Peter de Villiers, Yay or Nah?

[semiautomatix]

Amateur vs professional is a mute point surely. The game was essentially amateur throughout the world prior to the 95 world cup. Post 95 world cup the sport turned pro here and abroad.

Pre 95 everyone was competing on similar grounds...

So winning 14/14 pre 95 or 17/17 post 95 should be irrelevant.

If you're Uruguay and you won 16/16 post 95 then that's an achievement as even today Uruguay (as well as many other minnows) are effectively still amateur.

Haha! Not when you achieve it, just ask the ABs

 

[sand_man]

Haha! Not when you achieve it, just ask the ABs

Or Nick Mallets Boks...

 

[Morgoth]

That wasn't really what I was asking, but at least you're putting forward some good points, which is a start. What I would like to know is why (you believe) the two eras are so vastly different. I understand the support structures, in each era, as I have mentioned. But please explain how game tactics, choosing the right players and the general understanding of rugby differ at all when you're out there on the field? If there is such a vast difference why have three teams dominated international rugby for the last 30 years in both eras?

rugby is a cultural thing in both cases? the countries being dominated don't have the finances in some cases...or the infra structures like SA have with the curry up ,

and no not every country stayed the same after the amateur era , take South Africa for example, we were the powerhouse in world rugby , no team until 95 won us more then we beat them , including the BI lions and NZL... since the pro era its been a different story with NZL at least (they are and still are the no1 team you want to beat, although I do agree we are better then them currently, but in the past few years, we haven't been).

In the previous era we had guys like Doctor Danie Cryuwan, who could pick players from club level , strap them on with a springbok jersy and they would preform, because team spirit and a lot talent where the only things that you needed, not to mention DC could inspire italians to beat the boks. Take Gerrie Germishuys for example, he never preformed at provincial level but strap him with a Jersey back then and he would for some reason preform top notch. With the pro Era this cannot happen any more. club level just won't cut it down in the pro game,

1) so yes the process of selection with different
2) the results in some cases were different.
3) It is a more intense game that has to be approached with a different mindset.
4)There are a lot more politics in the game
5) the coaching staff - its been said
6)The amount of training and the different tactics, yes the game changed a lot laws changed and are still changing.
7) As for a general tactics. well lets see, the boks as you know at the moment have a kicking and running game, back in the amateur era, a team had one ( Noord Transvaal had the famous 10 man rugby), playing an oneway tactic will kill you, imagine what NZL would do to us if we cannot switch alternatively...We even have players nowadays who for fill different rolls per position, Ruan Pienaar running vs Steyn kicking, or Jack white not liking the idea of a flanker being a fetcher..

so , both games were great entertainment in their era, but are completely different, the same goes for Cricket (batsmen who are compared to Don Bradman, who batted when bowlers just started bowling overarm.... no wonder he had a 99% avg) or Tennis ( Bjorn borg hardly put power in his game, it was all about touch then, now its power and placement, and many sportsmen would agree...) The same goes for Rugby,

I thought these things were obvious - clearly not

 

[Morgoth]

Now, I fail to understand how a comment such as "Christie didn't have players dedicated to the game 100% of the time to work with" is my, how did you say, "opinion ( so called facts)" when it is clearly the truth? Surely this would make it more difficult to coach?

did I say it isn't difficult to coach?, something being different doesn't make it easier...

 

[sand_man]

However, even then three teams dominated. They continue to do so in the so-called "professional era". Which is why I question whether their differences make such a big impact in the greater scheme of that game.

EDIT: okay as far as the big 11 or so-ish professional countries are concerned.

Well that's the point. Coaching would be no easier or harder now then it was then except for the fact that now it's a fulltime profession where then it was something you did partime.

If you were a partime coach in an amateur country competing against full time professionals then different story but Kitch was an amateur competing with and against amateurs...

 

[sand_man]

Morgoth you've explained how the game has evolved and how all sports have evolved but the point and the question here is, is Kitch's 14/14 record any less triumphant achieved in the amateur era vs say Mallets 17/17 in the professional era?

Timgaul, I believe, is of the opinion that the feat is as epic as what any SA coach has achieved in the modern/professional era and I tend to agree...

