How the Boks can become great again.

The Boks have moved away from their strengths. In fact, they have so much done so that they no longer have any strengths. They have sacrificed everything in order to try to emulate New Zealand. I think we can conclude that it hasn't worked. 
So how do we fix it?
90% of material I read on this forum is in regards to back-line selection. People putting their two cents in about who is the best center combination, who should be on the wing, who should be at fullback, etc etc.I am convinced that this is simply attempting to put band-aids on a completely broken Springbok system.
We need to start much deeper than that. We need to work from the ground up.I will preface my guide to a solution by saying that I will make no comment on the quota rule as I feel under qualified to speak about such a deep issue.
1) We need to fire Alistair. He has absolutely no idea what he is doing.
2) We need to hire a coach based not on race or even nationality, but on quality.
3) We need to pick a big and strong pack. Our front row needs to get involved more, they need to start helping us get over the advantage line, they need to be able to scrum and they must be disciplined. Our locks need to be of the Etzabeth mould. He is big and strong and imposing on defense. However, again we need these types of with ball in hand, getting us go forward. He is an enforcer on defense, but we need enforcers on attack as well. Our loose fowards should consist of one fetcher similar to a Heinrich Brussouw, and 2 very big men who get us over the advantage line. 
4) We need a halfback who is a leader. A guy like Faf reminds me of a fox terrier running all over the field excitedly. We need a calmer man like du preez was. A guy that's capable of organising his big troops, and a guy that has a decent kicking game.
5) We need a first five exactly like Handre Pollard, so as far as I'm concerned, that's not a long term issue.
6) We need to get a good defense coach for our back-line. The days that we troubled the all blacks were the days where we employed a rush defense. Took all time away from them and hit them hard! Forced them into mistakes and often capatilised on them.
It is not until this point where I think we should start talking about center combinations and back-line attacking threats. No back-line is going to be good without the foundation that needs to be set. But once we do come to this stage, we are going to need a back-line coach to get our guys running at the defense instead of just shovelling the ball along the chain were some hapless soul is waiting. Our back-line coach will need to get everyone on the same wavelength. Willie Le Roux is such a dangerous player and the only man who actually draws in defenders, but he is on a completely different page to the rest of his team. This can be fixed by a good back-line coach.
Overall, I fear that Alistair and a lot of supporters, are trying to fix this team from outside in, whereas we really need to develop a core, a solid base, a consistent game plan, to which to build from.
Cheers.

 Solid points....good post. Bandaid fixes will never work.  

I would disagree that the Springboks are trying to play like the AllBlacks. 
The Lions got to the superx final playing a brand of rugby closer to what the New Zealand teams play.
The Springboks are following a Sharks and Stormer's game plan- which is no game plan. Kick and try to play the game in the opponents 22. 
The team we have is also not the strongest to play either an expansive game- or a forward dominated game.

 Yes but the lions players were tried. Faf, Mapoe, and most importantly, Janjies were all complete failures. Had that foundation been in place though (with the exception of Faf), Mapoe and Janjies may just have shined.

 Oh please!!!!
Haaaaaaaaahahahahahah!!!
Yes ... we know ... you've told us this before.
Jake White is not the answer. He had his time and his sparkling personality saw to it that he was removed. 
Not sure how many more times you need to hear this.
Mike has dumbed it down for you and yet you persist.
 

Huh?I never said I want Jake back as a coach and I certainly do not.He is not the only coach out there capable of constructing a unit you know.In fact, there are far better out there than him.I'd love to see an overseas based coach come in.

 Let me guess ... we must draw the old and tired back into the fray, right?
Fat Fransie is a must ... even at the expense of Janse van Rensburg, right?
Lambie must be dropped ... Louw must continue on at 6 ... PSDT isn't a favourite as you'd rather have Snyman there ... and Alberts is the perfect enforcer any coach could ask for.
We must hang on to Habana and Beast and do our best to persuade Strauss to rethink his decision.
How am I doing so far?

