Rugby World Cup - the press and the response

WORLD CHAMPIONS (again) BABY!

If you are not South African, you need to understand something here and now. Rugby is big stuff at the tip of Africa - we love it. There is no better way to spend a Saturday than by having a few buddies round, cracking open a few cans, watching the game with some chips and biltong, and then rounding it off with a braai.

You could try and compare this feeling to something else but in truth, there is nothing that compares to this. Other countries do not compare. We have to put up with so much other crap behind the scenes, weakening our chances that when it comes together and we do well, the celebrations are even bigger and more deserved.
When we won the WC in 1995, it united the country like nothing else could. We had to do it again...

xxxxxxxxxxxxx

THE first bunch of photos included alongside my writing were received in emails from buddies in the first week after the World Cup final and after the victory parade in Cape Town. Received from teachers who took their classes out onto the streets to people who just needed to be there.

The next bunch are from Irish newspapers after the match and the last bunch, from SA newspapers.

The parade ended at Newlands stadium...

Well Cath and I watched the rugby world cup final with some buddies in a local pub and had a ball, only getting home after 1am. Dressed in our Springbok jerseys and with me wearing a massive SA flag as a cape, we walked into the pub to a timid 'boo' from English chick who was nowhere to be seen after the final whistle. I merely smiled at her when she booed, cos I knew something she didn't. I reckoned England's chances were, say, 36-1 at most.

The whole tournament long I had been very wary of being arrogant. South Africans have a reputation of this and so I certainly didn't want to add to it. Before the thing had even started, quite a few colleagues asked what I thought our chances were and I replied that our first game against England was crucial because if we won that, we had a straight path to the semis.

I also knew that I didn't want to play the hosts, France, in that semi and was secretly rooting for either Ireland or the Argies to finish first. When Ireland imploded at the tournament, I then needed the Argies to beat them and guarantee finishing above France - but I had to be quiet about this as saying it might have seen me lynched!

The Irish were pretty optimistic about their chances after the 6-nations but in truth, with England and the other teams (with the exception of France, who they lost to at home) in horrible form, the 6-nations was even worse than normal, and no barometer of form.

I actually got interviewed by a journalist at our paper who asked me what I thought of the Irish vs Argie game. When he heard I was from SA, he asked me if I thought the S-hemisphere game was just too good for the north. I wasn't biting, and steered clear of speaking my mind. Answering yes would only make me look arrogant and have others laughing if we slipped up.

But the truth is, the Tri-nations is way better than anything the North has to offer. Jake White said it is harder to win the Tri-Nations than the World Cup and he's right. In the Tri-Nations, each team plays four TOUGH matches (sometimes six).

In the World Cup, a team can win it with only three. In the 6-Nations, it's one, maybe two.

But all of this I kept under wraps. I was very surprised also, to see how many Irish people were against SA in the semi-final - against the team who had beaten them. It wasn't just that they were supporting Argentina, it was that they were AGAINST SA. Whenever Ireland play, I have always supported them, only stopping when they play the Boks. I suppose it was silly to expect the same - I mean, they don't have SA roots, but it was just... poor form.

But there were a few nice okes about and my phone also received a message from a few Irish lads and gals after our WC win.

To those who couldn't just say 'Well done' though, I can always just point out that the Irish best ever WC performance is only as good as South Africa's worst ever performance - the quarterfinals.

For your information: some of the Irish press after the final:

And again:

And again:

Whereas The Examiner (my paper) went with:

NOTE: I've attached a few articles I found off various sites - this is only for the die-hard - as others will find these boring...

Before we get into those though, I found this in... The Sun newspaper (only in the Sun). Thought you should see it.

And then, with all the talk of political interference in the Bok side after the World Cup, this banner appeared at the Currie Cup final a week after the World Cup final:

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

This an exert of the report Will Greenwood (ex England centre) written on Monday after the WC final for the Daily Telegraph. Kinda makes you proud to be a South African!!!!!!!

He opens his column by saying: "South Africa have the bearing of champions."

And the plaudits just kept rolling.

"The night after they won the World Cup Final, the Springboks were guests of honour at the International Rugby Board's annual dinner inParis. You would have thought they might have been a bit disheveled. They could have been forgiven for rolling in a bit wobbly, tired and emotional from their exertions from the night before. Nothing could have been further from the truth.

"They were immaculate, controlled and worthy winners of the sport's ultimate trophy. Among the crowd at the dinner were some of rugby's greats. Men like JPR Williams and Gerald Davies. They were amazed bythe size of the South Africans, awe-struck by the speed with which the game and the players' physicality has moved on.