 

[semiautomatix]

rugby is a cultural thing in both cases? the countries being dominated don't have the finances in some cases...or the infra structures like SA have with the curry up ,

and no not every country stayed the same after the amateur era , take South Africa for example, we were the powerhouse in world rugby , no team until 95 won us more then we beat them , including the BI lions and NZL... since the pro era its been a different story with NZL at least (they are and still are the no1 team you want to beat, although I do agree we are better then them currently, but in the past few years, we haven't been).

In the previous era we had guys like Doctor Danie Cryuwan, who could pick played from club level , strap them on with a springbok jersy and they would preform, because team spirit and a lot talent where the only things that you needed. Take Gerrie Germishuys for example, he never preformed at club level but strap him with a Jersey back then and he would for some reason preform top notch. With the pro Era this cannot happen any more. club level just won't cut it down in the pro game,

1) so yes the process of selection with different
2) the results in some cases were different.
3) It is a more intense game that has to be approached with a different mindset.
4)There are a lot more politics in the game
5) the coaching staff - its been said
6)The amount of training and the different tactics, yes the game changed a lot laws changed and are still changing.
7) As for a general tactics. well lets see, the boks as you know at the moment have a kicking and running game, back in the amateur era, a team had one ( Noord Transvaal had the famous 10 man rugby), playing an oneway tactic will kill you, imagine what NZL would do to us if we cannot switch alternatively...We even have players nowadays who for fill different rolls per position, Ruan Pienaar running vs Steyn kicking, or Jack white not liking the idea of a flanker being a fetcher..

so , both games were great entertainment in their era, but are completely different, the same goes for Cricket (batsmen who are compared to Don Bradman, who batted when bowlers just started bowling overarm.... no wonder he had a 99% avg) or Tennis ( Bjorn borg hardly put power in his game, it was all about touch then, now its power and placement, and many sportsmen would agree...) The same goes for Rugby,

Okay, maybe you shouldn't bring tennis or cricket into this argument because we're gonna have a huge derailment

Thank you for giving a very decent and well researched argument into your POV. That is all I ask for, arguing singular one liners really just takes us in circles.

You clearly have a good understanding of the game from a managerial position. And yes, you are correct in most of what you say and I would tend to agree, but what I do question is surely every other team was playing a similar game at the time. As such I feel, at that point in time, and even in the last 15 years (as you have pointed out) things have changed.

We were good because we had a team and coach that understood the conditions and how to exploit them during the period in question, in particular pre-95. This is the exact same thing the All Blacks did for about a decade after 1995 and is something we've done beginning in 2006/07 (and yes, much has to be attributed to de Villiers and his coaching staff) and culminating in this Trinations. Especially with the most recent changes to the laws and the change from a running to a kicking game, something I'm sure the IRB didn't foresee but the Springboks have achieved.

Perhaps, Div really has understood the game and will be able to give us a decade similar to what the All Blacks achieved. However, and this has been pointed out by other posters, Jake White is that man that got that ball rolling. As such we will have to wait and see whether this was really luck on de Villiers' part or whether he can maintain the momentum.

So, as you can see, that is why, as it stands, I place White above de Villiers as a coach. I have not written off Div as a coach and hope he does what many of you expect in the future and doesn't fizzle out after some of the pre-2008 squad disappear.

I also give all credit to Christie because he played the best game of this time, something many South African coaches failed to do during the professional-era. As such, I see no problem comparing White to Christie (and who knows, maybe de Villiers will be deserving of that accolade soon).

I can agree with many of your points, but I hope you now realise its not all cut-and-dry and when properly expressed there is a grey area where everything overlaps.

Thanks again, I do enjoy a good debate!

 

[Cantera]

Ok, i will take the bait timgaul.

You cannot compare the two era's simply because things are done on a much more intense level these days.

Kitch might have been great at coaching part timers, but who can say that he would have been great coaching professionals. There is a trillion more factors that the coaches of today have to deal with that Kitch never had to worry about.

Players are better now than what they were in 1992. Players understand the game better, their bodies are more defined, they are faster etc.

