessis suggested the players didn't believe in the new approach. Jake would do well to consider his team's current head-space.

I think Jake continues to go wrong by believing in the power of unanimity rather than that of diversity. He does not tolerate questions from his players.

Finally, I believe Jake is victim to his biggest weakness - he is proud. He does not admit to mistakes and has mentioned the systems in South Africa, the injuries to players (some echoing years back) and the pressure from other coaches to experiment (notably the panel of ex-coaches arranged to advise him).

Of course there are contributing factors. Lack of fetcher aside, there is a frightening lack of commitment to cleaning out rucks and supporting the ball carrier in South African rugby. There have been few games that have been marked by the required ferocity - one of the last being the Bok win against the All Blacks at Newlands last year. This is difficult to explain.

It was hard not to feel sorry for Jake White during the final minutes of today's match. He sat with his head in his hands and no doubt wondered what more to do. He took on a job in 2004 when the Boks were perhaps at the lowest of their once proud history and turned things around fairly quickly.

But even those who have worked closely with Jake have been vocal in their criticism of him this last week. Naas Botha, once Jake's manager for his world beating junior Boks, has appeared in television and press interviews calling things for the disaster that they are.

World Cup

We have to ask whether there is any hope that Jake can turn things around in time for the World Cup next year. Let's face it, next week's match against the English and the final match against the World XV will tell us nothing - just as the final home matches of the Tri-Nations did. We must go on the recent record of the Boks in the matches that have counted. Sadly that is not one that brings much confidence.

So if intervention is required, does it make sense to keep Jake involved or to sweep the slate clean? At the beginning of the year I argued for a mentor to be appointed to help Jake. Now I believe subtle measures are too late. On return from the tour I see no disadvantage to the appointment of a different coach to take the team to the World Cup. In fact I believe it is imperative based on the fact that we should never be in the position we are.

We have two open-side flankers rated as the best in the country by their Australian and New Zealand counterparts - one was Currie Cup player of the year. Neither Luke Watson nor Kabamba Floors have had a look-in under Jake White. We have a prop rated as one of the technical best by his Northern European competitors, yet Jake White has told Cobus Visagie he will never be picked.

We have had many chances to experiment. Experimentation is usually best tried incrementally, perhaps one positional switch at a time. Instead we have desperately tried to win games against the World XV and the Australians and New Zealanders when they meant nothing in terms of trophies. We then played a completely experimental side against the Irish at Lansdowne Road.

Matches prior to the World Cup next year will need winning. Experimentation and resultant losses could devastate the already broken psyche of the Boks leaving no time to heal.

It is difficult to imagine anybody successfully taking on such a challenge, but no more than it is to imagine Jake White overcoming his pride and beliefs over the same period.

It is sad that we ever ended up with our backs to wall in this fashion. South African rugby is not as poverty stricken as our games this year have been. Our approach, selections and attitude were apparent in that hand of fate.