Was yesterday the moment the Boks chose their new direction, a direction from which there might be no turning back?

We could go back to the last 6 years of RC performances against Argentina and make direct comparisons to what was versus what now is.

Yes, yesterday was a home game. Yes, it would be extremely difficult for Argentina to replicate last week's performance. Yes, back-to-back wins against the Boks for Argentina has never happened before...but in the context of dominance, do those points don't really matter?

What matters is the skill level the Boks have and backing that skill being a more reliable path to dominance than perpetually wanting to arm wrestle everyone.

I'm sure everybody here is probably sick of my boxing comparisons by now, and this'll be my last one for a while, stick with me here...

Assume you have a boxer that is stronger, faster, a better counter puncher and has all the goods required to pick opponents apart in various facets of the fight. Let's pretend that boxer is the current Bok side.

Your instruction to that Boxer would be to be first. To apply pressure through attack, to draw out over extensions and to punish those overextensions with counters. Rinse and repeat.

What your instruction wouldn't be is to clinch as much as possible, to lean on the opponent until they are tired, to stay in the pocket and to make it a dirty fight, to push the opponent onto the ropes and and to drown them physically until you eventually land some heavy blows in the later rounds. No, those would be the instructions that you would give to a lesser boxer.

Having better attributes across various facets means that by focusing on only some of those attributes, one by default reduces the advantage of the skill gap and in so doing increase your chances of losing to a lesser opponent.

This is what have the Boks have been doing for the longest time. Seemingly afraid to come out of their shells, they relied far too heavily on kicking, on mauling, on scrumming and on red, orange, blue and green zones. Time and time again in the RC we saw Argentina play us much closer than they should. And this is because they knew what was coming. They knew we would never run from the 22. They knew that Faf was gonna Box kick until a forward could belly flop over the line. The Boks have been one of the most predictable teams in WR for a very long time and only raw talent kept us competitive.

Yesterday showed what the actual difference between the Boks and Argentina is. It's a gulf. But that difference is only visible when the Boks play to ALL their strengths as opposed to the tried and tested few.

And that's the question I have.

Was yesterday, intentionally or unintentionally, the day the Boks chose their path going forward? One where we finally see DDA actually pass the ball quickly, where Fassi gets to express himself, where Cheslin gets so much ball that he thinks it's Christmas and were the usual forward dominance is complemented and compounded by an all round game?

For the first time since I can remember, they were told to go out and beat the living shit out of the opposition and to back themselves, their structures but also their natural ability.

What we saw the Boks do yesterday, that's how Argentina always try to play. While not having the talent to properly back it up, it's that mindset that has kept Argentina competitive.

And we finally see what can happen when the Boks approach things what that winners mindset.

The ABs dominated everyone for a very long time by playing that way and there is absolutely ZERO reason why the Boks can't do the same right now.

I just hope that when we took that left turn instead of the usual right turn yesterday, somebody closed the gate behind us.

Plumster, you clearly read my post on this subject. I noted Rassie understood the core strengths of the Boks and would try to improve ALL aspects of their play including also conditioning , strategy etc. He would leave no stone unturned. 

One thing you should realize is the Boks at times had great backline an attacked very well.

The standard of rugby played today demands a wide skillset, atheletic ability where predictability is usually countered. In some cases it cant be countered. Eg a very dominant scrum is a huge asset. eg Nadal on clay. You know how he will play but it was virtually impossible to counter.

Funny that there was a period some years ago when people thought the scrum would become unimportant.

I think with the inclusion of black players our pool of talent has increased very significantly, especially in the backs.

Rassie has not forgotten our core strengths. He has just improved our areas where we didn't perform as well. 

I also think is very interesting to note Rassie uses 35 players in the rugby Championship. He is renewing the side but still winning. Not easy to achieve.

Was yesterday the moment the Boks chose their new direction, a direction from which there might be no turning back?

We wish.....it's not as simple a shutting the door. This is the coming together of top class skill and talent by a group of players. You make some good points but history shows us that nothing in life is permanent. In time, who knows we might be looking back as it being our golden years just as our great cricket team of the 60's, the great Wallaby side of the 90's, in boxing the irreplaceable and immortal Sugar Ray Robinson and as for the present the ABs who are in a rebuilding phase.

Then of course we mustn't forget the Rassie factor, take it any which way, he's a visionary who makes all of it happen. He's not permanent either and so we ask who then replaces him? Careful who you wish for and I guess one can rest assured things will change even if it ain't broke.

So then we look at our top four Currie Cup sides, I don't spot another Eben, Kolbe, Marx or and Arendse banging down that door and I don't see a pattern of play resembling the Boks. I do see a lot of average players.