"Yet even though it is a thoroughly modern game, old school values were on show and the Springboks took time to talk to all of the former players when they were approached. Ten minutes, sometimes 20 were kindly given. Critics of the South Africans talk of arrogance, of a self-belief that often grates. There was nothing like that on show. In fact there was very little behaviour that would have given away that the team had just beaten the very best that the world had to offer over a period of six weeks.

"Occasionally, one of the players would break into a couple of bars ofthe Basque anthem that has been played at many of the grounds this tournament. But that really was it. The team were humble and dignified. When Bryan Habana was crowned player of the year, and compared to Jonah Lomu, he begged to differ. Lomu was a legend, a one-off; Habana was just a wing with a bit of gas.

"This modesty was evident in the way South Africa approached their games in the tournament. They were a team in which everyone knew their place, how they fitted in to that plan and what was required of them. However, they could also cover for the man standing next to them. If you want to see what the biggest change to rugby has been over the past few years, it is that players can now do a little bit of anything. It is not enough for the front five to get down and scrummage, or jump in the line-out. They now have to be able to run, pass and kick.

"Did you see the massive South African Victor Matfield putting in crossfield kicks? A few years ago, he would have been laughed off the park. Now the old man of the Boks' pack, Os du Rant, is happy to find himself face-to-face with a young centre in the final moments of the game and tackle him without a problem. I doubt Scott Gibbs would bounce du Rant now as he did a few years ago.

"Skills have been merged, and the South African side have been among the leaders in opening the game up. But they have done so by marrying this willingness to play an expansive game with discipline.

"In the past, Butch James was often so hot-headed that he would lose his grip on the match. Now he is a cool customer who plays his game, directing the team with calm authority.

"This calm steel runs through the team and nowhere is it more evident than in their mop-haired centre, the crazily youthful Francois Steyn. He backs himself when most of us would question the sanity of the decision. You could see his confidence when he teed up the penalty that all but took the game out of England's reach. The team knew he would hit it, you could see from their shoulders. Control yourself and control the game.

"South Africa knew what they had to do and did it with icy precision. They backed their discipline, not giving away penalties that they knew Jonny Wilkinson would kick. Keep him out of the game and they would win. Keep to the plan, stay together and it was within their grasp.

"On the field they had the backbone to win under extreme pressure. Off it, their shirt buttons were done up, their ties on straight, shoes polished. They looked like a team who were proud of what they had achieved. In short, they looked like world champions."

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Interesting article from last weekends Sunday Tribune in Ireland......


WELL it's over, we bid adieu and thank Christ for that; it was the worst World Cup of six . . . even worse than the 1999 edition. The entertainment quotient and the quality of the rugby was very poor. Two, maybe three, games out of 48 got the pulse racing. Even the final moments of the competition grated.

The presentation of the cup was a sporting travesty.

Let's look on the bright side first, at least Syd Millar wasn't throwing the medals at players Mott the Hoople style like he did in '03. Somebody had obviously had a word. But why was a grumpy old man handing out the spoils of war. Martin Johnson, the captain of the previous winners should have handed over the pot to the captain of the new champions.

I don't like the IRB or anyone who aspires to be a board member. You really do have to question their motives.
So what did they do wrong?

Well I consider it inappropriate that political leaders of any kind be anywhere else other than the most comfortable seats in the house . . . why then were Nicolas Sarkozy, Gordon Brown and Thabo Mbeki in the middle of the pitch at the prize-giving ceremony. That prize-giving ceremony was a perverse presentation and an act which was repugnant to the spirit of the game of rugby union.

I take exception to the very presence of any political leaders but I forcefully object to the image shown around the world on Sunday and Monday in all mediums.
The images of Thabo Mbeki being hoisted by ANC state appointed officials with the William Webb Ellis Cup in his hands was a contravention of the very essence of the game.
What part had he played in the Springboks victory? What was he even doing on the podium?

If England had won would the English squad have lifted Gordon Brown into the air in triumph? Not bloody likely. Nobody seems to consider this inappropriate . . . well I bloody do . . . political hi-jacking of sporting occasions an anathema to most peoples' notions of sport. Why it was done with the tacit approval of the IRB is not beyond me though.

They realised South Africa and South African rugby is going down the toilet and this pathetic gesture might do some good to assuage forces and opinion back there that this victory was for everyone in South Africa.

