Let’s stop pretending that the forthcoming game against New Zealand could produce anything of value for South Africa.

There is almost nothing we can gain from it except embarrassments. We can’t scum or lineout or box kick or rush defence because we don’t have the set piece to do it. Yes, the box kick is hopeless if done with back foot ball. We can’t crash ball because we don’t have the loose trio or locks to take the ball up and neither do have we the ability to protect the ball when we hit contact.

We can’t compete at the breakdowns because we don’t have the speed or ability in the loose trio to win the trench warfare.

We can’t run the ball because we won’t get front foot ball at set piece, line out or from crash ball and we don’t have centres that can pass the ball or create space.

Putting hope on Lambie to create magic is like asking a single snowball to cool down hell.

Lambie will be targeted and with back foot ball he’ll struggle to get out of this game with his reputation intact.

It’s going to be a massacre to put it bluntly so I’ve decided to shift my attention to what one can learn from the All Blacks.

Henry said his All Black coaching template is to create a strong base structure so the side could deliver variety.

“I am not a great believer that structure decreases flair,” he said. “I think structure increases the ability to express yourself.

“We are trying to develop a game which is pliable.

“It is set-piece game, breakdown game.

“Then you can vary how you try and break the opposition down from there with the individuals in your group.“

I am keen to see whether they are going to use the same two-on-one defensive strategy as the Aussies.

I am keen to see how they are going to approach the breakdowns. Toby Robson wrote an article this week in which he made the following comments regarding the All Blacks approach with regard to the breakdowns.

It has been impressive to watch the All Blacks coaches in action this week as they set to work on the detail of an area that is increasingly deciding the outcomes of test-match rugby.

Two weeks ago Samoa used the counter-ruck to destroy Australia’s search for quick attacking ball, something South Africa failed to achieve with disastrous results in Sydney last weekend.

After dispatching Fiji 60-14 at Carisbrook in Dunedin last Saturday, the All Blacks admonished themselves for their lack of effectiveness at the contact area. The ball was slow to emerge on attack or turned over as Fijian defenders were allowed to linger at the tackle, while opportunities to counter-ruck were missed.

Part of the problem was that the All Blacks played a wide game from set piece, but did not send all of their forwards to the breakdown. For such a plan to be effective it requires a total buy-in to ball retention and after watching the All Blacks train it is clearly an area in which they plan to improve.

“You try and work on weaknesses in some areas,” halfback Piri Weepu said yesterday.

“Most teams go out wide and the old cliche is backs can’t clean out and protect the ball, so our main focus is to protect the ball no matter what number you are wearing.

“Everyone has to do their jobs and know their roles so come breakdown time everyone is protecting the ball and reading the situation when we are able to counter-ruck.”

Such focus takes accuracy and good decision-making to be effective. The sight of foraging openside flankers such as Richie McCaw snaffling turnovers at the tackle has become rarer this season. Instead of going for the ball, tacklers are trying to get to their feet then take the “metre” or the space beyond the ball. That provides an opportunity for their team-mates to counter-ruck and drive past the ball in numbers.

Commit too many players to a failed quest for a turnover though and you get caught out on defence. It’s that balance the All Blacks appear to be working hard to get right. It is a detail within the structure of how they plan to play in coming weeks, but it may not be the focal point in a month’s time.

You get the feeling this team want to be able to play whatever style their opposition presents, but it will be interesting to see how much is held back when the cup campaign begins. That’s not in terms of intensity or effort, but in how much they plan to play the game.

“Last year in particular we came out and provided a different way to play footy and then two or three weeks later everyone else was playing the same,” Mils Muliaina said this week.

“You have to come up with a few new things, but being World Cup year you have to make sure you don’t leave too much in your back pocket. “It is kind of difficult. Particularly in this environment you don’t want to be experimenting too much. You want to go out with the expectation that you just want to win and you don’t want to be holding things back but you don’t want to show your cards too early.”

I am keen to see how they are going to approach this game in terms of the tactics at the breakdowns. Against Fiji they were far less aggressive with regard to claiming that ‘meter-beyond-the-ball’ at the collisions. Are they trying to create an illusion that they are not going to play like that anymore and then bring it back in the quarters, semi-finals and finals (if they get that far) or are we going to see the Owen Franks obstructive blocking position taking again at the breakdowns.

Messam and Kieran Read are not playing and they are the cavalry that provides directness on attack for the All Blacks. Thompson is a more lateral player so I am wondering how they are going to approach this match with the ball in hand.

