Ami Kapilevich

South African rugby has generally gone with a four-year, up-to-the-World-Cup cycle of tenure, but our most prolific and long-standing coaches within each of those periods have also been our most recent: Jake White (54 Tests), Peter de Villiers (48 Tests) and Heyneke Meyer (48 Tests).

Allister Coetzee was sacked after 25 Tests.

So while it might not seem like we’ve had a tremendous amount of continuity, the truth is that we’ve not done too badly in that regard.

New Zealand seem like the poster boys for coaching continuity, with only two coaches since 2004, but the other large unions aren’t that far off ours – Sir Clive Woodward clocked 83 Tests for England but no other England coach has had more Tests than Jake White in the professional era. And while it remains to be seen whether Michael Cheika will become a coaching veteran (he is currently on 45 Tests), Australia’s longest serving (pro-era) coaches were Eddie Jones (57 Tests) and Robbie Deans (75 Tests).

The upshot is that, generally speaking, continuity is an exception in rugby union coaching rather than the norm. I suppose what riles South Africans is the nature of our changes. The reasoning behind them. We’re not upset about the issue of continuity as that of succession.

It’s an important difference. Continuity implies a stable management – one that is built on a winning philosophy and healthy systems. Succession is the ability to pass on those philosophies and systems from one administration to the next.

The four-year cycle mentioned above meant that continuity was not a priority for SA rugby in the past. The board would ‘give someone else a chance’, no matter what happened after the World Cup. And there has never really been any opportunity to build succession because of that. The job was more of a trough on a stage than a well on a hill.

So it’s going to be interesting to note how the appointment of a Director of Rugby for the national team is going to affect this, both in terms of the creation of the position itself, and the timing.

For one thing, the four-year cycle has been broken. The World Cup is just two years away. Word on the street is that Rassie has been given a mandate to groom a coach (Deon Davids, wink wink) in the build-up to the World Cup, and then we’ll take it from there.

Another factor to take into account is that we are starting from a very low base. South African rugby fans have hit rock bottom. Sure, we’re a proud rugby nation; but we’re not as feared as we were, and nobody is expecting us to do particularly well against England in June or at the 2019 World Cup.

But, win or lose, fail or succeed, the Director of Rugby is sufficiently removed from the coaching position to ensure his own position in the job.

Actual World Cup performance aside, a winning streak in 2018 or early 2019 will have pundits crowing that Rassie’s coaching appointment was a stroke of genius, and that said coach should be given more time to flex his influence. A torrid 2018 and 2019 will mean that, no matter how hands-on he’s been at a coaching and tactical level, Rassie has a scapegoat: blame it on the coach!

So the combination of these factors offers Rassie a lifeline. And a lifeline for Rassie means continuity at a level that simply hasn’t existed before. The only person with any experience in this Director of Rugby malarkey is Rassie himself!

If we have continuity at that level, then no matter who takes up the coaching position, there will be a semblance of succession, because it is the Director of Rugby’s philosophy and systems that will be inherited by the coaching incumbent.

And that is a very good thing indeed.