These is really things that are very clear, but you fail to see it. Sport evolves and becomes more and more intense. People get bigger, stronger, more technical. If you take PDV or a modern coach and let him coach the 1995 team he probably could have won everything in Rugby.

Its like saying, who do you think will win between Federer and Borg. Federer will DESTROY him.

Kitch would not have won 14 matches on the trot in the professional era.

Please tell me, do you think he would have won 14 in a row if he had to play the current All Black team?

 

[semiautomatix]

Well that's the point. Coaching would be no easier or harder now then it was then except for the fact that now it's a fulltime profession where then it was something you did partime.

If you were a partime coach in an amateur country competing against full time professionals then different story but Kitch was an amateur competing with and against amateurs...

That's technically what I believe, and as I have stated I believe both Mallet and Christie (and even White and de Villiers) played the best game they could considering the period in question. These coaches exploited and used the laws well during their "reign" and as such neither era should be disregared as any less significant.

 

[semiautomatix]

Ok, i will take the bait timgaul.

You cannot compare the two era's simply because things are done on a much more intense level these days.

Kitch might have been great at coaching part timers, but who can say that he would have been great coaching professionals. There is a trillion more factors that the coaches of today have to deal with that Kitch never had to worry about.

Players are better now than what they were in 1992. Players understand the game better, their bodies are more defined, they are faster etc.

These is really things that are very clear, but you fail to see it. Sport evolves and becomes more and more intense. People get bigger, stronger, more technical. If you take PDV or a modern coach and let him coach the 1995 team he probably could have won everything in Rugby.

Its like saying, who do you think will win between Federer and Borg. Federer will DESTROY him.

Kitch would not have won 14 matches on the trot in the professional era.

Please tell me, do you think he would have won 14 in a row if he had to play the current All Black team?

Do you think the World Cup winning 1987 or even 1995 All Black team would have won 14 in a row if they had to play the current Springbok squad?

No, because they played the best game they could for the time in question. As such the current team have every opportunity that the All Blacks had, as did the All Blacks in 1995 when they lost to South Africa in the World Cup.

So you cannot compare playing two different eras against each other but you can most definitely compare the teams of time and how they faired against the other. As such the Christie achievement was no less grand than the Mallet achievement or any Trinations win.

 

[Cantera]

Ok, after reading the long posts i think agree with both timgaul and Morgoth.

Its one of those things where you will never know. Who are we to say that if Kitch had the Div job, he would not have achieved the same result.

As much as i doubt he would have won 14/14 in this era, we will never know.

 

[sand_man]

The difficulty here is now we start comparing Naas Botha to Dan Carter, Borg to Federer, Kitch to PDv, Nixon to Obama...

You got to judge the player, coach, man according to his peers at that specific time in history.

Due to the ever evolving nature of all things man made in this world, the newer make, model, man, coach, player is always better than the old and it's unfair, unrealistic and impossible to compare them...

Danie Gerber was the greatest outside center I've ever seen yet in today's game he would be absolutely no where. Frik Du Preez one of the most revered and greatest locks ever but he wouldn't make the Bulls vodacom cup side if he was playing today because at 6.4inch and 102kg he is tiny in relation to the modern day rugby player...

 

[semiautomatix]

Ok, after reading the long posts i think agree with both timgaul and Morgoth.

Its one of those things where you will never know. Who are we to say that if Kitch had the Div job, he would not have achieved the same result.

As much as i doubt he would have won 14/14 in this era, we will never know.

They both understood their game, and who knows were the positions reversed then perhaps they would have been in a position where they would have been forced to learn and adapt to a different style of game. In fact, we have almost come full circle from a point where kicking rugby dominated, to the point we're in now.

However, it has been proved a coach can win 14/14 in the professional era and maybe its merely an academic argument as to whether either coach would have adapted to the changes in the game.

 

[semiautomatix]

The difficulty here is now we start comparing Naas Botha to Dan Carter, Borg to Federer, Kitch to PDv, Nixon to Obama...

You got to judge the player, coach, man according to his peers at that specific time in history.