I reckon they are going to try and give us a psychological blow and are going to attack our set piece (scrum and line-out) and considering our weakness at the breakdowns they are going to attack our midfield (channels 1 and 2) trying to punch holes with off-loads and with Nonu before recycling and spinning it wide.

For the first time in my life I am more intrigued about how the All Black is going to play the game then us.

It is hard to say this but I am not looking forward to this game. I just don’t see light in the tunnel with the current coaching and management structures in the Springbok camp.

For those that want to call me negative I can only say what one of my students said just before the final exams: “Everyone is stressing about the upcoming exams and I am starting to stress because I am not stressed.”

To spell out if you are not worried about what is happening with Springbok rugby at the moment you just don’t understand the situation.

Go here (http://springbokrugby.webs.com/2011trinations.htm) to see some revealing video clips about the first tri-nations test.

Dwyer’s thoughts in blue with some commentary from my side in black.

The Boks were well under strength with about eleven first choice players missing and, as was clear with the second-string Wallabies against the Samoans, this is rarely good enough.

So clearly it is not just the Springboks who struggle with their second stringers. What worries me though is that we probably have more rugby players in the Western Cape than the entire Australia. One would think we have enough depth to be competitive with a second string team.

Maybe we as Springbok supporters sometimes underestimate the importance of established combinations and experience at test level. Even so I was immensely annoyed by the lack of commitment at the breakdowns, the cluelessness or lack of direction on attack and the constant spilling of the ball.

However, vital elements of the Wallaby performance were massively improved – namely, numbers with commitment at the tackle contest, alignment and realignment of the attack, and straight running.

We were the exact opposite we were to lateral and lacked numbers at the breakdowns and never took the ball up with directness and speed.

All of these will stand up against any opposition and, although coming opposition will offer much sterner defences, the finesse of the Wallaby performances will improve. It’s enough that this performance gives them a solid foundation on which to build. After the match, Rocky Elsom commented on the need for the Wallaby forward pack to provide the space for their lethal attack to operate. This has always been true for even the greatest attacking teams – indeed, this Wallaby team threatens to be one of those!

Make no mistake this Wallaby team had to endure massive criticism over the last two years but has shown steady improvement under the tutelage of Robbie Deans. Not only does the team show steady improvement but Deans have developed some new talent and at least some of his success with the team is a direct result of the development of young talent.

The Springboks in contrast have shown no improvement since PdV and his two stooges took over. In fact the evidence suggests a steady decline and an inability to adjust to an evolved game.

The Wallaby defensive effort was also – for the greater part of the match – of the highest order. The role for the ‘10 slot defender’ was handed to Digby Ioane and he was superb. He must have tallied the highest all-time tackle count for any winger in an international. He simply revelled in the role and continued to offer himself, in both attack and defence, for the hard yards in the tight zones. Curiously, his ball-handling let him down on a number of occasions, some significant, but in his Tri Nations debut match – another surprising statistic – he made a significant contribution to the Wallaby performance.

The Wallaby defensive style consistently featured a lower body tackler – who stops them in their tracks – with a second tackler over the top, who prevents off-loads. With the second tackler intent on regaining his feet to initiate the counter-ruck, this was clearly an effective facet of their game that constantly pressured the Springbok team. Mental pressure, added to the obvious physical pressure, had an important effect on the accuracy of the Springbok play.

Interesting the observation of the two tackler approach; one is stopping the ball carrier and the second one going for the ball. I wrote about this after the Reds/Crusaders game. The Reds used the same tactic to prevent the SBW off-loads and to create turnovers. The ball spilling of the Springboks, I believe, was also a result of this tactic.

The Springbok defensive effort, on the other hand, was well short of the standard required. Their front row, in particular, was frequently found wanting, mainly beaten hopelessly for pace, and I think that their selectors will need to look again for genuine World Cup candidates to back up their first choices. Conversely, the Wallaby frontrow showed excellent pace. Tight-head Sekope Kepu even made one decisive tackle, running back chasing a Ruan Pienaar break.

These are significant contributions – and they are needed from all eight forwards. Alexander and Moore showed the same for their tries. As was required, they gained some dominance at the set scrum. If we can get Tatafu Polota-Nau and Benn Robinson back for the World Cup, we have a serious group who can handle pretty much anything.

The Wallabies have always been more intent on selecting props that could run with the ball as compared to us who select props who can scrum first and it being a bonus if they can run with a ball. Our props and John Smit was badly shown up on defence but the most annoying thing is that we select props for the scrummaging first and then our scrum still can’t dominate against a team renowned for their average scrummaging.

