An unexpected win against....

the best team on the planet is good and to win on their home soil makes it even better but to win two games in one series would be huge...massive....a smackdown of gigantic proportions and would add a bit more intrigue to the 2019 RWC. It took a massive defensive effort(think it was 280+ tackles) but the experts are saying that such an effort could not be repeated. But how else can the AB's be defeated again when there is no other option but to serve up the same nice stew?

The Boks have no choice, forget a running game aka Lions style, we've been there before....it doesn't work...end of. A huge positive was our defence against the Wallabies, the Boks in that game showed a better understanding and feel for the rush defence which unlike the AB test where I thought they were rough around the edges, so with that i n mind I have no doubts about the Boks going into the upcoming test with a huge amount of confidence and self-belief.

This is where South Africans repeatedly come undone: One doesn't have to run everything in order to have a successful attack. We could go back to the Bulls of 2009, regarded as a "10 man" kicking team. The reality was they played a complete game. How many first phase possessions will we have? How many attacks will we have in their half? If a team uses the ball well, they won't have to run everything. If a team has a problem using the ball, why would increasing the volume of runs improve the attack? It will naturally exacerbate the problem. Be more efficient and the attack will improve. When adopts an all out running game they leave themselves open; the more phases, the greater the risk of penalties, turnovers and mistakes. Look no further than New Zealand in Round 4. Or the All Blacks of 2009.

That said, we cannot hope that a defensive effort like that can be prepared. We must have our own say, and force them to defend as well, especially in their own half. That would really take the sting out of their game. When the All Blacks lose the battle for field position, they instinctively panic and start high risk, low percentage attacks from deep. 

If you really want to see the AB's panic then deny them the ball for long periods of time and when they do get ball then make sure it's in their own quarter. For that the Boks need a good kicking game.....I'm still to be convinced they have one. Faf's box kicks are tragic.

I can remember the 2010 Super 14 Final clearly.   The result was  expected, but the score magnitude was not.   It was a very good win and the Bulls scored 8 tries with the breakdown as follows:-

Wings and centers            -    3

Scrmmie and forwards     -    5

It was a flowing game with the Bulls forwards i n full charge and dominating the chiefs totally,   I am not sure what is meant by a "complete" game - the term is somewhat misleading - if it meant it was so from a winning perspective it was.

However, the game was not a variation from what Mozart loves to call "traditional SA rugby"  - which in fact prevents it from being  called comprehensive rugby.   If the latter is what AO has in mind  I believe he really misrepresented the situation somewhat.  It was more or less the same game to be expected from Morne and Du Preez  - with kicking being more done by the halfbacks than passing the ball was.   Matter of fact the scoring of tries confirms my statement.    The two tries of Habana was from broken play and in his normal fashion of an individual nature.   The one by Olivier was more in line with a passing game to the backline.

That being said as stated I do not know what the "complete" rugby term implies.    I do not agree with what is implied anyway.  To have the remotest chance in winning the game on Saturday the Springboks will have to play a comprehensive game having -

*   at least 40% ball possession and territory advantage;

*   to guard strictly against kicking away possession  aimlessly and limit ball losses from handling mistakes and making sure receivers of kicks are always under pressure and not being able to start counter-attacks or make quick line-out throw-ins enabling counter-attacks;   

*   not giving away as many penalties as they did against the AB's last time; while

*   maintaining an excellent level of defense.

The above is a very tall order and to that must be added preventing predictability and optimizing the AB mistakes.

As to the issue - the Springboks have a slight advantage based on the travel schedule of the AB's and the problems they may have of playing at altitude.

So what is to be expected.   I am not sure at all.   It is not sure what the teams would look like, which can also influence the outcome.                      

Quite correct Denny. Since 2009, they've made a point of dominating us with the boot and in the air. The last test was too loose, as they clearly didn't think much of us, and it backfired. 

@Lügnerin: You cannot determine style of play merely by looking at tries scored by backs or forwards. That's an extraordinarily limited view. A complete game of rugby is winning the territorial battle, dominating the set pieces, winning the collisions, smashing the opposition off the ball and cutting them up on attack. The 2009 Bulls had a linebreak to try ratio of 2:1. Extraordinary. They were a multifaceted team that hurt you in every phase of the game, having many different ways to score. New Zealand clearly believe in what Meyer was building towards, as they've been doing exactly the same thing. We've never had another franchise as rounded as the Bulls in their pomp. The Lions are a one-dimensional team bolstered by a nano-pack. 

The donkey ball you prescribe has never worked. Clearly you don't understand the game you demand, nor do you understand then game as it is played. Schalk playing at flyhalf. That's one of the most embarrassing gaffs I have seen from you. It's actually many times worse than your Morné to PSG blunder. It completely guts your credibility as it exposes a total inability to discern how teams use their forwards or build attacking play.

I know it's hard for you, this game has a special place in your heart. However, it's time to let it go. It's time to lead this donkey ball to the back of the stable and end its weary suffering in an ever changing world it knows not. 

