As anticipated, Bafana Bafana’s exit from the 2026 FIFA World Cup in the USA, Canada, and Mexico has invited wide-ranging views on what could have gone wrong. Listening to some of these opinions—many of them contradicting one another while discussing the same national team—could well point to the very reason Bafana crashed out: the lack of consensus on how the South African national team should play.
Hugo Broos and his technical team were heavily lambasted for their ultra-defensive approach in the opening match against Mexico, and the post-match analysis sharply contradicted the views held by the Bafana camp. Some critics argued that South Africa is blessed with highly skilful and creative players whose attacking qualities could be unleashed against any opposition. Clearly, however, Bafana’s technical team believed the side lacked enough attacking strength and that the safest approach was to play for a draw.
With the introduction of Relebogile Mofokeng in the second match against Czechia, Bafana looked far more promising going forward and eventually scored their first goal of the tournament. However, once South Africa had found the equaliser, the technical team immediately made changes to protect the stalemate and secure a point from the match.
The same contrasting perspectives emerged in Bafana’s final group match against Korea Republic. Reports from inside the Bafana camp further suggest that, going into the Round of 32 clash against Canada, the technical team’s strategy was never to trouble Canada offensively. Instead, it is said, the plan was to deploy the notorious low block, hold Canada to a goalless draw over 90 minutes and extra time, and ultimately take the game to penalties.
The criticism that followed once again exposed this lack of consensus. Many observers, including some PSL coaches, believed South Africa could have shown far more ambition going forward and wrapped up the game within 90 minutes.
There is, therefore, no consensus on the style of play. What Broos sees is clearly not what everyone else sees. But whatever the case may be, if the views of former Barcelona midfield maestro Xavi on how football should be played are anything to go by, then Broos and the rest of his technical team may well have suffered an intellectual defeat before they had even kicked a ball at this tournament. The same could be said of many others whose football philosophy aligns with the Bafana technical team’s play-it-safe, frankly anti-football mentality.
It is sickening to hear so many football analysts, some former players and even some coaches criticise Ronwen Williams and his teammates for playing out from the back. An incident in which Sphephelo “Yaya” Sithole lost possession, leading to Mexico’s goal, is constantly cited as proof that teams should never play from the back. That is a load of nonsense. In fact, it was encouraging to see Williams continue building from the back against Czechia, Korea Republic and Canada.
Instead of encouraging our players to simply hoof the ball forward, we should be teaching them to become better thinkers, because football is first played in the brain before it is played with the feet.
As Xavi said in an interview published on sofoot.com, “Clearing the ball is an intellectual defeat: ‘Can I really not do anything else there?’ When you recover the ball and you lose it again, you give a new possession of ball to the opponent. Don’t do that. Find spaces, pass the ball to the goalkeeper, dribble, get a throw-in by shooting the ball on the player you have in front of you. Do something, anything, but do not throw it out! My sense of responsibility prevents me from doing it.”
There is absolutely nothing wrong with playing out from the back. The problem arises when it is done in an environment such as the PSL, where almost anything goes and the prevailing mindset is “safety first” and “as long as you win”, with very little emphasis placed on HOW you win.
Those same safety-first and win-at-all-costs mentalities were applied by Broos and his team throughout this tournament, and they did not take South Africa very far. It is the same mentality that led Broos to withdraw Mofokeng and instead deploy three defensive midfielders against Canada, to defend nothing, yet in vain.
Our technical team never seemed interested in asking: “What changes can we make to support Mofokeng’s offensive qualities and ask the right questions of the Canadian defence?” Instead, their thinking appeared to be: “You forced me to play Mofokeng and, you see, I gave him an entire first half and there was no goal. Now I’m going to take him off and defend this stalemate until penalties.”
That, in itself, was an intellectual defeat on the part of our technical team—and equally so for those analysts, former players and coaches who expected Williams to simply launch the ball forward in the hope that Evidence Makgopa might somehow produce a goal because, after all, “it doesn’t matter how you play, as long as you win.” Rubbish!
Xavi, in this interview, is very clear that football should first be played in the mind. Players need to be able to read game situations and come up with solutions in real time. The cowardly mentality of simply playing the ball long up the field begins with the first mental defeat: the belief that “if we play out from the back, we may not retain possession, we may lose the ball and concede, so let’s just kick it forward”—even if that means immediately handing possession back to the opposition.
“My brain works like a processor: it stores data, information. Turning my head helps me do it. And that’s not only important, it’s fundamental to master space-time. I think: My team-mate is man-marked, so I turn my head to look for another solution. Behind me, an opponent says to himself: I’m going to take the ball from him, he’s turning his back, he does not see me.’ Except that I saw him. Just as I saw that the player who is marking my teammate is moving forward at the same time as his partner. Before they reach me, I passed the ball to the same teammate who got free. I found spaces, solutions in a few seconds,” says Xavi.
Sithole should have decided what he was going to do with the ball before he received it, fully aware of his surroundings and conscious of his “Man-B” (man behind). His failure to do so in that moment cannot be used as an indictment against playing out from the back. That is because building from the back is about control. It is about retaining possession, manipulating the opposition’s defensive structure and thinking several steps ahead.
