Is our younger talent poorly served by our senior coaches?

Are we happy to stay 2 or 3 in the world rankings ? If so - dont change anything.

No we would prefer to be number one....but if we try and take on NZ and OZ at their strength, the chances are we might be worse than number two. I mean seriously who is going to tear NZ apart.....Stepfontein and de Allende? 

Moz, I must admit I dont have the answer but something does have to change. Like I say, unless we are satisfied with Nr 2. Remember, scenery only changes for the lead dog, for the rest it stays the same - looking up another @ss.

Perhaps we should give Nick Mallet another go ?

I cant believe I am actually saying that but perhaps it is time.

Shark, I'd be more than happy with that. Nick has a great rugby brain....but my call would be for a Kiwi coach, without a shadow of a doubt  

Actually Sharkie our 1998  TN team played very traditional rugby.. ...after which Mallett opined we didn't have the backs to compete with the Big Pacific sourced backs in Oz And NZ. It doesn't give one much room for hope.
Dave I sense your passion...unfortunately the pesky facts say otherwise.

What is really frustrating is that similarly to the business world, often one senses that it is only a small improvement, a relatively small change in mindset that could swing things in our favor.

Ironically, I think this is the mindset that changed things for the Bulls when Heyneke Meyer was at the helm.

Even with the average form of our coaches, I really feel that we are within range of the All Blacks. We just, just cant seem to summit that hill though. Something/someone has to be able to bring some solutions that would make that small difference so we aren't looking up at the All Blacks for the rest of time.

Surely.

So far PSDT is about as fragile as Goosen. Victor is tempered steel, the man never gets hurt. I' d bet on Victor.

 So we are back to Victoria - the weakest lock physically on international level and Mozart wants us to play "the tough, take no prisoners knock out rugby".   With him around how can we play that style of rugby?  He gets pushed out of mauls - he is no good as a Tight 5 player so how are we going to make that brand of rugby with a weakened Tight 5?    

 Mozart
In reading your comments there is one thing evident and that is you axiom  that "our game is best suited to the tough, take no prisoners knock out rugby."  
Now that brings to the fore  two very interesting and important questions as to the relevant style of rugby, namely -
*    is our players physically stronger and fitter than the competing countries?;*    is that not the reason for our limited performance scenario in all rugby competitions?
In the first instance I do not think that in general our players are physically stronger than those of other competing countries.   There is no scientific proof that it is the case.   So to concentrate only on tough knock out rugby.   We used to have the rolling maul as a strong weapon - all countries now use the rolling maul and have devised methods to counter it.   
The general believe is that we are playing "stupid/Non-thinking" rugby.   The so-called kick-and-chase-game is integral to that belief.   So where are we now?
*    Our flyhalfs for years now have been playing "non-thinking" rugby?*    The attacking backline play is limited and often enough marred by poor ball handling skills
The idea that rugby is stagnant is foolish.   Every coach, captain and player on international level will tell you that rule changes - aimed at a more attractive brand of rugby have had a massive impact on the game - especially since 2008.   In fact theyhave stated that repeatedly in the media.
So lets look at what happened since 2009  - when the changes really started to be felt.   All the top rugby nations moved on and you see a much more all-round game be played.    But w have stagnated and stagnated badly.
So what was the result thus far:-
*   We played the power game in the 2011 WC and was beaten badly - not even reaching the semi's;
*   The Stormers played the power game in Super 15 in 2012 and lost badly in the semi's
*   The Sharks played the power game in Super 15 in 2014 and lost badly in the semi's.
Fact is the Sharks played a much more fluent game in 2012 and reached the Super 15 final.
The total misconeption is that we must play the NZ and Australian brands of rugby.   Whenever there is a discussion on comprehensive and thinking rugby - that argument is the first one raised.   The problem has nothing to do with that - and everything to do with a comprehensive thinking game -where you retain your strengths and expand your game to absolute advantage.    It is possible - but then we must forget about fielding a team with diminished ball sense in all players.  
We far too long payed non-thinking players in critical positions and ended up with poor backline performances.   Rugby is after all a 15 man game and if there is a weak component in the 15 man set-up than the team will be affected negatively.
 You will be well-advised to rea d what Wynand Claasen wrote about the game under another thread - and that comes from a professional who knows and understands the game.   In brief - unless we change and catch up with what other countries has developed since 2008,  we are doomed and will not be competitive in rugby terms anymore.            
  

 Wrong Matfield was a physical liability. There is no doubting his greatness many years ago but his inclusion now is just insulting and only a call clueless Meyer would make.
We have at least 8 better locks than Matfield now.
As for Thorn, he was never good. One of the most over rated locks out there. He was too small for lock and not athletic enough for a loosie. Playing him showed how poor the ABs were at lock back then.
Matfield is twice the player Thorn ever was. But right now he is a liability. His selection sums Meyer up totally much like Ross Cronje being brought in as a 9 on the EOYT. I don't recall seeing a worse 9 than this guy. He has less rugby talent than Morne