I find it interesting that the South African rugby media – almost to a man, for very few women manage to break into the male-dominated world of rugby writing – are in the process of kidding themselves about SA’s chances of beating New Zealand in the World Cup in France. But they are not alone; some former Bok captains and coaches have also been caught un in the broad sweep of rugby patriotism that has gripped SA since the Bulls and Sharks fought for the right to be Super 14 champions.

In their one-eyed pursuit of the positives, such as they are, to be garnered from the 26-21 loss to the All Blacks in Durban, the media – and others – have tended to gloss over the negatives. So, the fact that the All Blacks were able to beat the Boks in their own backyard; that the South Africans have an abysmal record away from home and the All Blacks are unbeaten in Europe in two years; that the Bok pack was scrummed into the Absa Stadium turf by a front row we cannot hope to match; that the All Blacks are able to put together the most effective loose forward trio on the planet; that they won in spite of their playmaker Daniel Carter having his worst game yet in a New Zealand jersey; that they allowed a series of unforced handling errors to affect the rhythm of their potent backline; and that they went into the match with their fourth and fifth choice locks are somehow dismissed as being of little consequence, not the warning signs that should be flashing brightly for ALL South Africans. It smacks of a media and a nation in denial; writers unable to face the unpalatable truth despite the overwhelming evidence laid out for them in Durban.

I can empathise to some extent, for I, too, had been persuaded the World Cup was within our grasp – although I had a few anxious twinges after we failed to put away the Wallabies in the comprehensive fashion I had expected a week earlier in Cape Town – by the performances of the Sharks and the Bulls in the Super 14 and the upbeat words that spewed from media reports and the Bok camp after the demolition of England’s thirds in the build up to the Tri-Nations. Now, I have my doubts.

One person who’s not in denial, though, is Jake White. He is a realist, and he knows very well what happened in Durban, and how important it was in terms of the World Cup for the Boks to win. But the Boks, in front of fanatical support, gave it their best shot and still came up short. That’s why he’s chosen to send a second-string outfit to Sydney and Christchurch to fight South Africa’s battles in the away legs of the Tri-Nations. Losses in NZ and Australia would be psychologically devastating for his first-choice Boks, and he couldn’t risk that, even if it means the demeaning of the Tri-Nations as a competition. Defeats for the second-stringers, on the other hand, won’t matter because everybody expects them to lose. Should they lose narrowly or, improbably, upset one of their hosts, he’ll have a useful psychological argument to take with him to the World Cup; one that might go some way to righting the mind-games setback the Durban defeat represents. It’s a win-win situation for the Bok coach; and he knows it.

White’s argument, swallowed readily by the denialists, that the Boks ran out of steam in the last 20 minutes on Saturday because they had played too much rugby – and they now needed to be rested ahead of the World Cup – is just too convenient to be true. They ran out of steam because they were forced to make almost twice as many tackles as the All Blacks – courtesy of some poor kicking by Ruan Pienaar and others which handed the visitors possession cheaply – because they were forced to defend for virtually all of the second half after throwing everything at the visitors with little reward for the first 20 minutes of the game, and because, frankly, some of them (notably Os du Randt and Bakkies Botha) didn’t look to be as physically fit as the New Zealanders.

Had White really been concerned that his key players were playing too much rugby, he would have allowed his second-stringers to dismantle England’s thirds, as he more or less did in the match against Samoa, and kept his tried and trusted for the Tri-Nations to gain an important psychological edge – which he strongly and frequently argued was so important against England – over the All Blacks and Australians.
His plan fell apart because he misjudged the ability of his players to produce what he wanted more than anything – a victory over the All Blacks ahead of the World Cup. Now, like the little boy who takes his ball and runs home because he’s not winning a playground game, White is miffed, and he’s treating the Tri-Nations with disdain.

That he has devalued the Southern Hemisphere’s showpiece international competition is beyond argument. The REAL question is this: if, as he claims, he is acting in the best interests of the Springboks in a World Cup year why did he keep his plan to himself for so long? Why didn’t he announce before the start of the Tri-Nations that he intended to play his second-stringers in the away legs of the competition? That way, at least, the rugby fans Down Under who are spending big money to see the tests would have been able to make a decision to attend – or give it a miss – based on correct information. As things stand those who have already bought their tickets have been conned.
A final thought: There are those who will argue the All Blacks did something similar in last year’s longer version of the Tri-Nations. Such an argument loses sight of the fact that the All Blacks, even now, have not been able to decide which 22 players will make up their first-choice squad, let only their run-on 15, such is the level of talent at their disposal. White, on the other hand, has made in abundantly clear to all of us who his first-choice players are. The All Blacks may have an argument, White doesn’t…