A brutally honest assessment from Cardinelli

Here is the real core problem, we are trying to play a game we are not good at.....if we had Eddie as our coach, as so many now wish, we would be playing much more like England. And winning. Coetzee, Smith and Venter are destroying Bok rugby. .. Recent results and performances have highlighted the poor planning and tactical shortcomings of the Springbok coaching team, writes JON CARDINELLI. The All Blacks went into the clash against the Boks two weeks ago without senior players of the calibre of Ben Smith, Owen Franks, Joe Moody and Israel Dagg. Six of the 15 players who started that Test had fewer than 20 Test caps. The All Blacks still scored eight tries and handed the Boks their heaviest Test defeat in history. More recently, the All Blacks travelled to Argentina without the afore-mentioned players as well as Sam Whitelock, Brodie Retallick, Sam Cane and Liam Squire. The All Blacks – fielding nine players in the starting XV with fewer than 20 caps – ran in five tries and claimed a 26-point win. Consider what the All Blacks could accomplish in any one-off match between now and the 2019 World Cup final if they had all of their best players fit and available. Consider how strong they could be in terms of player depth by the time that global tournament comes to pass. The All Blacks in their current guise are the product of careful planning. All five of the New Zealand franchises work together to ensure that the national side is as strong as it can possibly be. On top of that, a crack team of coaches is constantly searching for new ways to boost the levels of performance. The former has proved instrumental to New Zealand’s sustained success. The influence of Hansen and the other All Blacks coaches, of course, cannot be discounted. I disagree with those who say that we shouldn’t put Hansen’s All Blacks on a pedestal. After all, how do you argue with a 90% win-record across a period of 77 Tests? At the same time, I disagree with those who argue that an international side has to play like the All Blacks to beat the All Blacks. Indeed, there’s a reason why teams like the Boks and Wallabies are considered part of the chasing pack while others like England and Ireland are seen as genuine threats to the All Blacks’ dominance. The Boks, as well as the less successful South African Super Rugby sides, have attempted to copy the New Zealand brand of rugby in recent years instead of building on their traditional strengths and establishing their own identity. If they continue on their current course, they will continue to chase and chase without getting any closer to the goal of matching the New Zealanders’ offloading game and remarkable fitness levels. Allister Coetzee’s Boks were praised in the wake of their convincing wins against Argentina in August. A couple of months on, and those performances are being viewed in a new light. The Pumas have lost all five games to date and have conceded nearly 200 points. Meanwhile, the Boks have scored just five tries across the three Tests against Australia and New Zealand. In the wake of the recent result in Bloemfontein, Coetzee attempted to talk up the Wallabies as if they were a world-beating side. This is the same Wallabies side that lost to Scotland at home earlier this year and the same side that was pushed close by Italy. The Boks have failed to beat the same mediocre Wallabies side on two occasions in the Rugby Championship. That the South African structures are backward and in dire need of fixing is not up for debate. That said, the current Bok coaching team has to take some responsibility for the team’s results and performances over the past two seasons. REVIEW: Boks, Aus vie for second spot The Boks disappointed with their frantic attacking approach in Perth. The compulsion to offload was almost as frustrating to watch as Coetzee’s post-match assurances that his team would have scored if those speculative passes had stuck. The Wallabies came into the match in Bloemfontein knowing that the Boks would attempt to run and offload regardless of what transpired at the gainline. In an attempt to lift the tempo, the Boks lost the ball in contact or proceeded to hand the opposition an easy intercept. The Wallabies clearly don’t have what it takes to punish the Boks to a more telling degree. The All Blacks, however, have already inflicted one 50-point hammering on the Boks in 2017. A second heavy defeat may be in the offing if the Boks persist with these flawed tactics and don't address their defensive shortcomings. We can expect a series of excuses pre-empting a loss at Newlands: The Boks have lost a host of first-choice players to injuries and are thin in positions like loose forward and tighthead prop; South Africa doesn’t boast the same structures as New Zealand and are thus limited in what they can build and achieve at Test level. Coetzee intimated at the post-match press conference in Bloemfontein that the Boks would do well to avoid another hiding at the hands of the All Blacks. What Coetzee and company fail to acknowledge, though, is the role they have played in South African rugby’s sharp decline. The Boks will play into the All Blacks' hands next Saturday – and indeed in all matches that follow in the lead-up to the 2019 World Cup – if they attempt to beat the New Zealanders at their own game. Ten years ago, Bok coach Jake White formulated a game plan based on South African rugby’s physical strengths. The Boks went on to win the World Cup via a simple yet effective approach. Who knows how far the Boks may have progressed if they had built on those structures in the years that followed? More recently, Eddie Jones’ move to steer England back to a more physical approach has resulted in two Six Nations titles. Jones’ England are currently at No 2 in the World Rugby rankings. We can expect a clash of styles when England meet New Zealand in 2018. If the recent British & Irish Lions series is any indicator, we can expect a closely contest match. Coetzee's Boks are still caught between two styles and are still searching for an identity. Until a new coaching staff is installed or – more realistically – until Rassie Erasmus returns to South Africa in early 2018 and provides the team with more tactical direction, the Boks will continue to chase shadows.

The Boks will play into the All Blacks' hands next Saturday – and indeed in all matches that follow in the lead-up to the 2019 World Cup – if they attempt to beat the New Zealanders at their own game. Ten years ago, Bok coach Jake White formulated a game plan based on South African rugby’s physical strengths. The Boks went on to win the World Cup.

This is utter codswallop...partial truths misconstrued and a snare, a myth to further our confusion.

Firstly there is no reason on earth why South African rugby cannot be developed along the lines of the true complete and balanced game.

Who wants to play the dull hocus pocus game of charlatan coaches like Jake White's so called "magic"...back to the trappings of mindless crashball 10 man rugby.

What genetics have people in NZ got that differs from us...it's a complete fallacy ... all in the mind.

True rugby lovers want the game to be played to it's fullest and as far as value is...who wants to win in a 2007 scenario any way...NZ were eliminated unexpectantly by France and England beat Australia in a freak match. SA got there by these 2 unlikely results if we are honest.

Quite honestly we will never overtake NZ now only a deluded fool will think so but we could still grow our rugby if we were free.

 
It's often puzzles me, why so many want to move away from what worked so well for us 10 years back.

Rugby is a physical game. The entire sport revolves around it. The team that dominates the collision usual comes out top. Right?

I hear stories of how a mobile front row is far more beneficial than the big bruisers of old ... how a smaller, quicker back row is all part of the modern game ... and that the days where loosies had tree trunks for legs are over.

Then I see guys like Vunipola freight training some poor, quicker, lighter loose forward ... running right over the top of him ... leaving his stud marks in his chest as he carries the ball forward ... and the result of this tree trunk fella ... some serious go forward, crossing the gainline at will ... putting his entire team on the front foot ...again and again and again.

Now you tell me ... hows that bad for the game? Why should we adopt another strategy?

 Divan Serfontein, Naas Botha, Michel Du Plessis, Danie Gerber, Carel Du Plessia, Gerrie Germishuys, Johan Heunis . They ripped the wee abs apart if memory serves me right.
The fact of the matter is the Lions Proved SA Sides can play running rugby and with a bunch of nobodies correctly coached.As Mallet said we must not lose traditional strength while adding attacking flair. I think it is only post isolation where attacking flair went out of the window largely because the bulle won a Super rugby title. Their two other "wins" were really not warranted at all as they were very clearly not the best side in the field against the Sharks and Stormers. Nevertheless the rolling maul bulle and the high up and under tactics served them well for a few seasons until the counters were found. 

"The Boks, as well as the less successful South African Super Rugby sides, have attempted to copy the New Zealand brand of rugby in recent years instead of building on their traditional strengths and establishing their own identity. "
The Lions have made the last 2 SuperRugby finals in a row, playing a running game of rugby. They implement an expansive game plan that is a mix of running rugby, with traditional 10 man rugby.They have beaten most SA teams with ease, often putting on very high scores.

 I have no respect for Cardinelli who thinks we can serve up bad selections and quota selections., quota coach and expect to beat any decent side. You can talk till you are blue in the face and it wont help beat the wee absIts like getting a club tennis player to adopt all the right tactics and think he can beat Federer. No he cannot because he is not good enough and never will be. The sheer stupidity and naked racism surrounding SA rugby ensures underdog status after many decades of dominance. Unfortunately nobody can actually talk about the real problems for fear of the repercussions, loosing their jobs etc.
I agree about better structures etc etc. But if you ignore the elephant in the room who the heck do you think you are fooling - dense denise and ou rooitwitterbug! (Chief mampara and assistant chief mampara! Bwahahahahhahahahaha

Actually Cardinelli is one of the very few SA reporters worth reading. Racism is a problem. Structures, whatever that means, is likely a problem.....but one decent coach would pull us out of this mire. We not only failed to beat Oz at home for the first time in 5 years....we failed to beat a rotten Oz team who were as poorly coached as we are. ... England isn't playing AB rugby. Ireland wasn't playing AB rugby when they beat NZ in Chicago.....nor were the Lions when they matched them down under. They played an improved version of their traditional games, added some forward passing skills and worked on attacking variations. But they still kicked when there was space behind, focused on set pieces and valued defence as a a crucial winning tool. So should we.

 Actually I don't buy it that this is a rotten Oz side. Their backs are good and pack is competitive as they showed in the second test against the wee abs in NZ.True just some decent selections and we could still be competitive against the wee abs.

Losing at home to Scotland wasn't a clue?

 A brutally honest assessment, in SA world.

In other worlds, it is neither honest nor even an assessment.

As stated many times, AU and SA have one thing in common: they can not afford to pretend. Year in, year out, they are going to face NZ rugby in one way or another. They will be exposed anytime they will try pretending, as SA are doing at the moment.

The article states IR and EN as genuine threats to NZ. Genuine threats. IR beat once NZ lately and they are a genuine threat. Thinking that NZ will never lose is bottomless. NZ will lose and must lose. One victory against NZ changes nothing.
EN have been insulated for four years from NZ rugby and they would be a genuine threat.