Like I wrote in a previous blog it is a myth that we have a strong scrum. We clearly have the players with enough strength and bulk to excel in the scrum but we don’t and one has to ask why. I am convinced we have a coaching problem in this regard. Our coaches are just not technically astute enough.

A few weeks back, when commenting on Australia’s chances at the World Cup, I said that the Wallabies had probably more individuals than any other nation who could significantly alter the outcome of a match. Some of these – Genia, Cooper, Beale, Ioane and O’Connor – showed just that potency. The mere presence of these players anywhere near the ball raises the anxiety levels of defenders, and starts to ask difficult questions. With Elsom and Pocock starting to return to their best, the Wallaby team have a much more threatening look about them.

A couple of years ago James Horwill was also a genuine attacking threat and he has plenty more to offer. Think about how much the addition of Higginbotham and TPN – maybe even Samo and Timani – could mean to the support play. I have high hopes for our attack!

Do we have players who can alter the outcome of a match? I think FdP, Hougaard, Lambie and Aplon as well Mvovo and even Ashley Johnston has such ability but our game is so rigid that these individuals cannot express themselves. Opening up the game so that these individuals can express themselves is also not going to work if our forwards can’t create front foot ball.

Depth before width is key; we need to punch holes by taking the ball up with speed and then recycle briskly so that we can force the defense on the back foot and get the line to break-up.

Expecting your playmakers to alter a game with back football is madness.

So just where are we, in terms of our readiness for the World Cup?

• I thought that Rob Simmons played his best game at this level. He showed an admirable urgency, added to his normal high work-rate. More urgency is needed from other forwards; we looked a bit plodding at times.
• Our passing needs to improve a lot. Frequently it was too hard; at other times it was ill-directed. We left three or four tries on the grass, and this is not good enough. Diligence is needed from our coaching staff!
• We lost focus in the last quarter, no doubt influenced by the stack of substitutes made in this period. Our subs need to add to the performance, not detract. Elsom and Horwill were subbed off and they are both dominant influences on the pitch. Food for thought!
• The shape of our game was much better. During the telecast, Rod Kafer used the word ‘pattern’, but this suggests a preconceived sequence of plays, and is consequently a word that I hate. The foundations of the shape of our game came from (i) speed and numbers to the tackle, (ii) urgency in recycle and (iii) urgency in realignment. These factors impose a shape to your game, influenced only by the reaction of the defence, and make for a series of difficult questions of any defence.
• I have a strong feeling that Rocky is heading into top form – clearly a massive step forward for us. His captaincy is likewise looking more obvious – maybe the absence of pain, for the first time in a year, is helping.
• We are heading in the right direction. We’re not there yet, not by a long way, but we are on the right path!

Is there anyone who wants to share thoughts on where South Africa is in terms of readiness for the WC? Here is some of my thought on the matter:

• I thought Lambie was the only ray of light on the weekend.
• Our lineout will be competitive with Matfield and Bakkies.
• A inform FdP could be a factor.
• I think defensively we’ll do better once we got Jacque Fourie, Jean de Villiers, Schalk, Juan Smit and Willem Alberts back. This will also make us more competitive at the breakdowns.
• Our two big challenges in the first round of the WC are going to come from Samoa and Wales and we’ll need to play a tight game against these teams. Don’t throw Fiji out the backdoor either. It will be futile to try and run the ball against these teams.
• We need to expose our young props –with talent- and some back-up locks during the tri-nations as we have no choice we’ll have to play a tight game during the WC campaign.
• However, I would like to see the current tri-nation squad working on developing our ability to create depth –attacking the breakdowns with speed and explosiveness- and to spread the ball to the likes of Aplon, Mvovo and Basson so they can stretch their leg against international competition this might help them to develop their confidence to jump on opportunities when it present itself in tight matches. If we can improve these two things namely blood our young props and learn to hit the advantage line with speed and explosiveness to create depth before width then I believe we can get some positives out of an embarrassing tri-nations.
• Other than the above I think we are in serious trouble in terms of readiness for the WC.

The most annoying thing about this match was that Australia scored almost all their tries of mistakes made by South Africa. I’ll have to watch the match again but I can’t recall Australia actually scoring a try of set piece (lineout, scrum or even consecutive rucks). 

Apart from our lineout which was only reasonable because we mauled the ball up twice –by the way that was the only time I saw Stegmann with ball in hand (truck and trailer behind the maul); was he even on the field- and our scrum which was at best average we were just about ordinary in everything else we did. 

