you're reading...

Scapegoats – Who is to blame?

Wu Tang Clan said it best in the lyrics to their song Triumph – “the thrill of victory, the agony of defeat”. This pretty much sums up a roller-coaster sporting weekend for the long suffering South African supporter.

In the case of both the national football and rugby teams, attention moved swiftly from the result at the end of the game, from the disappointment and anguish, to that perennial question – who is to blame?

The Mbombela Mix up

It all looked so promising on Saturday morning. The national football team, Bafana Bafana, were playing Sierra Leone at the Mbombela stadium in Nelspruit in their final group match for the AFCON qualifiers. The perceived wisdom at the time was that Bafana needed a draw or a win against their West African opponents and also required a helping hand from the Egyptian U23 team who were in action against table-topping Niger. There was nothing but pride to play for from the Egyptian point of view as they were not in contention to qualify.

Going into the match Niger were on 9 points, with Bafana and Sierra Leone both on 8 points. Egypt duly did their bit and defeated Niger 3-0. South Africa battled against Sierra Leone but were unable to breach their defence and the game ended in a 0-0 draw.

Cue the Bafana Bafana confusion.

The Bafana Bafana players proceeded to put on their best performance after the final whistle as they gyrated and pranced around the pitch believing they had qualified for the AFCON. Messages were erroneously circulated on Twitter and Facebook stating that South Africa had qualified. A couple of people then started posting updates from a BBC website link quoting that Niger had qualified.

All three teams were now level on 9 points and South Africa had the better goal difference. However, CAF rules state that in the event that two or more teams are level on points, the qualification goes to the team with the better head-to-head record between the concerned teams. In this case, Niger had qualified by virtue of the better head-to-head record.

The massive disappointment of the players, coaching staff and many supporters should not, however, attempt to disguise the fact that Bafana Bafana have now failed to qualify for the continent’s football show piece for the second time in a row. The fact that South Africa went into their last game needing a result and also relying on other teams to help them through speaks volumes about how low the national football team has sunk over the years.

Once the dust had settled following confirmation that Bafana were not going to AFCON, it was time to start pointing fingers. Why were the management and coaching staff not aware of the qualification criteria? The information was available on Wikipedia for any interested parties. How was something so crucial was ignored to the extent the players felt they were able to celebrate with such certainty? Surely coach Pitso Mosimane has to carry the can for this failure and it must be time to bring in yet another foreign coach to be paid a fortune?

From my perspective, the problem dates back to a previously identified problem which continues to plague Bafana Bafana to the present. In six group games, Bafana scored a grand total of 4 goals which was the lowest “goals for” out of all four teams. Included in the six group games are three goalless draws. Although South Africa also had the most miserly defence with a mere two goals conceded, a team cannot be expected to qualify or progress in any tournament if they are unable to score goals.

Perhaps the players should have focussed an equal amount of energy in trying to score goals as they obviously put into learning their dance routine and there wouldn’t be a need for a scapegoat?

The New Zealand Adventure

I’ll admit that I was one of those who wrote off the Boks’ chances prior to the start of the Rugby World Cup. The principal argument being that they were over the hill and that they were a yard off the pace heading into the tournament. The first game against Wales appeared to add weight to this initial diagnosis as the Boks were slow and ponderous and lucky to escape with a narrow victory.

However, that game seemed to galvanise the Springboks and they cruised through the rest of their group games relatively easily with the exception of the Samoa game, which was intensely physical and the Boks appeared short of invention at times. Finishing top of the group meant that South Africa headed into a quarter final match against the Australians who had conspired to finish second in their group.

The Springbok team that showed up for the quarter final was a team that deserved a semi final spot. Gone was the lethargic team from the Wales game and in its stead was a team full of running and invention, frequently bringing in their back line players and not kicking possession away willy nilly.

Unfortunately, the Boks v Wallabies game will probably be best remembered for two major talking points.

The first point was the manner in which the Boks completely and utterly dominated every aspect of the game and yet failed to score a try or to win the game.

The second point, and crucially from a Springbok perspective, was the inconsistent application of refereeing laws by New Zealand official Bryce Lawrence.

ESPN Films has produced an excellent documentary called “Catching Hell”. The documentary tried to investigate the reasons why fans of the Chicago Cubs baseball team placed the blame for the team’s failure to progress to baseball’s World Series finals in 2003 on Cubs fan Steve Bartman. Although there were other events that could possibly explain the way the Cubs imploded, the documentary reveals how fans and the media alike made Bartman the sole scapegoat. In short, the Chicago Cubs fans and the media were able to transfer all of the disappointment and anger at the team’s failure at the feet of Steve Bartman.