Absolutely right. In strategic planning it's called a 'me too' strategy.....do what the winner is doing. Except the winner has different resources that make that strategy work.

The Lions had a 'me too' strategy, same strategy as the Hurricanes. It worked until they met the Canes who easily put them away....at home and away. Why? Because the Canes added the element of great line speed which disrupted the Lions attack. And because they did everything the Lions did better than the Lions. In strategy that's called dominance. 
When a team dominates you on every element of an exactly similar strategy....they beat you. Thats whats wrong with playing the All Blacks with an AB strategy....they will dominate on every key element.
Which is why Mr Pace is spot on when he says we have to find our own blend....not just kicking, but more direct, physical and aggressive. We had none of those things in the RC. We were stuck with a wishful 'me too' strategy with the wrong players and then switched to a strategy we haven't used since 2009. 

That worked against Oz but failed against the AB in part because the players were so poorly coached defensively.


At it's best the Bok style is aggressive, strong in the set pieces, aggressive on defense and dangerous on the counter. 
To make that all work we need better selections....not just strength at our core, but pace out wide. The kind of rugby we played under Jake in 2004 when we dominated try scoring in the RC.
For the record in 2004 we outscored NZ and Oz 15 tries to 10.....that was Bok rugby.

 CleanCut I will no longer respond to you unless you come to terms that Mozart and me are two very different people.
No I would not bring back fat Fransie.No I would drop Louw ASAP because he is a fetcher who doesn't fetch very well.Yes, Lambie must be dropped. I see nothing inspiring about him and never have.I am undecided about PSDT currentlyI used to love Alberts and rave about him, but he hasn't shown me much recently.Strauss must go because he isn't imposing enough and is weak in the scrums.Habana and Beast are fine by me.
But basically, these are all fruitless changes when a team has no structure, no guidance.

 This is a definite formula for improving the team - but then when it comes to backline play it seems that like Mozart the idea of keeping ball in hand and not kicking it away aimlessly is the method in mind.   
Mozart's ideas about backline play consists solely to defend and when a ball comes their way to make kicking the only real option - remember his comments - the role of the fhyhalf comprises 90% of kicking the ball.    
Keeping the ball in hand is according to Mozart a deadly sin to be avoided at all costs.   His stats for backline players consist 100% on defense and no other issue is according to him of importance.  
Keeping ball in hand and not handing it over by kicking aimlessly is  not representing the way the AB's play and that is what the lame brain always said it is.   It is by far not the case - but no team will replicate things the way the Springboks did for the past two years and expect positive results.
Mozart elsewhere blame the players for not effectively following up on kicks - but most of the kicks were so aimless that follow-up was just not possible.   Kicks to far ahead of the players were the norm and follow-up is only feasible if the kicks were strategic - there were virtually no strategic kicks made on Saturday.
We need a professional coaching team and we need SAR to grow some spine and allow for the picking of only the best players.   That is not the case at present.    That is a starting point.    From there will follow the building up of a reasonable squad.   It iell take time - but with a reasonable approach it will work out.      
       

 Mike, I tend to agree.I don't have anything against kicking in general, because it certainly is the best option at times.But we need to understand when these times are.I would heavily advocate a ball in hand approach but we have to be very careful not to overdo things. The all blacks kick the ball a lot, the all blacks defend a lot...the fact is, balance is the key....we have zero balance.

 Mike your obsession is really humiliating for you....just give it up.

 As I said, Mozart ... feel free to ignore me ... in fact I welcome it. 
You and I both know who "Mr Pace" is.
It's almost as bad as your attempted humour.

So you persist with your view that I am Mr Pace, even though you risk becoming the Dupe of the Year?