Enjoy the moment, who knows how long it will last and what's around the corner.

Perhaps our one saving grace is our large national playing pool.

So, was yesterday the moment the South African Boks decided to completely change their direction? Like, we’re talking a GPS-level recalculation, where Siri goes “make a U-turn,” but instead, they just hit the gas and head down a side street they've never explored before?

We could dive back into the past six years of rugby against Argentina and do some kind of CSI-style investigation, comparing what they used to do with what they did yesterday, but I’m not sure I even know where the try line is, so let’s just focus on the fun stuff.

Sure, it was a home game. That’s like playing Monopoly with your own rules. “Oh, free parking? Yeah, I get £500!” So, maybe Argentina was doomed from the start. Plus, no one’s ever seen Argentina win two in a row against the Boks, which is like waiting for a bus that’s never coming. But honestly, who cares about those stats? It’s all about the vibes—you know, the rugby vibes.

The thing that actually matters here is that the Boks have some kind of secret superpowers they decided to finally use yesterday. Imagine they’re this top-tier boxer—don’t ask me why we’re talking about boxing in a rugby conversation, but just roll with the punches —this boxer has all the goods: speed, strength, the ability to punch someone in five different ways while also checking their phone. So, you’d tell that boxer, “Go punch first, keep punching, and don’t stop.” Not, “Hey, why don’t you give your opponent a big ol' hug, lean on them until they’re so tired they fall asleep, and then maybe think about throwing a punch in the final round.”

But apparently, this is what the Boks have been doing forever—basically hugging people into submission. They're obsessed with this thing called kicking and mauling, instead of actually, you know, running with the ball. And Argentina, bless them, has figured out this little secret: The Boks don’t like running. They’d rather kick that ball into space like they’re playing some kind of weird rugby-golf hybrid.

Then, yesterday happens. The Boks show up, they play like they’ve got cheat codes enabled, and suddenly, it’s not even a match anymore—it’s a gulf. I’m not talking the Gulf of Mexico; I’m talking some kind of Grand Canyon situation between them and Argentina. The Boks actually used all their abilities for once! It was like watching someone who’s been driving a minivan their whole life suddenly hop into a Ferrari.

So, was this the day the Boks decided, “Hey, maybe we should use all our strengths?” Like, instead of just Faf de Klerk box-kicking his way through life, they actually gave the ball to Cheslin Kolbe, who probably thought, “Wait, is this for me? Is it Christmas?” And for the first time ever, they told Damian de Allende, “Hey, buddy, you can pass the ball too, you know. It’s allowed.”

What we saw yesterday was basically Argentina’s wildest dream—the way they try to play every game—but the Boks actually have the talent to pull it off. It’s like Argentina’s been rocking up to a Formula 1 race with a go-kart, and yesterday the Boks finally decided to bring their F1 car to the track.

So yeah, here’s the big question: Did the Boks finally make a turn down a new path? Did someone close the gate behind them so they can’t U-turn back to that “kick everything and hug the opponent to death” strategy? We can only hope, because, honestly, I’m not sure how many more box kicks the world can handle.

The Boks in all of their history have never had the abundance of combined talent and skill that they now possess.....not that I know of.

VisKop...please don't just copy past Chat GPt stuff here. Or, if you're gonna do that, then at least curate it so that you attempt to make a point of your own.

You lame excuse for a tech person.

I want to see this backline

15. Fassi / Jordan Hendrikse

14. Kolbe

13. Moodie / Jurenzo Julius

12. Willemse / David Kriel

11. Arendse

10. Sacha / Libbok

9. Williams / Hendrikse / Nohamba

Running it

I’ll put it another way….yesterday we were prepared to take some risks to unleash the backline. Would we be prepared to take those risks in a WC quarter? Will we play that game in a close, big  test….I am not convinced.

Also, while it was great to see the Boks put up a big score. There was a period of 28 minutes at the start of the second half when we never put a point on the Board….the last 20 points of the blowout came when the Bargies were down to 13 men.

So a bit of perspective. I predicted a blow out, I knew we would be very bullish as a result….but this isn’t reality yet.

Saffex, replace Libbok with Masuku and I'd take that backline in a heartbeat.

The fact is that the backline a always depedent on to two thngs and that is having a good pivot anxd a stable cenrer pairing.and that was nt in place in the test in Argentina and both atack and dfense went out of the window,  

Backline attacks  also depends on he loosies becoming part of attacks - if that is not in play - backline play suffer.   That was the technique the All Blacks used for amny years - but started to change in 2019 and the key player involved was always Du Toit.   Kolisi also started to develop in that way - but let us think of the future and that is whee I say a great role to play by players like Roos and Hanekom as well.

The poblem over the period 2021 to 2023 was that  Pollard in that period was ften injured and when he did play the focus was mre n kicking - since he lost pace and bcme more f a kicking flyhalf.    With Shaca coming forward te machine will work much better -  and that wil confrm the fact that De Allende is already the best inside center n he world based o a statement made by Pollard ad by Matfild and other  commentators.    He si not flashy by a vers trong ball-carrier and draw in defenders  leaving fgaps for recipients.   When Shaca is back - the backlne will eve be more dangerous,

Pollard is n the way to the coaching staff uder Erasmus and the probem is a repacemnt flyhalf with ball sense is not shown the capacity to be a good enoug pvot and th field is still open for other candidates to be a real understudy for Shaca.    As to De Alende the apaprent repacement would be Willemse and that ne will be decided on by Erasmus and Browne and will be implemented when theyhink the time is right for such a move,    

The above is for me the main  reason for supporting ball-skilled players like Hanekom and Roos to be in the team ,   If those two are in the team the Springboks will be even be a bigger force to content with.

         .       

I'm not convinced we'll be willing to take those risks in big matches either.

But let's play devil's advocate for a minute.

Why invest in a style that you won't use when it really matters?

Seems completely foolish...at first glance. But perhaps it's not.

It could be an attempt at being less predictable. Say that by next year at this time we are playing an improved AB team in a game that amounts to a RC final.

And between now and then we have been playing a mixed bag of styles. Sometimes full bull mode, sometimes different styles across the first and last 40 and sometimes only box kicking for 80 minutes.

That's a lot harder to prepare for and does offer some advantage to the Boks.

The other advantage is that it allows for easier adapting to conditions and situations.

I still remember when, under Meyer, there were less than 5 minutes on the clock, the Boks trailed by about 6 points, the ABs kicked it straight up the middle of the field from inside their 22...we caught it just inside our 10m line, and without thinking kicked it straight back to them.

The commentator said, "What are they doing? This game is still within their reach and they're handing back possession from a position where they could launch an attack." - or something like that.

At a base level, this experimenting with more attacking play should see us not be that robotic and "coached" in future.

So one could say that even if we don't attack as readily as we did yesterday, there is still some benefit to firing on all cylinders from time to time.

The counter argument to that is that, if the Boks only ever play like that against weaker teams but always play their old hand against stronger teams. It means that they'll be less strong at their original style due to using it less often, but still be predictable because they won't risk being adventurous in clutch games.

Just some theory crafting.

To me Plum this is more of a brand polishing effort. We win two tests against the ABs with the maul….and then facing the Bargies at home we play a more expansive game, thinking that is a halo over all our wins. And judging from the reaction of the rugby press, it seems to have worked,

I think the following should bne borne n mind and that is prior to 1992 the Springboks played 15. man rugby - when re-admittd the mode was totally change to 10 man rugby with the norm being to kick balls away - mostly aimlessly - and the result was that the Springoks tried to win tests by penalty kicks and not play attacking rugby,  

When Carel du Plessis took over in 1997  he referred to the inability of the Springboks to be competive by scoring tries - chaging the style fo play by most players was difficult and it took nonths to really bear fruit.   Take for instance the Lion's test of 1997 in Durban.   The Springboks scored three great tries - but Honiball forgot how to kick at goal and missed al three resultant kicks at goal - as easy as the missed kick of Libbok in tehareentina tests ,   The change began to work under Du Plessis - when the Spingboks beat Ausralia by the biggest margin ever - a record that still stand/   The squad of players put together by Du Plessis was takn over by Mallet - who made exactly two changes to the team and that he inherited - he picked Moore from the the Sharks to play at insde center and moved Montgomery from no 13 center to full back.   After taking over Mallet's team won a further 16 tests without being defeated.

The problem kicked in where Mallet made the mistake of firing Teichmann as captain and by 2000 some players decidd to retire and Mallett could not come up with ood enough replacements,   In the end Malett resigned as coach while things started to go wrong and two disastous coaches followed in 3 years - with no real emphasis on how to play the game and more emphasis on unrelated BS like operation staaldraad - a ridiculous effort of Straueli.  /

Then came in Jake White  as coach - whose entire game plan was based on 10 man rugby.   By 2006  the Springbos were down totally to 10 man rugby - and for instance suffer their biggest defeat against Australia ever.    In 2007 White brought in Eddie Jones to assist in training  backline payers additional skills needed to play a comprehensive  15 man gme,   John Smit afterwards revealed tha players said they heard things about game plas that they never heard before from any coach.     Smit went frther and explained that in the RWC final in 2007 - there were no plan for potential methods to score tries a all.   Smit  went on and stataed if the English try stemming from the sustained English attack was in act scored the players would have had to design such a plan to score tries themselves,  .

