Op-Ed: Give us World Cup glory. Or give us regime change. Preferably both.

1. Rock bottom

Defeat to Japan, Argentina and Wales all in the space of 12 months. Not many bookmakers would have offered odds on that happening to a Springbok side. But these are the barefaced low points of Heyneke Meyer’s annus horribilis. All of which will be rendered collateral damage if the Springboks pull the biggest, whitest rabbit out of the hat.

And should rugby’s equivalent of the rise of Lazarus occur, the rugby loving public will indeed be sucking on the most bitter of bittersweet pills. Prior to the World Cup, rumours were rife that Meyer had already been secretly re-appointed to continue as head coach after the World Cup. The powers that be seemingly content that a semi-final exit to the best team in the world would be enough to justify the extension of a somewhat chequered time in charge for Meyer. Losing to Japan was the best thing that could happen to World Rugby - and to South African rugby. Anything but winning the tournament would yield immense pressure on SARU to back out of the secret agreement.

2. Trees planted skew

Following the 2011 loss to Bryce Lawrence, SARU moved at glacial pace to appoint the new head coach of the Boks. Six months had passed with Steve Hansen in the Kiwi hotseat before Meyer was unveiled as the man to take the Springboks to 2015 glory and with it the opportunity missed to bring an internationally renowned foreign coach into the fold.

At around the same time Eddie Jones was looking for work, Meyer raided the no-name brand cupboards of the Blue Bulls to pick Ricardo Loubscher and Johan van Graan as his yes-men, err, assistants. Instead of opting for world-class assistant coaches, SARU paid the Blue Bulls handsomely to release them from their contracts, leading the national rugby side down the path of stellar mediocrity.

3. Anti-transformation or just anti-logic?

Relative success in World Cups has allowed SARU to drag its heels on transformation issues. It’s hard to contest with a formula that has won two world cups, another reason we should thank our Japanese rugby brothers for the privilege of that loss. In a team fielding less than the suggested minimum of players of colour, South Africa were handed their most embarrassing loss on a rugby field. In picking an out-of-position white player ahead of an already-named substitute black player in order to execute a game plan circa 1983, critics of Meyer were left wondering if the poor fellow had lost his marbles all together as opposed to just preferring to play with the white ones.

In this day and age, transformation does not mean weakening the national side. Elton Jantjies for Morne Steyn, Lionel Mapoe for Jan Serfontein and Scarra Ntebeni for Schalk Brits are just some examples where the policy could have been employed and the team would have been arguably better off.

Since that opening loss, the Springbok ship has been steadily repaired, perhaps by default rather than by design as injuries to two elder statesmen opened the door for hungrier, more agile youngsters to shine on the world stage. If Victor Matfield was fully fit for Saturday, it would have been interesting to see what lock paring Meyer would have picked to run on the park.

To be fair on Meyer the transformation issue has been allowed to fester because SARU does not take transformation seriously right at the top levels of the sport. He is just a symptom of bigger problem. In his open letter to the public, O’Regan Hoskins denounced the lack of progress made by the sport, suggesting he is a little brown puppet dancing a merry tune to those who feel khaki is the new black. By suggesting black children do not want to play rugby or haven’t seen a rugby ball, Hoskins looks a bit silly now that Japan holds a 100% win ratio over the Springboks, given their lack junior interest in rugby and what they've still managed to achieve.

4. Four year tenures are a load of rubbish

How often do new coaches come in asking to be judged on their World Cup performance, peddling “We’re in a building phase to bring back the cup”. What utter nonsense. A country like Japan may need four years to prepare for a World Cup but England and South Africa certainly do not. Heck, the difference in the Bok backline when Eddie Jones bolstered the coaching staff for less than four weeks was instrumental in winning the 2007 Cup.

Even though his overall wining percentage is still quite good, there is an overriding sense the team has gone backwards under Meyer. Winning ugly is sometimes necessary but reminiscent of so many conservative Bok coaches before him, when the times get tough the Boks get archaic.

5. Unshackling the potential

By showing Meyer the exit door, and bringing a quality foreign coach into the mix, maybe, just maybe, we’ll see an evolution of the monolithic beast that is SARU. It must be the greatest nightmare for any All Black fan the day a cerebral coach presides over a Springbok team for any meaningful period of time.

We have the potential to rival New Zealand in every area of the game, and yet the only thing standing in our way is the conservative culture that runs amok in our game. We need fresh out- -of-the-Boks thinking to unlock that latent greatness we know resides in our game. In Meyer it’s been four barren years with no need to unlock an empty trophy cabinet.

Winning the World Cup can still be done. And it would be glorious. But even if we do achieve this minor miracle and then Meyer stays on, you can bet the laager mentality will return and with it more Rugby championship wooden spoons. For everyone’s sake and before he recalls Naas Botha, let’s hope Meyer finally delivers a game plan of note and then falls on his sword. DM