“We cannot play football if we don’t understand everything that happens on the pitch. It goes deeper than just the contact between the foot and the ball. Each reflection, each question opens new perspectives. Why are we asked to give space to each other? Or to open up the game? It’s logic,” argues Xavi. “I have the responsibility not to lose the ball, but I also have the one that my team-mate does not lose it. The difference between big teams and mediocre teams lies in the quality of the network of passes.”
There is something deeply troubling about Broos’ stubborn refusal to be more adventurous in attack, choosing instead to rely on ultra-defensive tactics. It suggests a coach who has very little confidence in the creativity of South African players, and unfortunately, a coach who is then not suited preside over such players. A mismatch that has now cost the nation!
Much of his success with the national team should rightfully be attributed to the structure established at Mamelodi Sundowns during Rhulani Mokoena’s era at Chloorkop. This is made even more apparent by the fact that Bafana’s loss of its playing identity coincided with Miguel Cardoso’s arrival at Sundowns and his changes to the team’s playing system.
Since then, Broos has increasingly defined himself as a conservative, ultra-defensive coach, much like many other European coaches who appear to believe that defence is the defining characteristic of African football—that the only thing African players can do is defend, sit deep and cautiously play long balls.
Nothing could be further from the truth.
Africa has always produced footballers of extraordinary imagination and individual, technical brilliance – requisite traits needed to unlock stubborn defenses. The continent has given the world Jay-Jay Okocha, George Weah, Shoes Moshoeu, Roger Milla, Jomo Sono, Ace Ntsoelengoe, Doctor Khumalo, Emmanuel Amunike, El Hadji Diouf, Sibusiso Zuma, Siyabonga Nomvethe, Samuel Eto’o, Mohamed Salah, Sadio Mané, Achraf Hakimi, Brahim Diaz, Yaya Touré, and countless others.
The low block is not Africa’s football identity, and the growing acceptance of that philosophy needs to stop. Broos—and everyone who subscribes to that school of thought—needs to stop. This mentality presupposes that the players do not have much to offer going forward and the most logical thing to do in that regard is to defend – sometimes defending even what you don’t have at all. That hypothesis is wrong and there is a plethora of evidence contradicting it!
This is precisely what Xavi warned against when he said, “My great sorrow is that the defensive and physical aspects have taken over the attacking one, the technique and the talent. At this rate, we will all be bored watching football.”
The former Barcelona star comes close to defining this low-block mentality as anti-football.
“The team that plays on the back is not the team that tries to play but refuses to.”
There is nothing African about the low block. It is not who we are.
South African football certainly has its shortcomings, including inconsistent coach education and the absence of a uniformly implemented playing philosophy, but its football identity has never been missing.
Football development guru Zipho Dlangalala describes South Africa’s playing philosophy as “based on three legs – technique, mobility and creativity. It is evidenced by short pass combinations, continuous movement – physical and psychological-, and a lot of improvisation. Players are always looking for new ways to express themselves in the game. It is very offensive, in nature. Defending is a ‘default’ moment. You can go on and on – self-expression, exuberance, team cohesion, individual arrogance, technical, fun, carnival, intriguing, etc.”
Football Development Coach Omar Davids says, “Our playing philosophy is possession-based football. It is characterized by the control of the play from keeper to striker, imposing a unique style on the game. There’s a predisposition to short passing, creativity and improvisation. It can be expressed in a variety of tactical applications from very organized defensive structures to individuality and fluid individuality.”
Short passing, creativity and improvisation are common descriptions from these two technicians and certainly many would agree.
Former SAFA Instructor Coach Sudesh Singh says, “We don’t currently have one that’s fully implemented at all levels of the game, and that is what we need to start correcting.”
These descriptions stand in direct opposition to the low-block philosophy. They reject the idea of deploying three defensive midfielders, marginalising players such as Relebogile Mofokeng, and suppressing creativity in favour of caution. They also make it abundantly clear that Broos and those who seek to define African football through the lens of the low block simply do not understand who we are.
To this effect, Xavi adds, “What did Cruyff say? ‘There is only one ball.’ And he was right, if I have it, I do not even need to defend, it’s the others who have to run after it. If they steal it, I have to get it back quickly. I want to have 99% possession, 100% if possible.”
So, the question should never be whether South Africa should play out from the back because playing out at the back is in line with our identity – “short passing, creativity and improvisation”. The real question is how we develop better thinkers – players with genuine football intelligence, players capable of protecting possession and solving problems under pressure. As Cruyff famously said, there is only one ball. If you have it, you do not need to defend; it is your opponents who have to chase you. They do not have their own ball.
Let us welcome the boys back home from the World Cup.
Then let South Africa’s football technicians gather around the table to chart a clear footballing path for the future—one that embraces our identity instead of denying it.
But Hugo Broos can go home now.
By Sipho Kekana
Opinion Disclaimer
The views and opinions expressed in this article are solely those of the author and are based on the author’s personal perspectives and analysis. They do not necessarily reflect the views, positions, policies, or opinions of the organisation, its management, employees, affiliates, or stakeholders.
About the Author
