The noise surrounding Joseph Dweba’s selection against the All Blacks and much of the blame that has fallen on his shoulders for the first-half slump that saw the Springboks fall 15-0 behind at Emirates Airline Park and ultimately lose the test match last weekend is both overboard and unfair.
But some of the blame has to go to the Springbok management themselves.
While some of the commentary, both at the game and online on social media, has questioned why Dweba started ahead of Nelspruit man-of-the-match hero Malcolm Marx, others online have suggested that there were other reasons for his selection that had nothing to do with his role in the squad as the third hooker.
Bongi Mbonambi was due to start at hooker, but after a knee injury ruled him out, it was widely expected that Marx, who started in Nelspruit in his 50th game, was due for a start.
There was consternation when Dweba was announced as the starting hooker, with Marx playing his more traditional role on the bench.
The Boks initially tried to explain it away by backing Dweba but there were those who weren’t convinced, especially as the Johannesburg game was the biggest of the Springbok season.
What made it worse, the All Blacks admitted in their post-match press conference they were always going to target Dweba’s lineout throws, the one aspect of his game that has always troubled both his fans and his critics.
And he did lose his first line-out, and along with a match-rusty Duane Vermeulen, the Boks fell behind and were forced to play catch-up.
Now, it wasn’t Dweba’s fault all this happened, but some have questioned his selection and have said the selection blunders contributed to the Bok loss.
There is some validity to this argument, and what made it worse was coach Jacques Nienaber’s answer after the game when he was challenged twice about the selection as well.
Nienaber has been the first to say the Springboks weren’t above criticism, but his answer - that there was “a rugby reason” for Dweba’s selection, and then following up with the caveat “but that is privileged”, was a bit off the mark.
To tell those covering the game, and by implication the millions of Springbok supporters that they can’t know the reason for selection when they pay hard-earned money to support the world champions is wrong.
Nienaber may have misspoken, and his intentions may have been good, but it came over as evading the question.
A few days on, the seriousness of Mbonambi’s injury has been revealed and it is now clear he won’t be touring to Australia, leaving the Boks with Marx and Dweba as their only hooker choices for the two tests down under.
So it is likely that Nienaber was talking about that as his rugby reason, and it can follow that if that was the case, the Boks were looking to test Dweba in the biggest of cauldrons as they knew he would have to front up at some spot in Adelaide and Sydney as well.
It is also likely that they have concerns about parts of his game, the fact he wasn’t always a regular for Bordeaux in the Top 14 and also need to expand the depth of their hookers as the entrenched combo of Mbonambi and Marx are almost set in stone.
All these are valid rugby reasons, and perhaps should have been explained better - not only by Nienaber, but by others who fronted up to the media in the week.
There may be other rugby reasons - each player has a “roadmap” that the coaches work out for them for their progress in international rugby and each player knows - according to what the coaches have told us - where they stand.
Dweba - like Aphelele Fassi, who has been dropped from the squad, has specific areas of his game he needs to work on, and the management may feel there are areas that shouldn’t be discussed in public.
Yet by saying the information is “privileged”, it does a disservice to the side and the player alike, and it leaves the interpretation open for those who have accused Dweba of being a “quota selection.”
While this is incredibly insulting to a player of Dweba’s qualities, and the current Springbok team as a whole, there will always be those who look for the lowest common denominator and conspiracy when trying to explain what they can’t understand.
Malcolm Marx came on after a half hour, further raising questions about starting Dweba and there are those who question in this case why he didn’t start in the first place.
Their argument - and it is a valid one - that Marx was exceptional in Nelspruit and should have kept his place was never explained properly either. Marx may be more accustomed to the bench but there was no reason to change a winning side, especially in your biggest test of the season.
The counter-argument is that this management team has delivered a World Cup, a British and Irish Lions series and a victory in Nelspruit and they are likely to have long-term goals in place they feel was the justification for the selections.
They may be right, but without any insight into the process, it is understandable that the public will feel differently. It may have been tactical as well, and it is also understandable that coaches often don’t want to release too much information into the public as it helps the opposition.
Whatever the case - and hindsight here is a perfect science - it is a selection that backfired a bit, and which raised so many unnecessary questions in a week where it shouldn’t have.
In Vermeulen’s case, the need for match time, much like Elton Jantjies against Wales, was the overriding factor. The question here is whether this was the right game to do it?
There is no doubt that there are a lot of factors the public doesn’t know and a lot more debate went into the selection decisions. But it is also a fact that saying it is privileged doesn’t help the situation at all.
The Boks have heightened expectations with their own performances and their own ability to be open with the public and they shouldn’t expect less scrutiny now after a loss than they did when they were winning.
Most coaches know that it only takes a few losses and things can change dramatically for a team.
Dweba deserves his spot in the team and somehow, in a tough match calendar, they had to find a role for him, and it is likely he will be involved in both tests in Australia.
So there would always be rugby reasons to start him.
In this case, they could have presented the case for him a little better, and explained the thinking a bit more to those on the outside.
A lack of information leads to wild speculation and that does nobody any good.
Not least the player, or the fans.