Our four main problems; firstly losing the ball within 3 recycles almost every time we try and run with the ball; secondly not taking the ball up at speed and therefore unable to breach the defensive line; thirdly, poor defence especially around the fringes and in the backline; lastly, being too predictable and one dimensional on attack. 

Losing the ball as we go into contact.

Dammit how hard is it to rectify this; how long more before this disease of South African rugby get cured? How many more test matches are we going to lose because of this annoying inability to hang onto the ball? Most of Australia’s tries came from counter attacks after we spilled the ball going into contact. There is absolutely nothing that irritates me more than this; in fact

I got so annoyed by it that I started to cheer the Aussies on to score more tries. That is how annoyed I got with this super super super shit performance.  

Not taking the ball up at speed – unable to breach the advantage line 

The major difference between the Aussies and us was in the way they constantly hit the advantage line with speed. This is PdV main coaching problem and the reason why we performed so poorly in last year’s tri-nation. Pieter please read here and wake-up: THE FLAT STANDING PODS RECIVING THE BALL STANDING STILL DOES NOT WORK!!! 

We got smashed back at the advantage line like I predicted mostly because we almost never took the ball up at speed. This problem started because we got pushed back at the rucks and couldn’t establish front foot ball at the scrums. 

Deysel was the only one that took the ball up at speed but he was a lone ranger and there was nobody to help him. 

Defence

I wrote in a post –before the match- that I see our loosies as a problem, one being to small; the second, being too slow and; the third, playing to loose. Our defence around the fringes was non-existent and both Genia and Cooper had field day’s. The second Aussie try came from a break around the fringes because Danie Rossouw was to slow.

The Aussies constantly created front foot ball by hitting the ball and defensive line with speed and we were never able to smash them back in the tackle because Johnstone (while he was on the field) was hanging to loose, Stegmann got forced back in the tackle on the rare occasions that I actually did see him make a tackle and Paklsae being too slow to get to the collision areas; he played his best rugby when he moved back to the lock position. It is no co-incidence that we scored our two tries after Deysel came on the field. Deysel took the ball at speed over the line not massively effective, I need to add, but at least he tried.  

Our defence out wide was just poor and the first try was caused by a missed De Jongh tackle. I am sorry but De Jongh is the most over rated rugby player in world rugby. His decision making is poor, he can’t pass a ball, he can run only straight into tackles and defensively he is only but reasonable. 

Did anybody see a Springbok forcing an Aussie back in the tackle? Well I didn’t and I was constantly on the look-out for someone to step-up and start dominitating at the collision areas. The stats program I consulted indicate that Stegmann made 11 tackles which might be right but I can’t recall him making any impact with his tackles like forcing the ball carrier back. 

We lost this match because we didn’t dominate at the tackle area/breakdowns. This is rule no1 of the modern game; it is the key to the All Blacks success; untill we get this right we will not win test matches. To get this right you need to select players that can do it and work at it. You get rewarded in life for those things you put your attention on. Untill PdV and his chronies starts to put attention on the collision area/breakdowns as part of their preparation and team selections we will not win test matches.

To predictable and one-dimensional on attack  

The first time the ball went through the hands to the wing –that I can remember- was after Lambie got on the field. De Jongh, Olivier and Jacobs –who looked well rounded like a well fed ‘slagskaap’- just can’t pass a ball.

The ball never got past the centers mostly because; one, they never got front foot ball; secondly, they never used decoy runners, thirdly, none of the centers on the field can actually pass a ball (yes the last one is a little sarkastic but so far this season -and previous seasons for that matter- I have yet to see evidence that Olivier and de Jongh can actually distibute a rugbyball).

After Lambie came on we started to see some decoy runners and the ball started moving through the hands to the wings with the centres sitting deeper but their passing was still agonisingly slow, ineffective and poorly executed. 

The constant use of the flat lying pods were epidemic and stopped us from creating front foot ball. The problem here was Stegmann being too small and slow to take the ball-up and hit the advantage line with impact; Rossouw being too slow and Johnsone going lateral whenever he got the ball. Deysel made some difference but that was too late in the game. 

What we need is less fancy stuff –read Pienaar’s useless little back flips- and getting the basics right. 

It didn’t feel like a Springbok team for me and they certainly didn’t play like one. The only players I thought which perform to the level a Springbok should was Chillyboy and Jean Deysel. The ‘fearsome’ new props made no inroads at either the scrums or the rucks and our locks were mostly missing in action at the rucks not considering Danie Rossouw as a lock because he started on No7 but he did try hard and showed up every now and again at the rucks.  

Lambie made difference when he came on and would be a factor behind a pack which gives him front foot ball.

The positive is that the Aussies won not because they were so good but because we were so useless. I don’t think they scored any try of set piece while we actually had stages where we were trying to run with the ball. In fact the first try came somewhat against the run of play after we spilled the ball going into contact. 

If we select the right combinations and loosies that can make impact and start to hit the ball with speed -as we take it up- we might play some better rugby. 

Even so I predict a black black black night against the All Blacks.

I don’t want to be a pessimist but there is just no way I can envision this Springbok team beating the Wallabies in Australia.

There are four MAIN problems with this team. Firstly, the loose trio; secondly the locks; thirdly the centre combination and lastly the frontrow.

Beginning with the loose trio, we won’t be able to dominate the breakdowns with this loosies.

Rossouw is too slow for a No7, Johnston play too loose and Stegman is too small. Rossouw plays his best rugby when he comes on as a replacement lock and with Stegman being the No 6 who get pushed back the most of all the No6 flankers in S15 rugby we need at least a No7 or a No 8 who can support him at the breakdowns. We have neither with a slow No7 and a loose hanging No8. I like Johnston and think he have earned his place but as a combo with Rossouw and Stegman I don’t think we’ve got the right mix for the Aussies.

I have never rated Muller as a lock and believe he is not up to international standard. Flip is still a greenhorn and neither of these two locks will be able to either ‘Matfieldtize’ them in the lineout or make any significant impact at the breakdowns.

Kruger and Greyling might have been good during the S15 but test rugby is a different cup of tea. There is just no way two new cap prop forwards will be able to dominate an international scrum in their first test match.

So if we can’t dominate in the scrum, lineout or at the breakdowns how are we going to play?

We can’t run the ball because we have two centres with very similar styles –running straight with very poor ball handling skills- who can’t create play. Add to that a flyhalf that sits in the pocket most of the time how are we going to get across the advantage line or get the ball to the wings?

I am really worried about this one. We don’t have a pack to play 10-man rugby but a flyhalf who can only play 10-man rugby.

Furthermore, with a backline receiving backfoot ball and a flyhalf who sits in the pocket and two centers that can do only do one thing –running straight- we are going to get pinned down behind the advantage line every time we get the ball.

So, if we can’t run the ball or play 10-man rugby with the lineout and scrum we have, how do you approach the match?

I predict a serious trashing and will be the first one to admit I was wrong if we do win but honestly I just can’t see it happening.

It was exciting and a close contest and I was as happy as most Aussies with the Reds victory mostly because it moved me up to the top 4% overall on Superbru.

Generally, speaking though I thought it was a rather poor exhibition of how to play finals rugby by both teams. Let me explain at hand of the following observations I’ve made while watching the game.

The game changed due to tactical kicking

The first three quarters of the match was essentially movement from side line to side line with none of the teams really winning the breakdown contest. So they kept playing the ball behind the advantage line. So much for running rugby!! Sorry but that was rather boring and pretty stupid tactics to be honest. There were a number of turnovers during this part of the game mostly the Reds being able to get the ball back very quickly every time they lost it.

The Reds kept on spinning the ball wide moving from touch line to touch line and only got back into the game when Genia started box kicking. Rather poorly I must say mostly due to the pressure exerted on him but so much for the box kick being outdated!!

The Reds only got into the match once they started with tactical kicks. At one stage in the second part of the first half and for most of the second half the Reds kicked more than they ran with the ball. The diagonal cross kick, the box kick, the up and under and the stab through grubbers were on.

Daniel Carter can’t dictate a match

This game was there for the taking but as so many times before Carter just couldn’t take the game by the scruff of the neck and run the show. Bulls’ rugby would have won this game for sure. Put the ball in the corner and play in the opponents 25.

The tactical kicking was poor

Both sides opted for the tactical kick when they couldn’t get ascendancy at the breakdowns and that turned the match for the Reds like I said before but the kicking was mostly poor. The tactical kicks and line kicking were either to deep, to low or off target. In spite of that it was only by bringing kicking into the game that the match started to take a direction on the scoreboard and i terms of putting teams in position to actually score tries.

All the tries came from kicks

Well sort off. Carter’s try was the result of a clever grubber and both the Reds tries came from poor tactical kicks. The Reds won meters field and placed the Crusaders under pressure on a number of occasions with grubbers next to the side line (the Reds No 6 used it very effectively).