Jake White deserves immense credit for his single-minded bravery in attaining his objective. It was difficult enough to beat what was in front of his team (actually not really) but the team had to stay focused. What was even more difficult was to stay on course as he was put under huge political pressure to include a significantly higher proportion of black players than he had been up to and including the Tri Nations.

To howls of protest, White only picked six non-white players in his squad, the same as in 2003; they might have been the unwritten rules.

White kept his head and won in the end without having to carry players who were not up to the grade. Butana Komphela, a senior and powerful ANC member suggested that the Springboks should have their passports revoked by the government. White, after winning the World Cup, will not get a second term. Komphela has declared that the ANC will never support Jake White if he bids for a second term . . . the point being that he would rather see a losing multi-racial side based purely on political quotas, not merit, represent South Africa than see a predominately white team based on merit .

From the new season onwards the Springboks will by law have to have 10 black players in a squad of 22 irrespective of whether the 10 are of international quality or not.
How come a political party can dictate this? Surely it is an act which circumvents the fundamental principles of sport . . . pick your best team and compete to win. It is amongst other things an act of overt racism and an act where the ruling black ANC party would take huge satisfaction if not glee from diluting and destroying one of the last bastions and passions of the former white ruling class.

The ANC recently passed another resolution that the Springbok title and emblem be scrapped. Another gentle kick in the nuts for 200 years of oppression.

Most right-thinking people found apartheid an unspeakable crime against humanity, the world re-acted to a certain extent with political pressure; sporting and economic boycotts played their parts in bringing it to an end in 1994. How much has changed in those 13 years it is hard to quantify but as it currently stands this country is no happy-clappy rainbow nation.

I recently read Martin Meredith's The State of Africa, and it is a stunning read. It charts the history of every state in Africa since accession or independence.
It is also depressing as it charts literally the same dismal cycle of misgovernance, corruption, greed, death, tyrannical leadership etc.
But there is a recurring theme of racial hatred.

Sometimes we lose the real sense of what racism is about in our politically correct and appropriately sanitised society. Calling someone a sambo as they walk down O'Connell Street might now be considered a heinous crime here, but everything is a question of scale. Witness the Hutus and the Tutsis in Rwanda . . . genocide on a grand scale . . . two million dead inside a year. The Biafran War, 1-2 million dead, Darfur . . . the list is endless. Black people hating black people and willing to kill wantonly . . . you talk of scale then this is point blank. But no matter how deep seated the indigenous people's hate for each other is, it pales into insignificance for the dislike of the white man.

Read the book, you can't blame them.

Already it has manifested itself in Zimbabwe. Robert Mugabe's government decides this course of action on a daily basis, overtly racist, as evil as apartheid. So remind me why, when Ireland played Zimbabwe in the recent Cricket World Cup, that nobody said a dicky?

As in the '60s and '70s in the sporting protests/boycotts against South Africa, why weren't there people flour-bombing the cricket crease from crop-dusters or rushing barbed wire fences or holding all day sit-ins outside the Zimbabwean hotel?

If I wanted to register my disgust at Ireland playing sport against such a racist regime how would I do so? I tried to ring the Irish anti-apartheid movement but no such organisation exists anymore. Now that Kader Asmal is happily ensconced in power in South Africa, I haven't heard him come back to Ireland and condemn Mugabe and his oppressive regime.

Thabo Mbeki and the ANC give encouragement, economic help and friendship to Mugabe and his regime . . . I find that objectionable.
Mbeki has serious issues to deal with in his country.

An Interpol report stated that the annual murder rate in South Africa is in fact twice the reported rate of 23,500 (47,000); 95 per cent of that is black killing black, only a matter of time before that changes. Hunger, inertia, political unrest and poverty are powerful catalysts for further change. The white man's prosperity and capital are what are required and slowly but surely it will be acquired.

Quite possibly the first step is to take the white man's rugby team away from him . . . that will really hurt.

It is my experience of South Africa that the black man plays soccer almost exclusively and the white man plays rugby. On one weekend in Johannesburg years ago I went to watch the Blue Bulls play in Ellis Park on a Saturday, the following Sunday the Kaiser Chiefs played a game of football. On Saturday there were no black faces in the audience, on Sunday my slightly pink visage and that of my companion were the only white people in attendance.

Out of a population of 48 million, 38 million are black and 4.3 million are white. The minority play a minority sport within that country . . . there is no bar at school, university, club, provincial or international except that you be good enough. The South African international soccer side has one white man in its squad; there is no bar on participation. The composition of the team is overwhelmingly black yet there is no need for state mandated quotas. Why? If the black political class are serious about multi-racial rugby it should not start from the top down but from the bottom up.