There are a couple of scapegoats who will be in the media’s firing line following the Boks’ exit from the Rugby World Cup.

The easiest one to blame is naturally New Zealand referee, Bryce Lawrence. Don’t get me wrong, I think Lawrence’s performance was what my younger brother would refer to as “a throbber” or “a mare”. His officiating was very inconsistent, especially with regards to the interpretation of the breakdown laws. Naturally, South Africans will be quick to jump on the Antipodean bandwagon and claim this is all part of a conspiracy to ensure that either the All Blacks or the Wallabies made it to the final.

Peter de Villiers ordinarily would have been the primary scapegoat, but he has managed to escape this hell due to Lawrence’s heroics. Question marks over the team selection combined with his well-known propensity for “foot in mouth” quotes during his tenure meant that the knives had been out for P.Divvy long before the start of the tournament. Once the furore over Bryce Lawrence has abated somewhat, the focus will swiftly return to P.Divvy.

In my humble opinion, the problem is not entirely with the scapegoats above but rather with the statistics at the end of the game. In the first half alone, the Boks had 84% of the territory and 55% of the possession but conspired to head into the break trailing 3-8. South Africa had approximately 76% of the territory in the game and forced Australia to make 147 tackles compared to the Boks’ 53 tackles. South Africa should rue their mistakes in potential try-scoring situations brought about by the Australian pressure, combined with their 11 handling errors.

In short South Africa had their chances but failed to take them. That is the only scapegoat that people should be looking at.


About Ticha Pfupajena

I'm beginning to get the sense that my career as a professional footballer may not happen. As a result, I'll try write about football and sports instead....


11 thoughts on “Scapegoats – Who is to blame?

  1. True Dat!

    Most of us are too drunk to care right now. Oh, if only I drank….

    Well put big guy, but let’s agree that Bryce(what a retard name) is still a D@@s

    SA outplayed Aus, so heads can be held high even in defeat. That does not happen often.

    Posted by Ryan | 09/10/2011, 19:27
  2. When you’ve got that much territorial and possession advantage and can’t convert it into points on the board, I’m not sure that you need to look too far for scapegoats. The team is doing half the job but just not finishing it off.

    Posted by Sentinel | 09/10/2011, 23:56
  3. The ref. denied Zuma the joy of holding the cup!! I felt sorry for the Boks not the Bafana Bafana who as you aptly put , put more effort into gyrating than scoring.

    Posted by Rose Pfupajena | 10/10/2011, 09:45
  4. I personally disagree with your assessment of the ref. He was actually VERY consistent in his interpretation of the laws of the game. What the Boks should have a problem with is that he interpreted the rules differently from them. This seems to be a recurring theme with Boks and refs, when the Boks lose. They blame the refs interpretation of the game. They have made the most complaints about the refs in the past 3-4 years and seem not able to adapt their game plan to suit the ref’s interpretation of the rules. Surely they should know any major ref’s interpretation beforehand and amend their game plan accordingly.

    Posted by Tafadzwa | 10/10/2011, 11:40
    • Very good point Marere about adaptability to the referee’s interpretation. I was actually discussing this very topic this morning and the conclusion was the same as yours. How many times must they go through the same process before they adapt?

      Posted by Ticha Pfupajena | 10/10/2011, 14:24
  5. I sadly did not catch the full Springbok game but the last 10 or so minutes I did see included several hight tackles which seemed to go unnoticed by all concerned (Referees and Assistant Referees). From what I know of the game all the possession and territory in the world mean nothing if the referee is in one way or another skewered. I hear David Pocock was a one man show and much like Richie McCaw can be a right pain on his day. So a ball stolen (legally or otherwise) while in the 22m and sent back to thehalfway kills momentum and means a whole new start to get into the “strike zone.”

    Lawrence could have leveled the playing fields but we must concede that this springbok team lacked a level of imagination brought in by Francois Steyn in the last work cup and that seem (in glimpses) by the other Francois (Hougaard). P Divvy for all his ramblings believed in his team and made the hard decisions that as Springbok coach will never please everyone. Let us hope the next coach is as entertaining and the next captain slightly less indespensible.

    Posted by D Rock | 10/10/2011, 14:43


  1. Pingback: South Africa/England and the ghost of ’96/’66 « GoalMouthMelee - 04/02/2013

  2. Pingback: It’s all Demichelis’s fault | GoalMouthMelee - 10/03/2014

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

Enter your email address to follow this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 999 other followers

Ticha Pfupajena

%d bloggers like this: