If I've learned one thing in my four and a half years in New Zealand it's that many All Blacks fans consider the rivalry with South Africa to be head and shoulders over that with Bledisloe Cup foes Australia.

The history of legendary tours in the republic as well as the infamous 1981 Springbok tour of New Zealand shows passion that's rarely witnessed in trans-Tasman tests.

And the rivalry is going to be front and centre at the end of July when New Zealand heads to South Africa for two tests against a Springbok outfit bullish after winning the series against the Lions.

The All Blacks of 2009 have been less than convincing so far and it's going to take a hell of a lot of heart for this relatively inexperienced team to retain the Tri Nations title they've won for the last four years.

But it's not impossible. Not while the clown prince of rugby coaches, Peter de Villiers, remains in charge of the Springboks.

I think it's fair to say very few of us in New Zealand understand the issues the republic has faced trying to reconcile it's racist apartheid past with a desire to showcase it's new status as the Rainbow Nation.

While de Villier's appointment was largely based on his colour (at the time SARU president Oregan Hoskins said "the appointment was not entirely made for rugby reasons"), it's been his bizarre, hilarious and, at times, outrageous comments that have become the focal point for his tenure.

And with the eyes of the rugby world on South Africa while the Lions are touring, he seems to have taken the opportunity to turn the idiocy up a level.

To prove that no press conference is complete without a de Villiers-ism, he said this after his decision to replace half back Fourie du Preez with the out-of-form Ricky Januarie in the first Lions test:

"What I learned in South Africa is, if you take your car to a garage and the owner is black or a black man, and they mess it up, you never go back to that garage. If the owner is white, you say ag, sorry, they made a mistake and you go back again. This is how some people live their lives in this country."

But even that racist comment pales into insignificance - in rugby terms at least - with the utter bollocks he came out with following Schalk Burger's eye gouge on Irish back Luke Fitzgerald early on Sunday morning.

Burger, on his day a classy open-side flanker, cleary gouged the eyes of his opponent in just the first minute of the second test and was lucky not to have been red carded. Okay, let's be honest - the referee bottled it.

Anyone who has seen the incident on television - and believe me a blind dog could spot the eye gouge - shouldn't disagree with Burger's citing and subsequent banning (although I think he was lucky to get only eight weeks).

I say 'shouldn't' because our old friend Peter apparently doesn't fit into the camp that finds things like this on a rugby field outrageous.

"I don't think it was a card at all. I did see the evidence. I mean, first minute into the game, you have a lot of needle, if you were to sit down and dissect the whole game, you'd see a few yellow cards that had been missed.

"Shit man, for me and for everybody, this is sport, this is what it's all about."

My mind boggles. Seriously. The inescapable conclusion is the man is a complete and utter idiot. His idea of what sport is bears no resemblance to that of a man who understands there's a difference between being physical and assaulting your opponent.

His continued employment as Springboks' coach is doing a disservice to the proud history of the team and it won't stop until he goes.

And there may be more issues. It took an experienced and wise player, John Smit, to move past the Burger issue in the press conference, and by all accounts he's a key figure in holding the team together while de Villiers does his best to undermine everything.

The South African correspondent on Radio Sport apparently said the Springboks players are coaching themselves - and it's going to hurt them soon.

But could the end be near?

It appears the aforementioned Hoskins may have had enough and is due to meet de Villiers this week regarding the Januarie statement.

Whether this results in his removal from the post is anyone's guess. But South Africa's hopes of winning the Tri Nations may depend on it.

On a slight tangent, rugby reporters in the UK have once again used the Tana Umaga/Keven Mealamu 'spear tackle' on Brian O'Driscoll in 2005 as an example of southern hemisphere thuggery and as some kind of proof that there's bias against the Lions (completely ignoring the fact that it was an independent citing commissioner who decided there was no case to answer).

And while I don't disagree that both Umaga and Mealamu could easily have sat out a couple of weeks for dangerous play - at the end of the day the end result, a dislocated shoulder, was exactly the same as Bakkies Botha's cynical hit on Welsh prop Adam Jones during the second test.

That earned the Springbok hard-man two weeks on the sidelines, taking him out of a dead rubber against the Lions.

Wonder if we'll still be reading about that in four year's time? I wouldn't bet on it.

So what do you think of Peter de Villiers? Should he keep his job? Or would the Springboks do better to get someone else into the role? What about the citing of Schalk Burger and Bakkies Botha?

I appreciate all your comments.