Rugby: Gold era waning - or not

Victor Matfield is one of the strong men of South African rugby but his powers may be on the wane by 2011. Photo / Getty Images

Wishful thinking, maybe, but the Springboks look bang on track to be a spent force by 2011.

They will come to Hamilton this week a good bet to win and yet, should they register a third successive victory against the All Blacks, no one in New Zealand should be fooled into being too gloomy long-term.

South Africa are imposing right now. They are a side crammed with experience. They have mentally strong characters. They have set-piece control and are playing with confidence to well-learned patterns that dovetail nicely with the current rules.

If the World Cup were next month, throw the mortgage on them. But it's two years away and South Africa may well be a side in decline by then. They could be unravelling in the home straight the way the All Blacks have so regularly managed.

Everyone knows the All Blacks have had a bad habit of playing their best stuff between World Cups; that they peak a long way out and come into World Cups on a gradual decline.

Whatever the result this week, the All Blacks - hard as it may be to believe - are a better long-term bet than the Springboks. The All Blacks have ample room for growth. The Springboks have reached their summit and surely can't sustain their position for another two years.

This is a golden era for the Boks and while we will hear from those within the squad reasons why it is only the beginning, it feels like it could be the beginning of the end.

After this campaign Frans Steyn will join Racing Metro in Paris and Jean de Villiers will head to Munster. Losing them will not be catastrophic for the Boks. It will disrupt them, though; begin the process of eroding the current side.

That's the danger for the Boks - bit by bit they will lose something and struggle to replace it. The balance of a side in peak flow is more precarious than one still climbing.

De Villiers has more than 50 test caps. When fit, he's the rock of the Springbok midfield - the constant to the variables in the No 10 and No 13 jerseys.

Steyn is the natural heir apparent to de Villiers but he's had enough of the whole pillar-to-post treatment and fancies a wad of cash and the bright lights of the Champs Elysees.

Once de Villiers and Steyn are gone, the Boks will have a problem jersey, something New Zealanders know all about having experienced extended dramas trying to find a centre over the years.

There are, however, much bigger icebergs drifting towards the Boks than those two departures.

The critical axis is formed by John Smit, Victor Matfield and Bakkies Botha. These three have almost 250 caps between them. The two locks have played together more than 50 times - most of which have also been with Smit at hooker. Is it any wonder the Springbok lineout is so good, so polished, so precise?

These three make the South Africans what they are - a bruising side, with strength of character and the ability to perform under pressure. They intimidate by their very presence and get into opponents' heads. How many test locks have looked across the lineout at those two behemoths and suddenly questioned their own worth?

As for Smit, he is the most experienced test captain in history. His leadership is undisputed. Respect for him within the team, within the world game, is enormous. He's very like Sean Fitzpatrick in that he clearly loves the combat and revels in it while exuding a calm authority.

In asking how long the Boks can sustain their form, the question is really, for how long can these three sustain theirs?

They are to the Boks what Fitzpatrick, Zinzan Brooke and Frank Bunce were to the All Blacks in the mid-1990s. We all know what happened in 1998 when circumstances conspired to force all three into retirement at the same time.

Pull just one of these three players out of the equation and it will seriously dent the Boks. Career-ending injury is probably not the great fear although it can't be ignored that Smit and Matfield will be closer to 35 than they will be to 30 by the World Cup.

It's about how they sustain the mental desire now they have ticked so many boxes. The 2007 World Cup - ticked. A test win in New Zealand - ticked (Dunedin 2008). Defeating the British Lions - ticked. Winning the Tri Nations - all but ticked ahead of last night's match.

The lure of defending the World Cup is an incentive. But there is a mountain of rugby between now and 2011. Can the senior players stay hungry? Or will they retire?

They were fired up to play the Lions, to avenge the series loss of 1997. They are still living off those stoked fires. There won't be much to sustain the passion in 2010.

That's when the edge might really start to come off the Boks. If the mental energy comes off the boil, even slightly, the performances will dip, just a fraction. The doubt might creep in.

Then 2011 might seem a long way off and, just as we have seen with the All Blacks, the team that once looked unbeatable and almost certain to win the World Cup, reaches the year of the tournament with momentum fading and confidence seeping.

That for New Zealanders is the more appealing future for the Boks. There is a less palatable alternative, one where the Boks are able to seamlessly drip-feed new talent to replace the old. Like Heinrich Brussow, the livewire flanker who has so easily taken the place of Schalk Burger.

It's harder to see them managing this. Andries Bekker has height and mobility but little experience and is a long way off being able to replace Matfield or Botha. Dannie Rossouw is a great squad man but is never going to be a world class lock. They are bereft at prop behind Smit and 'Beast' Mtawrira and, as gifted as Ruan Pienaar is, he doesn't appeal as a test fullback.

South Africa should enjoy their moment. They deserve it and it might help them dull the bitter taste of realising they've peaked too soon.

If history is any indicator...

With the World Cup kicking off in almost exactly two years, we are midway through the cycle. History tells us the sides in peak form two years out rarely manage to sustain their run.

1997

If we go back to 1997, the truth of that is most apparent.

The All Blacks won all four of their Tri Nations matches that year. They played a total of 12 tests that year and won 11 and drew one.

They bombed out to France in the 1999 semifinal, quite obviously not the same side they were two years previously.

Meanwhile in 1997, Australia managed one Tri Nations victory and rounded off their campaign with a 61-22 thumping at the hands of a Springbok side who themselves had been hammered two weeks before by the All Blacks.

Yet Australia won the 1999 World Cup, defeating South Africa in extra time in the semifinals. Interestingly, the Boks used that 61-22 defeat of the Wallabies to build a world record run of 17 consecutive victories which ended in December 1998.

They went into freefall when the bubble burst, negotiating their way to the semifinal on the back of an easy draw.

2001

In 2001, the All Blacks won eight of 10 tests - finishing second to the Wallabies who inflicted both their defeats.

The Wallabies were arguably the better team as they won the Tri Nations and defeated the Lions that year. They went on to the World Cup final in 2003 - defeating the All Blacks in the semifinal.

2005

In 2005, the All Blacks beat the Lions, won the Tri Nations and Grand Slam. They lost one test of 12 that year in Cape Town. They were lethal.

They were the best side in the world but in 2007, they couldn't even make the semifinals.

Australia were dire that year - losing all four Tri Nations tests and were dire at the World Cup. The Boks played well to win three Tri Nations tests and they looked like they had room for growth. Which they clearly did, as they won the World Cup in 2007.