The reason I was opposed to Thabo Mbeki appearing on the pitch in Paris is that he is the president of a party which has imposed sanctions on a sporting body, ones which I think are overtly racist. The spine of the Springbok side realise it and well before their time they are leaving and going to Europe. That is wrong too. It's hard to gauge how weak South Africa will be in 4 years. It is a worrying trend for rugby and things in general in that country.

Have we lost sight of the real meaning of racism or are we afraid to say it. South Africa steps up in 2010 to host the soccer World Cup. If they win, will the white minority rejoice even though they have practically no representation? Debatble.

In the meantime will our moral guardians be as swift to act as they were in the 60's and 70's if there are further discriminatory shifts in sport policy. Should we call for a boycott in 2010 if things deteriorate more? Racism cuts both ways, don't be afraid to sound your voice'.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Why the Springboks deserve to be champions (taken from Supersport.co.za)

by Gavin Rich

Two weeks on from the World Cup and still I keep hearing idiots say that the Springboks are somehow not worthy champions because they did not play New Zealand or Australia along the way. This makes no sense. New Zealand never got to play South Africa at the World Cup because they weren't good enough to beat France in a quarter-final played on neutral territory.

That same French team then returned to French soil and were beaten by England. England, already hammered 36-0 by South Africa in a pool game, were then comprehensively outplayed again by the Springboks, who always seemed to have something in hand, in the final.

The French who beat the All Blacks were also outplayed twice by Argentina, who in turn were beaten by 23 points by the Boks in the semi-final, again in a match where John Smit's team never really appeared to raise a sweat.

So as a New Zealand rugby writing mate put it to me, where does that leave the All Blacks?

In the case of Australia, they lost to England in the quarter-final in Marseille, and the ease with which the England forwards destroyed the Wallaby pack suggests the Boks probably would have done the same. The Boks have a lot more skill at the back than England do, and would have put the Wallabies away given the same forward dominance. If Australia were not good enough to beat England and New Zealand were not good enough to beat a weak French team, then they didn't deserve to win the World Cup and to their credit, most Kiwis and Aussies of my acquaintance agree with this assessment.

Most of them reckon the Boks were the best team at the World Cup because they were best equipped to alternate between the various types of game strategy required to win the tournament. And ultimately, Bob Skinstad is right - the only way to become world champions is to win the World Cup. The All Blacks haven't done that since 1987 so they are not world champions.

In athletics it is all about who wins the Olympic gold medal every four years, and it has become the same in rugby, just as it is in soccer and cricket. I did feel a bit cheated by not seeing the Boks and All Blacks clash at the World Cup. It was the clash everyone was waiting for. I would like to have seen them play because I am convinced that, given the type of rugby that prevails in the knock-out stages of the World Cup, as well as the brainless rugby the All Blacks play when the pressure is on, South Africa would have won.

In the only full-strength meeting between the two teams this year the dice was loaded against the Boks, who were feeling the effects of fatigue after several months of non-stop rugby because of South Africa's success in the Super 14.

For those who forget, the Boks were also that day without Bryan Habana, Fourie du Preez, a first choice No 8, Juan Smith and skipper John Smit. Most of those players were hugely influential at the World Cup. It was also before Graham Henry had his brain explosion by dropping backline playmaker Aaron Mauger, so the All Blacks were arguably also a much better team in that Durban Test than they were at the World Cup.

And yet the Boks led the All Blacks most of the way, and it was only the Kiwi depth on the bench that got them home as they came from behind. I doubt they would be capable of coming from behind in a high pressured World Cup final for the simple reason that over and over again they have proved they just don't have the temperament to handle the massive expectation of their nation.

That is why they are perennial also-rans in the tournament that matters and why they are not world champions. Those who disagree should just go and look at the names inscribed on the Webb Ellis trophy, and then go buy a couple of sacks of lemons that they can suck on for the next four years.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

AND LASTLY, Here's an article that COULD be written after the 2011 World Cup in NZ:

On the back of the Springboks successfully defending their Rugby WorldCup title in New Zealand, iafrica.com CEO Dan Nicholl looks back on aturbulent four years that eventually saw the 2007 champions repeat thefeat in 2011.

It's been a long nine weeks in New Zealand, a nation with few recognised roads, sporadic electricity, and an almost total absence of indoor plumbing. But all that has been set aside after a magnificent night in Auckland, the Springboks' second successive World Cup title eliciting a smile few South Africans would have dared to dream of just six months ago.