 Mozart
The person who belittles himself is the idiot who writes what you do on this site.    Your comments on issues - such as the role of the flyhalf consists 90% of kicking balls.
Let me be clear - strategic kicking is of major importance in games - but the kind of junk kicking (so appropriate when commentators called two kicks of Morne BS in the Dunedin test in 2012) has made the player notorious,
I gained the impression from your rants that you do not understand the need for variation in usage of  the ball and not the junk dished up in the  WC semi-final last year and on Saturday.        

 Mozart
The person who belittles himself is the idiot who writes what you do on this site.    Your comments on issues - such as the role of the flyhalf consists 90% of kicking balls.
Let me be clear - strategic kicking is of major importance in games - but the kind of junk kicking (so appropriate when commentators called two kicks of Morne BS in the Dunedin test in 2012) has made the player notorious,
I gained the impression from your rants that you do not understand the need for variation in usage of  the ball and not the junk dished up in the  WC semi-final last year and on Saturday.        

 In answer to the question in the title of this thread, a key to making the Boks great again is instilling that hard-nosed winning attitude the Boks used to have. Sure it takes skilled / good players & we can all argue about who these are but until you get the fight back in the dog it won't mean much.
I agree with those who have said we need a coach that has a game plan that the players believe in and can execute. Right now players often look confused. In the forwards you feel they can't unleash their ferocity. It's like something is holding them back.

Absolutely Dr Win...the whole machinery needs a complete revamp...starting with a proven coach who can get the best from the lads he coaches and Ackerman has the proven goods...it will take time...so what...Rome was never built in a day. Step by step is the answer...what some are saying is nonsense putting the cart before the horse.

There is definitely no quick fix...it will be a long hard road but the rewards will be worth the sacrifice.

Ackerman is calm, rock solid and creates confidence not like the panic mechanic coaches that put panic and fear of failure into the developing lads. Mr Pace you are correct with balance but Johan uses balance and knows the value of it...a perfect side attacks and defends equally well...a one sided approach is doomed in the modern game...what we had in the past were centres like Danie Gerber who really could attack and Pieter Muller outstanding on defence...there was direction and purpose...flexible game plans that were adapted as and when the occasion developed...not robotic, mindless readable plans...we played with our head as well as our brawn.

 Card, is that you? Welcome back!

"Card, is that you? Welcome back!"

I'm not sure. MrSpace clearly adores Moffie and dislikes Lambie which makes a very strong case for him being a new incarnation of the Dim Sum/Alutwat/Gonzo-the-Gimp/Desert Fool complex but I'm not sensing the same utter hatred and anger when he mentions Pat Lambie.

Maybe he's been getting some therapy and he's learnt to mention the name Pat Lambie without completely unravelling and going into a meltdown in which case it would be a good call.

 Thanks Lara. Interesting read

 Yea excellent article.Pretty much what I am trying to say, he just articulates it much better than me.
Rooinek, since I've always been baffled at what people see in Lambie, as a fan, would you be able to clarify for me exactly what Lambie fans see in him?
I'd be fascinated to know.

MrSpace, people who know something about rugby see Patrick Lambie as a player with courage, good ball skills and an educated boot whose good decision-making makes up to some extent for his lack of real pace.

Okay? Now go ahead and tell us what the rugby noobs think about Lambie.

I smell a rat. I mean a fox...the anti Lambie comes from the man with identity problems...he is mixed up...he is extremely deceitful... mixes truth with error to confuse

After 8 years without a post he suddenly appears on the scene from outer space (lol) and posts 6 times on one topic...

"Rooinek, since I've always been baffled at what people see in Lambie"

Really, what a fool!!!

"I smell a rat. I mean a fox..."

Rat, Fox, Vampire, Gimp . . . I think Draad is right and it's actually all the same sorry loser.

Just off the top of my head, here is a list of names this weak and insecure little man has used over the years . . .

Aristocat
Alucard (aka Alutwat)
LeStat (aka LeTwat)
Requiescat
Apollo 13
Sun Tzu (aka Dim Sum)
Desert Fox (aka Desert Fool)
Gonzo the Great (aka Gonzo the Gimp)

. . . and now MrPace.

I'm sure I'm missing a few and I think he might be one or two current posters as well.

Same modus operandi . . . he comes on here and tries to sound like he knows what he's talking about, says something stupid, gets laughed at, crawls away in embarrassment, returns with a new name.

If you're ever in doubt just mention the name Patrick Lambie and see how he reacts. He's not as emotional or vitriolic as he has been in the past but that's probably because he's trying very hard not to give himself away. The point is, even when he's trying hard he can't resist and he ends up going all purple-faced wanting to know what people see in Lambie . . . just as he's done here.

Well spotted Draad!

 

 I wasn't attacking you or Patrick Lambie, I just wanted to know what people see in him. I was genuinely curious.
Thanks for clearing it up.

So, MrSpace, are you the poster formerly known as Alucard?

No more porkies now!

 No Rooinek I am not.

 Hmm I can understand a kid in NZ circa 2003 barracking for the Boks if he was of SA extraction but a born and bred Kiwi kid ? Rattus Rattus indeed.

"No Rooinek I am not."

Whew! What a relief . . . because that Alutwat/Dim Sum/Desert Fool person was a massive d!ckhead.

You actually wouldn't believe the stupid stuff that moron used to come up with . . . would you like me to tell you some of his funnier crackpot stuff? No? No, I didn' t think so . . .

LMAO!

Yes Wardad, or maybe patriotism is just a ridiculous concept to me.
Picking who you support because they happened to be born in the same land as you? What kind of self absorbed reason is that to support a team?
Is your country the best simply because you were born in it? How arrogant.
I support SA in rugby, India in cricket, and Germany in socccer.
I simply pick teams based off how much I like the players and the way they approach the game, country is irrelevant to me.
Good day.

Wardad, just take a look at the original post on this thread and count how many times this "Kiwi" uses the word "we".

If he is a New Zealander then he's not a very good one!

 Wow, Rooinek, I thought my above post would explain my lack of the word ''we''.I simply feel no affiliation to New Zealand, so why would I say we?
"We" to me, means the springboks.

"Wow, Rooinek, I thought my above post would explain my lack of the word ''we''."

I'm sorry, your what? Your lack of the word "we"?

Are you sure you meant to use the word "lack" . . . because your use of the word "we" in the original post doesn't seem to be lacking at all.

 I assumed to meant my lack of the word ''we'' when referring to New Zealand.Yes you are correct, I used the word a lot because I was referring to the springboks because they are my #1 team.Does this make sense?

"Does this make sense?"

Well, let's just say it makes about as much sense as a really fat person who would rather be thin talking about "we skinny people".

 Well Redneck, you have me convinced.
Mozart sounds a lot like this fool, however there are a few distinct differences.
For one, you have this chump stammering after only a few posts. Mozart may leave us with the occasional blank post but I can't remember seeing him stammer quite so easily.
MrTwat sounds nervous. You've got him on the defensive. Instead of coming back at you aggressively, he's ducking and diving ... almost pleading for you to stop.
The "No Rooinek I am not." immediately made me think of Bill Clinton and the look on his face when he lied on national television.

 Because I don't have affiliation to any country. Also, it's economically the best choice for me while I study. Once I'm done (in 4 weeks) then I'm moving to Melbourne as I see that city as objectively the best.

Oh and MrSpace, could you perhaps explain this sentence from your very first appearance here (from the "I've been following this forum for years" thread) . . .

"I'm from New Zealand but have been a springbok supporter since the age of 14.
I too am concerned at the direction that their rugby is headed."

Talk us through your use of the word "their" in that statement because it appears to be contrary to what you're saying above.

"You're not boklogic are you?"

Coincidentally I was just thinking about Boklogic (aka Smallc0ck) earlier today . . . I immediately thought of him when I read MicroChip's pen!s pump post!

LMAO!