Howard Kahn and Rob Peters go head-to-head this week in the iafrica.com debate, with the duo arguing over the merits of Springbok coach Peter de Villiers. Is he the right man for the job, or not?

Rob does not believe that Peter de Villiers is the right man to coach the Springboks.

Regardless of Saturday's result, Peter de Villiers has proved that beyond a shadow of a doubt that he is not the man to lead the Springboks. The 53-8 hammering of the Wallabies was fantastic, De Villiers's response, however, was tragic.

Believe it or not I actually supported the choice of De Villiers when he was first appointed. I thought the man himself brought something fresh to the Bok set-up, a fun, almost whimsical, approach to the job that reminded me of why we follow the game in this country in the first place.

His early results were positive and as such he did not receive much criticism, but it is best to judge a man when he is under pressure, and it is here that De Villiers has been found wanting.

He has proved himself to be incredibly stubborn, resentful — his constant reflection on how the Boks' did not play to their potential under Jake White was a little bizarre — and overly defensive. Are some of his critics unfair? Absolutely, but that is nothing new to SA Rugby and De Villiers should have been prepared for it.

Under De Villiers the Boks limped to some pretty abysmal results. It has happened before, of course, under all manner of coaches, but it is De Villiers's response to the losses that has left me wondering. In his eyes we should have beaten the All Blacks at Newlands — despite not registering a single point on the day. And then, against Australia the following week, he again claimed we were the better team and should have won. Despite being comprehensively outplayed on that occasion as well.

He has stuck to his guns over his gameplan. A dreamer's idea of a game played without structure. His players think for themselves and play what is in front of them — props play out on the wing, hookers at centre and nobody it seems hits the rucks... We all know how that worked out of course.

Which brings us to this past Saturday:

For weeks De Villiers's critics have been calling on him to pay closer attention to the rucks. Put numbers there and take control of the ball. Out-muscle the opposition at the coalface and reap the benefits. On Saturday that is exactly what happened. The Boks smashed the Wallabies up front and reaped the benefits out wide. De Villiers and his Boks may claim with this victory that they proved their critics wrong, but if anything they proved them right!

And has De Villiers learnt from this? Absolutely not! When asked if he felt structure had made the difference against the Wallabies he refused to acknowledge that as the truth.

"I think it's not fair to say that," he claimed on Saturday.

It is that statement that leaves me feeling very concerned about the immediate future of Springbok rugby while De Villiers is in charge. If he was willing to accept that he was wrong and learn from his mistakes I would happily get behind him once more. Because if the Boks continue to play like they did on Saturday they would be close to unbeatable on their day.

But he is patently unable to accept when he is wrong and is clearly not willing to learn from his mistakes. It does not make for pleasant viewing. And just like so many before him he seems destined for failure.

I only pray that he proves me wrong and good luck to him...


Howard thinks Peter de Villiers needs to be given time to prove his worth as Springbok coach.

I began writing this article even before Saturday's record-breaking demolition of the Wallabies in Johannesburg.

Now, I don't for one minute intend to base my entire argument on Saturday's win — although, to be honest, it does help! — but, as a coach, you're only as good as your players... and let's face it, the Springboks have been pretty abject this season.

On Saturday, however, it all came together, those 50-50 passes were sticking, the tactical kicks came off and wasn't it great seeing a Bok wing scoring four tries against a top rugby nation like the Wallabies?

But this victory — SA's second of the Tri-Nations — doesn't make Peter de Villiers the world's best coach. Nor does it make Robbie Deans the world's worst coach. What it does do, is prove what this Bok team can achieve. At the same time, however, it also shows just how topsy-turvy this game of international rugby is.

De Villiers does have his faults, heck, we all do (and so did the likes of Nick Mallett and Jake White, for instance), but he should be given a proper chance to prove himself at this level. There is no doubt that Heyneke Meyer was very unlucky not to land the Bok job ahead of De Villiers, but the choice was made and we should all be willing the former SA Under-21 coach to succeed. Not willing him to fail.

Consider these facts; Jake White — everyone's coaching messiah after the World Cup last year — lost three successive Tri-Nations matches last season. In 2006, White lost five matches in a row — including a 49-0 loss to the Wallabies in Brisbane and a 45-26 beating at the hands of the All Blacks at Loftus Versfeld. Yes, White won a World Cup and, yes, he built a great platform for De Villiers to work off this year, but Jake White never had to play the All Blacks away on two successive weekends, before facing the Wallabies in Perth, the Pumas in Johannesburg and then the All Blacks and the Wallabies (twice) on three successive weekends.

The margins in international sport are tiny and just like the Boks were lucky to beat the All Blacks in Dunedin, so too were they unlucky to lose at Newlands and Durban. The bounce of the ball, a referee's interpretation and the injury-enforced loss of captain John Smit — all these factors have contributed to a tough first year in the job for Div.

The Bok coach also has a very inexperienced coaching team, with assistant coaches Gary Gold and Dick Muir new to international coaching. Imagine what a difference Eddie Jones, for instance, would have made to Div's coaching staff — as a sounding board to De Villiers, much like he was to Jake White at last year's World Cup?

It is an open secret that Butch James played his best rugby under Jones and with flyhalf being such a crucial position — especially under these pesky ELVs — an on-song James would also have been a massive help to the new coach.

Also, when it comes to selection, every coach is always going to have his favourites. Kitch Christie believed in Francois Pienaar so much that he dropped Tiaan Strauss. Nick Mallett was a big Bobby Skinstad fan — so big, in fact that he axed his successful captain Gary Teichmann. Jake White would always pick a side with John Smit as his captain — even everyone wanted the likes of Gary Botha or Schalk Brits play ahead of him. You can't argue with their logic, it was their choices, just like De Villiers believes in Conrad Jantjes, Adi Jacobs and Luke Watson — players that he believes are good enough to play at the highest level.

Kitch was proved right because he never lost a Test match in charge of South Africa. Mallett was proved wrong because SA did not win the '99 World Cup. Of course, Jake White's selections and decisions between 2004 and 2007 were also vindicated at last year's World Cup. It all came together for White, however, when he added Jones to his management staff and it also helped that the All Blacks and the Wallabies lost in the quarterfinals, whilst Danie Rossouw's cover tackle on Mark Cueto in the final also played a big role in SA's win.

You see, the smallest of margins make the biggest difference and we will only know if De Villiers is good enough when has been in the job for long enough.

Let's face it though, one should always expect teething problems at the start of a new challenge. And, with these teething problems behind him now, I am expecting De Villiers to kick on and become a better coach for it.

Then, once he has been in the job a bit longer, and only then, can we finally judge the man properly...

Who do you back; Rob, Howard or Peter de Villiers? Leave a comment below.
Digg
facebook