New Zealand is split this morning, the country's two largest ethnic groups in very different spirits. Traditional Kiwis, representing nearly 60 percent of the population, are in mourning once again, although angry mobs surrounded the prison captain Richie McCaw and his squad are being held in, pending their treason trial after failing to make the quarterfinals on home soil.

New Zealand's second biggest ethnic group by population, however South Africans are in the throes of wild celebration, and understandably so.The 32-9 victory over Eight Nations champions Argentina marked a triumph of considerable proportion for coach Percy Montgomery's Springbok side, particularly given 2008, and the near-death of SouthAfrican rugby. That was the year, lest you forget and who could, such was the pain we all went through that the infamous Bhutana Khompela declared himself national coach, and proceeded to play himself at flyhalf in the opening Tri-Nations game against New Zealand.

By then, Jake White had already bid South Africa farewell, turning down England, Australia, Wales and the Western Force to take over as head coach of Portugal, who subsequently went on to knock the All Blacks out of the World Cup in a result that had panel beaters and 7-11 store owners around the world celebrating wildly. The retirementsof John Smit, Victor Matfield, Montgomery and Bob Skinstad from international rugby only added to the impression that South African rugby was a crumbling empire; Khompela's self-appointment (marked, in a garish display of poor taste, with a friendly against a Zimbabwe XV in Harare) only hastened the impending doom.

Ten minutes into that game against New Zealand, however, Khompela was accidentally caught in a fearsome tackle by Jerry Collins, Kevin Mealamu and Schalk Burger, and was stretchered off; he came round three weeks later, but the severity of the clash took its toll, and to this day Khompela still lives in care, firmly believing that he's Naas Botha, and practicing his kicking every morning.

It proved temporary salvation for South Africa, however, as a succession of coaches Andre Markgraaf, Chester Williams, AlastairCoetzee, Jomo Sono, Mike Catt struggled to turn around the Springboks, who hit their nadir with an 8-7 defeat to Malawi in Lilongwe. And while 2009 offered a slightly better start, new coach Dick Muir, outstanding fullback Frans Steyn and an inspired 9-10-12 axis of DuPreez, Pienaar and De Villiers combining for home wins against Australia, Italy and White's Portugal (the former Bok coach almost unrecognisable with his contractually obliged moustache), South Africa still finished bottom of the Tri-Nations.

When that happened again in 2010, Muir lost his job, and following Bafana Bafana finishing third in the World Cup after losing out to Argentina on penalties, SA Rugby and the Ministry of Sport offered theSpringbok coaching job to Carlos Alberto Parreira, a decision that backfired spectacularly when the Brazilian refused to let his players use their hands, fielded 11 men in his first game in charge, and oversaw defeats to both Scotland and Wales, both considerably more embarrassing than having lost to Malawi.

And while Montgomery finally called time on his club career in France to take over from Parreira, Springbok hopes looked doomed when a commercial crisis hit the team, sponsors Sasol discovering that President Zuma and Vice-President Schaik had sold branding rights to all South African sports teams to a French arms firm. But a review ofthe original Fidentia electoral audit saw results overturned, with businessman and television star Tokyo Sexwale host of the South African versions of 'The Amazing Race' and 'The Bachelor', as well as etv's weekend weatherman installed as President, with Colin Moss his second-in-command.

The resultant surge in confidence in South Africa increased further when Sexwale appeared at the opening of parliament in a Springbok jersey, 'Thint' clearly replaced with a more familiar 'Sasol' on the front. Momentum picked up spectacularly from there, coach Montgomery luring 61-year-old Os du Randt out of retirement to join captain Chilliboy Rallepele and 'Beast' Mtwarirwa in a ferocious Springbok front row.

And with veteran Bakkies Botha recovered from the infection picked up after biting an Australian player the previous season, Du Preez, Pienaar and De Villiers all in irresistible form, and Bryan Habana and Oscar Pistorius igniting the Springbok attack on the wings, Montgomery's side suddenly entered the reckoning.

A narrow loss in Christchurch saw the All Blacks sneak home with the Tri-Nations, but a lot of money started heading South Africa's way for the World Cup title. Early wins against Romania, Ireland, Tonga and Japan reinforced that view, and when the All Blacks imploded in a flood of tears against Portugal, and the Springboks saw off England in the quarters, hope turned to belief.

Victory over France meant facing the Pumas, who'd demolished Australia; but eight Frans Steyn drop-goals from inside theSouth African 22, a Pienaar penalty, and a pushover try from halfway,sealed a day that recaptured the magic of 2007 and reinforced just how resilient the game of rugby is in South Africa!

AMEN to that brother!