Just tell me what the term "Complete rugby" means in your book.   I know what "comprehensive rugby" means - it means competitiveness in all components of the game and a game plan that maximise the  complementary usage of all 15 players.   

Fact is it does not mean the "game plan" Meyer was striving to achieve.  His approach never changed and he said himself that SA backline players do not have the ball skills to play a ball-in-hand game.   So what I wrote is totally correct and the day dreams of AO is not.

You don't know how Meyer's Boks played. You can't even discern between 2004 and post ELV rugby. I had to explain that to you, connect the dots, you still couldn't understand. Or was it a defiant refusal to accept the truth. I suppose lying does have its benefits, without that long nose, where would you hang your laundry? 

Not sure if letting 6 tries in is more match winning than converting the 5 tries y'all scored .The defensive effort at the end saved the game from being lost I would say but letting in 6 tries isnt good ,neither is letting in 5.

SA people cling to their tales. Easier for them than facing that they do not know how to attack and how to initiate movement from their backline.

Well, you are clearly the expert on these matters, why don't you tell us exactly they should be doing?

AO

So you were one of a few people in SA how  teams played when he was their coach?   What you wrote is a lot of words without any substance whatsoever.   The wonderful game plan so eloquently described was never in evidence in fact.

Since thousands of supporters and I never saw what you describe in fact on the filed of play - we are all plastic fans and  you a nd co were the real deal who saw your theories happen.   

I am afraid that I rather believe what Meyer said publicly about coaching of the Springbok team.   In public statements he contradicted 100% what you claim was happening.   Meyer said publicly that  the SA backline players do not have the ball skills to play a ball-in-hand game.

That cuts huge holes in your portrayal of the Meyer game plan and one wonders whether you actually tried to hide away the fact that Meyer always favoured a very limited game plan and not involving any 15 man involvement game.

Your dream game plan is consequently  worthless when not implemented and no fairy tale dreams would change that,

Here's the funny thing. According to Mr Clever, you can't take contact, because crash balling is detrimental to backline play. You also can't throw miss or skip passes, because that slows down transfer of ball to the outside backs. Yet we must play the ball wide, obviously shuffling the ball one man at a time. Offloading is also important. It requires that you don't go down in the tackle that didn't happen because you won't be creating opportunities for the support you are running towards!

complete vs comprehensive...

Only an arsehole that suffers from a serious inferiority complex will use a four syllable word to describe what can be said in two... Trying to use "big boy words" to describe something simple is so civil servant like... pfft!

Sonna ni bakana koto wo shinaide!

Troof Fairy

There is no such thing as a complete game plan - the universal use is "comprehensive" game plan.   A complete game plan is one that is written and typed out - thus completing thee exercise.

Please stick to something you know something about and your total lack of rugby knowledge cause spreading BS on site.   You are already the most stupid member on site - do not add more to it moron. 

Well, you are clearly the expert on these matters, why don't you tell us exactly they should be doing?

Surprising question because the answer was given so many times.

Terminate rugby in SA.

But it became more constructive

Sure, like saddling SA with rugby, a sport the majority of the population can not play.

.if any country in Africa has done anything to advance the lot of it's people post Colonial rule it's a well kept secret.

That for sure. They can not even apply a quota policy or terminate rugby in SA.

The termination of rugby would be advancement. They cant even do that.

" Hasta la vista rugby " I zink dis game iss ofer ya ?

Not sure if letting 6 tries in is more match winning than converting the 5 tries y'all scored .The defensive effort at the end saved the game from being lost I would say but letting in 6 tries isnt good ,neither is letting in 5.

@Wardad

I'm not knocking the AB's and I'll be the first to say that luck favoured the Boks but my point is not about why and how the Boks won or about that particular game.

My point is about the best and most effective strategy to employ against the AB's. Feel free to disagree with me.

Whatever Lügnerin says, do the opposite. He has advised a couple of times at least that the Boks should run into the teeth of the defence using our weakest carriers. Suicidal. Maybe Lügnerin enjoys being the Uke. 

It becomes awfully difficult if you don't know that you don't know

He knows a great deal when he is wrong. He just can't help but lie.

AO

When did I say  "the Boks should run into the teeth of the defence"?

I always said the Springboks should have a variation of play.  Start again discovering things I never wrote and get caught out for writing BS on site,

Are you cringing again after being caught out?  

I have read it. You said the Boks were to attack the Welsh defence, in the World Cup, by going wide. Some insisted that this was not how to beat the Welsh. You said kicking was stupid. It was pointed out that the Welsh left the entire backfield to 15, had 9 and the openside wing in the line, forming a flat line the width of the field. You still asserted that the outside rush was not a threat, and that the Boks should just go wide all game long. Low and behold, the very first wide play, with Damian as the focal point, resulted in a turnover that was nearly run back for a try. This is but one example. 

My point is about the best and most effective strategy to employ against the AB's. Feel free to disagree with me.

No matter the strategy, SA lose.

Except on lucky days.

Better to use that luck to play bingo.