Due to the ever evolving nature of all things man made in this world, the newer make, model, man, coach, player is always better than the old and it's unfair, unrealistic and impossible to compare them...

Danie Gerber was the greatest outside center I've ever seen yet in today's game he would be absolutely no where. Frik Du Preez one of the most revered and greatest locks ever but he wouldn't make the Bulls vodacom cup side if he was playing today because at 6.4inch and 102kg he is tiny in relation to the modern day rugby player...

Nixon was a great president! I do enjoy a good scandal.

Here is a point I will concede, that because of professionalism players are more attracted to the sport as a profession. These potential players existed during the amateur era, there just wasn't the ability to hire them and keep them playing back then.

However, I do have to point to a player like Os du Rant that played from both eras and dominated the game, regardless. As such it may merely have been an evolving mindset, which is possibly something a man like Kitch could have adapted to in the modern game.

 

[sand_man]

Also bear in mind in the amateur era you wouldn't be competing in this mother of a competition called the tri-nations. It's virtually impossible to complete 2 seasons undefeated when you playing 6 games against the 2 best rugby playing nations on the planet...

Mallets run of 17 straight victories to equal NZ's world record of 17 straight victories will most lightly stand for a very very long time...

 

[LancelotSA]

Morgoth you've explained how the game has evolved and how all sports have evolved but the point and the question here is, is Kitch's 14/14 record any less triumphant achieved in the amateur era vs say Mallets 17/17 in the professional era?

Timgaul, I believe, is of the opinion that the feat is as epic as what any SA coach has achieved in the modern/professional era and I tend to agree...

I will give Kitch credit for his record being exceptional, however, I do tend to agree that it is probably easier to achieve that in an amateur era than in the professional era. Back then you would pitch up on the day and play the game. Yes, there was obviously some video analysis etc but I'm almost certain it would not have been as extensive as it is now in the modern era.

Further to this if we look at Christie's record in more detail we see that of his 14 games in charge only four of those were away games and none of those were against NZ or Aus in their backyards. They were Scotland, Wales, Italy and England. At the time only the latter could probably have been regarded as a tough one.

Also of the 14, seven were against "minnows" who we would really never expect to lose to. Yes, I have included Samoa in there.

Yes, his achievements were good but we would have been able to judge better if he has been around long enough to tour Australasia at some point...

 

[Morgoth]

Morgoth you've explained how the game has evolved and how all sports have evolved but the point and the question here is, is Kitch's 14/14 record any less triumphant achieved in the amateur era vs say Mallets 17/17 in the professional era?

Timgaul, I believe, is of the opinion that the feat is as epic as what any SA coach has achieved in the modern/professional era and I tend to agree...

I see it this way : a rugby coach has a job to entertain, both Kitch and Mallet did this, both provided good entertainment for that era, making it 2 separate things, it is almost like comparing to movies.

you can however compare PDV and White because they are in the same era, one the worldcup is over then we will most probably know who is the better of the 2, PDV got a good side, but so did Rudolph Straeuli, but what did he achieve from it other then giving joost a new career change, achieving his dreams as the first porn star to lift a world cup?.......nothing really PDV and Mallet both succeeded in maintaining moment but why I don't see Mallet in the same light because of the whole Gary Teichmann incident.

 

[Morgoth]

Also bear in mind in the amateur era you wouldn't be competing in this mother of a competition called the tri-nations. It's virtually impossible to complete 2 seasons undefeated when you playing 6 games against the 2 best rugby playing nations on the planet...

Mallets run of 17 straight victories to equal NZ's world record of 17 straight victories will most lightly stand for a very very long time...

today Rugby players aren't allowed to play more then 1 game per week, this is how physical the game become, back then they could have a monday, wednesday and weekend game.

 

[Cantera]

Never knew those were the teams that made up Kitch's 14 wins.

That record means less to me now knowing that he played lesser teams.

 

[semiautomatix]

Never knew those were the teams that made up Kitch's 14 wins.

That record means less to me now knowing that he played lesser teams.

Look there was Australia and then New Zealand and France in the knockout round in the World Cup - that is no mean feat. There was also games against Samoa and Canada in the World Cup - unavoidable and only 2 out of the 14.