Springboks triumph despite game of politics

But the chances are that it will be a long time before a South African team wins another major title in any sport - for the dead hand of politics hangs threateningly over all South African sport. For the Boks it may have been a final triumph in more ways than one.

Winning the English way

The irony of South Africa's win in Paris is that they did so in the uncompromising, pragmatic style of play that had brought England so surprisingly to the final - they 'won ugly'. The defence was sound, the line out excellent, the tactical kicking intelligent and the place kicking utterly reliable.

These had been the features of England's renaissance in this World Cup and the Boks stole the English clothes well and eschewed their more attacking back led play. Bryan Habana, the brilliant free running Springbok centre never came close to scoring a try - but his defensive play was excellent showing that he really is the complete player.

Only in the scrum were South Africa outplayed and this gave England a chance. Indeed if luck had gone England's way - in particular if Cueto's 'Try' had been allowed - then the story might have been different.

Of the top eight ranked sides in the world at the beginning of the tournament the Springboks only had to play two - Argentina and England. They avoided matches with their Tri Nations rivals and also with the top European teams France and Ireland.

England did the Boks the favour of removing the Wallabies; France sent the All Blacks home - and then England removed the threat of a Final against home favourites France. It couldn't have worked out better. But take nothing away from the men in green and gold - they deserved their win.

Politics threatens South African sport

In the Springboks home whilst there will be joy unconfined as the Webb Ellis trophy is paraded, the future looks bleak. There is a sine qua non about professional team sports that coaches and selectors should always choose a team on merit. The only exception to this rule is when a player is excluded from selection for offences such as drug abuse or corruption.

But these exceptions aside selections must be made without fear or favour - the best 11 or 15 players must take the field. That principle has been under threat for some time in South Africa as sporting bodies are increasingly hijacked by government appointed officials who are charged with achieving a greater number of non-whites in South African teams.

For example the target for the rugby squad is to have at least 10 black players in it - and a black coach. This is called 'transformation' although another term for it might be 'racism' - what else is the policy of selecting a player not for his abilities but for the colour of his skin? Jake White has been asked to reapply for his job, despite his World Cup coaching triumph - he won't do this and will probably pursue his career outside South Africa.

The South African team that played in the final had two non-white players in it - the Cape Coloured three-quarters Habana and JP Pietersen - both unquestionably there on merit. Although there were black Africans in the squad there were none in the final 22 - indeed the only one on the field was Paul Sackey of England whose parents came from Ghana.

Sackey's presence in the England team (and earlier that of the Nigerian Victor Ubogu) gives a lie to the baloney sometimes spouted by some in the Afrikaner community that Africans can't or won't play rugby.

The Rugby World Cup of 2007 has shown that success in Rugby has nothing to do with race. But to pick a side on racial grounds rather than merit would be an affront and if it happens then it will be a decade or more before a South African arm again raises the Webb Ellis Trophy aloft.

See also:
The fear of losing
Supporters colour the Rugby World Cup