The Reds (Aussie) set piece is not bad

The Reds was impressive in the scrum considering that they are supposed to be hopeless in that department. They handled the Crusader scrum a lot better than the Stormers.

The lineout play was generally poor

The Crusaders in particular struggled in the lineout. There were a number of skew throws but they also lost the ball at critical times in the line-out.

A team with a flyhalf or No 9 that can dictate and with a good lineout would have won this match.

Richie McCaw was outplayed

McCaw was outplayed at the breakdown and is clearly not match fit.

This game gave me hope for South Africa and just confirmed for me what most of us has been saying all along. Finals and semi-finals matches -in elimination type tournaments- require conservative pressure rugby with a strong set piece (scrum and lineout) and halfbacks that can dictate.

If South Africa can hold their own in the scrum we’ve got the line-out and the halfbacks to win us semi-finals and finals during the WC.

I like running rugby as much as the next person but drifting accross the field from touchline to touchline in an attempt to make rugby ‘exciting’, ‘adventerous’ and a ‘spectacle’ is just dumb. This for me is what was missing in this game and if Carter had the ability to do read a game and take control the Crusaders could’ve won this match. 

South Africa 3 /North-Auckland 0

South African rugby has this reputation of having a powerful scrum. In fact the perception is that South African rugby is totally dependent or at least over dependent on its scrum and if you can counter the South African scrum they are easy to beat.

After having watched the Stormers scrum getting totally annihilated by the Crusaders I have come to the painful conclusion that the perception of South African rugby having a powerful scrum is a myth. It is a myth that is actually causing more harm than good because the fact of the matter is that we rely to much on that perception and are therefore way to vulnerable. The problem is that we actually think we have a powerful scrum and rely on it but our opponents have no difficulty in beating us in the scrum.

This myth is based on the fact that the 1937 Springboks used the scrum to beat the All Blacks in New Zealand and the fact that the 1949 all Blacks were behind in transforming to a 3-4-1 scrum formation. They actually asked Danie Craven to help them with their scrum and struggled quite a lot in the scrum during the initial stages of that tour. By the end of the tour their scrum was as good as the Springbok scrum writes Winston McCarthy.

Since then the All Blacks have targeted forward play and are clearly the leaders in world rugby when it comes to scrums and rucks. That year, 1949, was the last time the All Black lost the scrum battle against us and one only need to read tour records of 1956, 1965, 1970, 1976, 1981, 1992, 1995, 1996 and watch video footage of tri-nation series since 1996 to see that we have never been able to beat the All Blacks in the scrum since 1949.

The few times that we were able to more or less hold our own against the All Blacks in the scrums we could do so only with the help with exceptional individuals namely Mof Myburg in 1970 and Os du Randt in 1995 and with illegal tactics (Johan Strauss in 1976).

I personally can’t recall one occasion where we actually dominated a New Zealand side in the scrum (both super rugby and test rugby).

For a nation that stakes its entire game on scrummaging strength we are a joke to be honest. It seems that each and every nation that decides to take us on in the scrum has no difficulty in succeeding.

In 1974 the British Lions targeted our scrum and destroyed us up front. In 1981 the Jaguars toured South Africa and scored a push-over try. Two years ago during the EOYT Italia dominated us in the scrum. Scotland gave us a hiding last year and I have difficulty recalling us dominating the weak Wallaby scrum over the last 10 years.  

The issue is not whether we can sometimes hold our own in the scrum it is about dominating because if we want to play rugby around the scrum as platform we need to dominate in that area and not just hold our own.   

It was embarrassing to see a South African team so totally out scrummed as was the case on the weekend with the Stormers and South African teams need to accept the truth that we are not as good in the scrums as we think we are. It is time to face the reality and let the myth go.

The last time we put up a reasonable scrummaging performance was in the first test of the 2009 Lions series. However that lasted for a brief period and the Lions rectified the problem with apparent ease in the second and third tests of that series. 

I for one don’t believe the myth anymore in fact I reckon we are going to get out scrummed in this year’s WC by the French, the All Blacks, the English and dare I say it the Italians should we play against them. We will probably (but only just) hold our own against the likes of Samoa, Fiji, Australia and Ireland. Truth is I don’t think we can dominate any of the top six rugby playing nations anymore in the scrum.  

I would like to be proven wrong but there is a massive scrum coaching problem in South Africa in my opinion and I had my gutsful of seeing SA teams getting pushed back in the scrums week after week.