Another test of the running strategy fails

Disagree, poor defense from turnovers lost the game for the Cheetas against the Crusaders- not their attack. 
If their attack had been worse, they would have lost by more. They can still attack and have a good defense. 
The Cheetas first half performance against the Chiefs should have won the game, but for poor defence in the 2nd half- especially in the last 20 minutes. In the last 20 minutes the Cheetas hardely had the ball, and their defence just became terribale. 
It has been the same theme for the Cheetas the whole season. 
Poor ruck play has allowed teams to counter attack and score tries, as well as general un-organised defence that falls apart as the game goes on
The Bulls lost another game because of inability to convert possesion and territory into points due to poor handling skills and being one dimensional on attack. A half decent backline would have had enough possesion to put the game away.
If the Cheetas backline was playing behind the Bulls pack, they (bulls) probably would have won both games in NZ.
The Sharks are starting to look one dimensional again, and it is concerning. They are not going to win many games overseas if they just want to play like the Bulls

We are saying the same thing....except you are attributing it to "poor" defence of turnover ball.....and I'm saying when the turnover comes the defence is totally out of shape. A team can only attack if it can defend the possible turnover. The Cheetahs throw everything into attack and time and again they are a player short in defence. 

Over the season it has not just been on the counter attacks when the Cheetas defence have been bad, but also when the opposition are dominating territory- 1st phase and multi-phase possession. 
Last year they had a specialist defense coach who now works for the Kings who is sorely being missed. 

Perhaps another point to take into consideration, is that last week no South African teams won, and this week only the Sharks scraped a win against the Lions.
So neither approach- conservative or radical has been proven to be successful. The Sharks perhaps are winning mostly due to having a Springbok laden forward pack, and the siege gun boot of Frans Steyn.
The Cheetas are losing due to their all round poor defence. Their backrow is not playing to the same level as last year in cover defence, and the rest of the teams positional play is poor

The Cheetahs  have scored more points than  any team in the tournament.....and have conceded more points. So if we compare the Cheetahs attacking potential with the canes, the Chiefs or even the Sharks.....do they really have more attacking horsepower than these teams. Or are they simply more committed to attacking, without proper regard to defence? 
We could debate it ad nauseum and not agree. But I believe the Sharks have a much better balance. All out attack negates the power we can bring to bear in the tight phases.

Mozart
Why do you always pray that Gosasen got injured?   He ahd concussion and went off as a result.  Lots of players get concussion - why maske it out that Goosen is alone in that?  
You criticize the Cheetahs - but what about the Bulls.   They played your recommended brand of rugby - yet they lost against a team considerably poorer than the Crusaders.  That is one lesson we should learn once more from this weekend's game.
At least the Cheetahs scored more tries than the other SA teams combined did - that shows what really is wrong in SA rugby.   The teams are unable to score tries because of poor ball sense and skills - that deficiency applies  to both the forwards and the backline players.
I agree with Sharkbok - the Cheetahs needs a defense coach and that is really for them a serious problem.   They have the ability to score tries = but there poor defense let in too many tries.   The concept of scoring tries is not directly the cause of tries being scored against them - so theey have shown us again 0 their attacking backline play is better than any other SA team 0 but they need to improve their defense.    
    

Because dear OOm the big question about Goosen is whether he is physical enough to take a constant beating. I certainly wouldn't put all my chips on him remaining healthy through a long campaign. 
As for your points  on the Cheetahs defence, you are  simply aping SBs argument....do you have something new to add?

 Mozart
I wonder whether you just read what you want to read and then goes bananas.  My argument is that there is no real reason why teams who have the ability to score tries should be poor in defense.   
What is clear is that teams playing the game type you support are really less successful because they also come short in defense.   It happened in two games today and one yesterday. 
Is scoring of tries to your mind wrong in the game of rugby?

Just more aping....is there nothing else?  

 Mozart
Please stop your bullshit.   I am not aping your idiocy on rugby matters at all.   Only an absolute rugby idiot can write what you do on this site and then go acidic of somebody point out to you  the more correct approach. 

Whoosh!  

 Mozart
Whoosh means the user has had yet a further attack of idiocy disease.      

 Mozart
Whoosh means the user has had yet a further attack of idiocy disease.