What else to believe? That SA, during the last 25 years, have trained one decent non white player?

This must be worthwhile for grownups who did not have their share of bedtime stories in their youth.

Here's an assessment of the situation:

Since the start of the professional era, AU was the closest thing to a threat to NZ rugby. They failed to upkeep the effort for various reasons.

Of all rugby founding nations, SA is the one that utterly failed the professional turn. Want to know what can be done wrongly when switching to amateur to professional: SA is the study case.

Competition is over in the SH.
It would take tremendous efforts  to reboot it (efforts that are obviously out of reach for SAns)
The best way, the most accessible would be a team with a few (white) SAns in it to save the face, completed with foreigners, including pacific islanders. That is the lowest price to pay and the only one that seems affordable for SA.

 Just binge watched the Bok 98 3N games. Can't think of 1 current Bok that would make the bench of that side. Oz were unlucky not to win by 10 yesterday. That is what they and the pathetic SA side deserved.  Glad to see that not every South African is a boiled frog...and left empty seats at the game.

Boks were well worth their draw with an Oz side a lot better than when they played Scotland. Dr Moz dosn't seem to have noticed their improvement!A properly  selected Bok team with a good coach would be good enough to beat the wee abs.Wee abs are way over hyped due to Bok disaster we have right now. So we have cocky, pride filled, puffed up, arrogant weasel like wee kbbs strutting their pompous stuff day and night. Hahahahahahahahahaha  
Hmmmm I am sure there are more apt adjectives to describe the wee abs and their half baked fans! Beeno slacking on the job!!!!! 

 1998 was three years after the start of professionalism. The effects of professionalism were very far from kicking in.

SA extended as much as it is possible the remnant from the previous period to postpone the moment of recknoning. SA failed to take the turn of professionalism. SA thought professionalism meant doing just the same as before but with more money involved.

Of course in the doing, SA wasted time. And made even harder to reverse the course.

 All a lot of twaddle, things could change around pretty quick if all the right steps were taken. 

Glad to see wee Beeno has some fight left in him. I think some corrective action is called for:
              
Image provided to aid comprehension.

Your's?

 Mozart, I did not consult Rooi on this:

Your’s

Though you may see your’s written even by native speakers, it is incorrect. Yours should never have an apostrophe.

Submitted on behalf of the grammar enforcer

 Cardinelli makes for interesting reading and there is merit in some of his argument. 
Coetzee's Boks are still caught between two styles and are still searching for an identity.
The above statement is just one which is 100% correct and one I have mentioned ad nauseam prior to the Wa llaby test.

Hahahaha.....well done JW, caught with my pants down.

 All a lot of twaddle, things could change around pretty quick if all the right steps were taken.


The only quickness in it is how fast it spirals down.

  " 1998 was three years after the start of professionalism. The effects of professionalism were very far from kicking in.

SA extended as much as it is possible the remnant from the previous period to postpone the moment of recknoning. SA failed to take the turn of professionalism. SA thought professionalism meant doing just the same as before but with more money involved.

Of course in the doing, SA wasted time."
True.....South Africa was far from ready for the professional era.

"True rugby lovers want the game to be played to it's fullest and as far as value is...who wants to win in a 2007 scenario any way...NZ were eliminated unexpectantly by France and England beat Australia in a freak match. SA got there by these 2 unlikely results if we are honest." How many times is that dead horse going to be flogged? SA did everything that was required to get into the playoffs. They beat all of their opponents in their pool, as did the others who finished first in their pools. All the teams that finished second in their pools lost only one game. England, who lost massively against us, picked themselves up and beat Australia and then went on to beat France to then, deservingly, go through to the final. New Zealand then lost to the same France who was knocked out by England who we beat twice in the tournament. South Africa first beat Fiji and then went on to beat Argentina who also beat France for the third spot, who in turn knocked out NZ. Then they went on to beat England for the second time to win the title. Luck? Bull twang. Neither NZ nor Australia where good enough at the time to win the tournament. SA was. The "yes but" BS have been going around for 10 years and everybody and their auntie is trying to say that NZ or Aus would have beaten us. Why is their nobody who would consider the fact that we may well have beaten NZ or Aus in the final as well? That 2007 RWC team for the final was mentally up to any team in the world at the time and that is why it is such a travesty that SARU where thick enough to drop break up that entire setup to get rid of Jake White and his staff. That is where NZ are miles ahead of SA. They are not afraid to fail and stick to their guns to figure out how to fix it. They didn't fire Graham Henry in 2007. They kept him and left him to fix things and try again. That is also why they have been winning the next two tournaments. They fixed the shyte that went wrong in 2007.

Well said Ceradyne  

Said it before in jest many a time but its still true,you guys need to go back to that enormous pack with a decent sharpshooter and someone like Habana to pick up the crumbs after the giant pack have ground the enemy up to make their bread.

 enormous pack?.....there are none, not since the Boks changed their diet from beef to cornflakes...