SA should follow Aussie lead
Columnist Grant Ball says Peter de Villiers has to start facing facts and make some tough decisions - the first of those regarding John Smit.
Recently I believed Smit should start at this World Cup, simply becausSe the decision to drop him from the starting XV had come too late. I thought it was too late to change Smit's role and we'd have to live with it, with Smit's leadership value his main trait.
To change your captain during the World Cup is unheard of, but the Boks' win over Wales emphasised how extraordinary these circumstances are. You have the best hooker in the world only contributing 25 minutes at a time - a waste.
Australia and Robbie Deans have shown the way. Deans felt that Rocky Elsom didn't offer enough, and James Horwill was rewarded with the captaincy. This was done for the greater good of the team. Elsom's performances didn't warrant being the captain, as he was in danger of losing his spot.
The captain should always command his place in the starting team, but its obvious Smit isn't anywhere near the player Du Plessis is.
Wales also made a similar move, making 22-year-old Sam Warburton their leader. That was forced on Warren Gatland due to Matthew Rees's injury, but Gatland made the brave call. Coaches are paid to make tough calls, and this is where De Villiers needs to earn his salary. He can no longer make decisions based on sentimentality.
Those who defend Smit say it's only because Du Plessis is so good, that's why Smit looks so average. So how does that justify keeping Smit in the side? And why should Du Plessis be punished for being so good. We have a rare talent, lets use it.
Others point to Smit's great leadership - but is his leadership encouraging players to make the extra five tackles and turnovers that Du Plessis would bring if he started? The way the Boks limped through minutes 10 to 55 in Wellington suggest Smit is offering little inspiration to his side.
Du Plessis's time is now, the Boks can't afford to squander what he offers. The minor problem for the Boks is that vice-captain Victor Matfield will miss Saturday's Test against Fiji due to injury.
Schalk Burger, led the side in the closing stages against Wales, should be made captain while Matfield is hamstrung.
Many prefer to put their heads in the sand and accept performances like this. That can't happen if the Boks are to move forward and have a chance of defending their title.
It's also up to the supporters to demand more from their team. 'A win is a win' can't be the excuse used; we should be demanding better showings.
The main culprits who dig their heads in the sand and enjoy the majority of the public being ignorant are the coaching staff and SA Rugby. SuperSport's ultra-positive commentary favouring the Boks is an insult to their subscribers.
Ian Jones and Stuart Barnes offered some great insights and no-holds-barred analysis in their short stints on South African TV, as they do when on Sky New Zealand - informing the public and giving different opinions. But De Villiers and SARU apparently told SuperSport they're not allowed to use the third member of the triumvirate, former coach Jake White, as an analyst
That the Bok coach decides who can and who can't analyse the Boks' sub-standard showings emphasises his insecurities and indicates why we have to listen to commentators and studio guests repeatedly blame refereeing decisions for the poor performances, glossing over the Boks' weaknesses.
The sooner the public and coaches acknowledge the problems in the Bok set-up, the more chance the Boks have of doing what has never been done before - winning successive World Cups.
* Follow Grant on Twitter