Boks in disarray
rugby365.com columnist Grant Ball suggests that the early signs are that Rassie Erasmus is having little impact on the Springboks.
The Boks' woeful loss to the Wallabies can't be blamed on Erasmus - for that, we can only look at Peter de Villiers and how he's transformed a great side into a tired and uninspired one.
However, many of Erasmus's media campaigners, on his appointment, wrote of him in such awe that he was seen as the Great Redeemer, like Graham Henry was viewed in Wales in the late 90's.
Many claimed Erasmus's work for two weeks with the Boks during their World Cup build-up in 2007 had a patent effect on their winning the tournament, which is laughable. Now we'll get a chance to see what he can do after working with the side for four months. The early signs are that he's had very little impact.
It was difficult for Erasmus to have any effect working with the Bok dirt tracker side for two weeks as they were up better sides in Australia and New Zealand. However, with the Bok first-choice team, the most experienced ever and with the best players in the world, you would've expected much more from them in Durban on Saturday.
Erasmus had two full weeks with the 21 rested players in Rustenburg, like he did four years ago. If he had such a big impact on them in 2007, why not any difference in the way they played in Durban? It just shows, he had little effect then, and it's unlikely he'll have any impact this time around.
A big moment in Durban came when John Smit moved to tighthead. Up against a fresh reserve loosehead, the outcome wasn't a shock. It was a poor move from the coaching staff, but it shouldn't be a surprise as naive substitutions have been a trait of the De Villiers tenure. But again, surely the homework should've been done - Smit has never scrummed well at tighthead against Australian sides, so surely this message should've been conveyed before selection?
If that message was given by Erasmus and De Villiers chose to ignore it, that begs the question of why Erasmus is there. In both possible scenarios (whether the analysis was done or not), the fact is, the Smit shift shouldn't have happened.
That may have been a vital turning point in the game, but in the 50 minutes before that, the Boks showed nothing different to what we've seen in the past. Their defence wasn't tested so we couldn't get an idea of whether improvement has taken place, while their attack offered very little. They created nothing and barring a chip kick for Jaque Fourie, no try-scoring chances.
No one was expecting anything revolutionary in such a short space, but minor tweaks to their game would've been heartening. Unfortunately, that wasn't apparent.
We shouldn't be surprised however, as you just have to look at the way the Stormers played throughout the Super Rugby competition to know that the Boks aren't going to be any attacking force - despite having the best players in the world. The Stormers had one of the most talented backlines in the tournament, but that their coaches, Erasmus included, couldn't work out that their flyhalf took the ball too deep and that they were lateral, is disturbing.
Erasmus's big impact was meant to be analysing games, so after the Boks' loss to the Wallabies, we'll get another great chance to see his worth. If the Boks don't deliver a much improved showing against a weakened Kiwi side without their two best players in Richie McCaw and Dan Carter, we'll get further evidence of Erasmus's impact - or lack thereof.
There's been much media spin that Erasmus was going to re-ignite this Bok team, but no amount of spin can plaster over the fact that these Boks are in disarray. Being the first side in 40 years to lose back-to-back home Tests to Australia and possibly losing all four Tri-Nations matches for the first time, shows that you can't hide from the numbers.
De Villiers just keeps on racking up the records.