Lets forget about the period 2008 to 2011 the coach left to the players to determine their own game plan and with Meyer and Coetze 10-man rugby was back in full force..   Both were disastrous coaches from that perspective,    Take or example a simple case of comparing Meyer and Erasmus's first year as coaches - namely 2012 and 2018 repectively,   In 2018 the Springbok backline player scored more tries than the whole team scored in tests in 2012.   So the emphassis on game planss started then and went through to 2019.   That ws confirmed by the fact that in the RWC finals in 1995 and 2007 the Springboks scored no tries - but in 2019 they scored two very good backline tries - with Marx and Du Toit nvolved in the scorig of he two tries, 

In 2022 and 2023  there was a rvesal in the intitial planing of games and Erasmus realized that a chnge in coaching was needed and he aappointed Browne to provide the encessary guidance iro attacking 15 man rugby and although it was problematic in the tests agaist Irelad and not being evident from the changed  game plan,  became blurred.    Howeve, bar one test there were real signs of the comprehecsive 15 man game plan became more obvious,   The only test where the playing conditions were wet and srill raining during the match a 15 man game plan is negatively effected by the conditions and  in that test the Springboks scored two maul tries and the result was that the newer game plans were not used at all,   For the rest there was another problem in the Argntina test that followed,   The real reason or failure agains rgentina of key playes like Du Toit an De Allende being not available to play in that test,

Now lets go back to the key player involved in such rugby is  Shaca Feinberg-Ngomezulu - while it si already known that Pollard and Kolisi are destined to join the coachig set-up of the Springboks there was a problem with finding a seond flyhalfs capable of playing a pivot in the 15 man game plan.   In  the away test  Pollard was to play as starter but he backline defense was a shambles and although people will shout "\blue murder" Pollard is not the same flyhalf he was in 2019 - his pace is much slower and a tendency of him playing a kicing game became more prevalent than it was in 2019.   However, bringing on Libbok was not the answer and he failed badly.

Erasmus then tried to start with Libbok and that proved to be better than it was in the away tests and attacks really made a huge impact on the outcome of the tests..  

The idea that in some more difficult tests the Springboks will revert to a "tighter" game is really ridiculous,   It takes months to change the plan the Springboks uses and some of the younger players may not even kow what is required for such a tighter game plan - will casue player confusion and  they will likely end up in not hnowing how  to play in such tighter tests,    Just how do you get Shac to play a diferent game to his natural game anyway,    

I think that 15-man rugby is here to stay and will develop further over the next year,   While I think Libbok tried to  ensure 15 man rugby is being played - he was not really up to what is really needed - a second flyhalf to be more like Shaca and less like the old gneration of flyhalfs we used to play.    We still need a backup for Shaca - but none other wolhuter shows ny sgns o being able o play an atacking game,  For the rest the flyhalfs were wooden and not natural attacking players,

           .                   

                               .,    

‘Drivel alert’.

Yeah, Moz. I'm kinda halfway between it being polish and a real move towards move towards a more attacking game. Sort of reserving judgement for now. I suppose that the end of year tour should provide a little more clarity. If the Boks continue this style against England, Wales and Scotland in the outgoing series, then I'd be leaning toward it being a more permanent shift. But if we shell up against England...I guess I'll be leaning more towards the "polish" argument. Something in me feels like we're going to be box kicking like like out lives depend on it against the Poms.

Note: Watch out for Cunningham in the English game. He was epic in their first game against the ABs. Although he faded a little in the second fixture, he looks powerful, explosive...a proper berserker.

These ABs are the most disjointed group I've probably seen in my lifetime, and we struggled to beat them. Slightly better discipline on their part could have seen them trump us twice on home soil. We look far more dangerous, and effective, when we open up. It seems obvious to me. T hat Lions team that I'm always going on about, they would get hit a lot, but won because they would land more punches over the 80 minutes. 

I guess I'm more hopeful than anything else that we head towards a more attacking game and don't look back. Because, if not now, then when? 

If this is the most disjointed AB group we are in real trouble, as we managed to beat them narrowly.

Our game is improving, but it’s not second nature yet. Our core game ( Forward Power) is still our biggest strength . But if we play more like on Saturday, we will become the more balanced unit.

And I agree on Kade Wolhuter. He is busy playing good Rugby with the lions at the moment. He is a bit injury prone, but hopefully he can have a good run now without trouble.

Rome wasn't.......it's a start, and a good start, the Bok attack as I've said is evolving, they've moved on from driving a model T Ford to driving a Ferrari........or something like that, let's see where it goes from here.