Just a question to Mozart and DF

I was watching a tribute to Jean de Villiers on TV and he related a story that he took seriously.   His parents and John Gainsford were very food friends and Gainsford came to visit them.  He and his brother was kicking a rugby ball around on a lawn before the house.  Gainsford said to him :-
"If you ever want to be a Springbok kicking is not the way to play".
That brings me to the question - when did we develop the game which you claim to be our traditional game you claim we have to play?      

There is no clasic  er classic  game Tokkie. There is a traditional Bok forward power game, based on our perpetual advantage at forward. The only times we have legitimately come unstuck is when the forwards are bested....as in the 74 Lions series, or the 2003 QF when the fool Destroyli played the useless Krige and two props who couldn't scrum.
Our use of the backs has varied according to competitive advantage. In 37 we had a great backline, best in the world and we used it to crush NZ. In 49,with Brewis at 10 we kicked a lot...55 was a mixed bag but Ulyate was a kicker.
The 60s backs ran less than the Lions for example....but we had game breakers.

None of that is relevant though because with all these big Pacific Island wings, we are unlikely to have an edge in one on one running...so we have to play more like we did on Saturday. That should be our new Bok pattern....tight, but lightning fast exploitation of opportunities.

 Mozart
Jean clearly said that kicking the ball away that became the norm with Morne as a flyhalf in recent years - is not the way to play.   Yet you implied the exact opposite in previous postings where you said that 90% of the requirements of a flyhalf comprises his ability to kick balls.
How did we play on Saturday?  In most of the moves leading to Springbok attacks Pollard or De Allende carried to balls to the big Pacific Island backliners and in the process broke their line and beat tackles, but when they were tackled (normally by two or even three tacklers) they went forward in the tackles and presented the ball for quick distribution to the backline.  That made the game actually played much easier to execute.
Yet you did not see it happening and when De Allende did it - you said he was "tractoring" and did not contribute anything positive to the Springbok effort.  Can you now understand why I am baffled.  
The other issue that gave us an advantage in the past when players were amateurs was that most of the players grew bigger and stronger because of hard labour on farms and in their trades.   That benefit got generally less and less as time went by and the situation is now that all front line rugby schools nowadays use growth hormones and growth-aimed diets from a young age to enhance the physical development of players.  Schools have gyms like it is unbelievable and if you see the school kids today they are huge in comparison what they sued to eb 50 years ago.  This happens all over the world - not only in the Pacific Islands.  So all players today are physically stronger than was the case even 20 years ago.    
The key is to identify these "giants" and determine whom of the hundreds have actual ball skills, can read games and have speed - so that they can be selected.   The problem is that over the last 7 years there was no such identification done and we now sit with players with very limited ability in most Super 15 backlines,   The only coach who looked at that aspect was Ackerman.   He for instance identified a player like Vorster who weighs over 100 kgs and has ability to read games and used him as his 13 - resulting that he became one of the best performing centers in Super 15.  Matter of fact of all the centers in Super 15 - all of De Allende, Venter and Vorster were in the top ten centers of all teams in Super 15.   
The problem was over the last 7 years we relied heavily on a static set of backline players - like Habana, Pietersen, Fourie, De Villiers and Francois Steyn, with virtually no player development forthcoming.  So when Fourie and Steyn went sour and now with the De Villiers being out as well - we have very little real resources to fall back on.   
The problem is also with coaching on lower levels>  Coetzee have had backline problems for years basically because he selected microlights who could not compete   on the required level,  the Bulls played "stampkar rugby"  where skills were not ball skills were not required, and the Sharks turned to jelly because of selection of for instance Steyn at 12 - and the players were either not competitive for physical and other reasons.   
The real situation is there was a whole generation of players lost and now we have a  critical deficiency in our backlines inasmuch s most players are either skill-deficient and unsuitable because they did not fit in with the so-called game plan.                  
  

In my opinion, around the 2013 time we were playing our best rugby under Meyer, if you watch those Aussie games back we had a good mix of power upfront as well as playing some lovely rugby with good moves. 

There's potential in this team to find a balance, up front we can mix it with the best of them. Vermuleun, Etzebeth will always give you enough grunt in the forwards. And Burger is a very good link man.

Fourie Du Preez is brilliant, a very intelligent player, and we all know what Pollard brings to the table.

Habana showed he still has something left in the tank, De Allende and Kriel need to improve defensively but offensively they're excellent. If it means sacrificing something offensively to have Serfontein shore up the 13 channel then so be it. If JP can carry on his resurgence then that's another positive. And willie is always a threat. 

I agree with most of that Deddy...except the bit that Steppie is good defensively. He can make the process tackles, but out wide his lack of pace and more crucially his lack of acceleration is a big issue. Henry Speith ran right round him from a standing start. 
I'd far rather work intensively with Kriel ...he isnt going to be gassed.

 APD
Over the last 4 years we were never settled insofar as center selection is concerned.  A seriously problematic center eventually decided on for the EOYT - Jacque Fourie.  His pace was seriously deficient and if he could get to the ball carriers he did make his tackles    However, he was absolutely useless in attack by then.   We had in the period had  5 centers playing at inside center and 9 players used as outside centers:-
*   Wynand Olivier was used in one test - but he was clearly not up to standard
*   Francois Steyn was poor in 2012 and injured after playing in 5 tests - his performances was on the skids ever since then and he was never recalled to play test rugby even though he was constantly in the training squads - he was just too poor in center performance
*   For the rest  Jean de Villiers played in virtually all tests at 12 - but he at times also played at 13
*   Serfontein played in a few tests at 12 and also for some tests as a 13.
*   De Allende played for 2 games at 12 and 2 at 13.  
I would not even try to give the list of outside centers Meyer used - it was more like a revolving door with most not make the grade or switched to inside center or even wing.
The end result is a serious deficiency of experience being encountered and our only hope that the two youngsters find their feet and become as good on defense than they are in attack .    

 Something most people understand is that your centres are not supposed to be finishers but creators. Whenever SA teams have problems they like to put wings at centre to compensate for their inability to function as a backline. It's the equivalent of one off forwards running off 9, but with backs. Fans think this looks exciting but it is not a template for success. The Stormers attacking stats reflective of that fact. But Saffers never really grasped the concept of centre play. Whilst SA where traditionally good at forward play, it was NZ that invented the concept of the second fly half and that has been a strength of Kiwi rugby ever since. 
The current fan favourites Damian and Kriel play like back three players coming into the line. They cannot create space or opportunities and hence their runs just lead to them going to ground. Another thing I highlighted with these running 10s... taking contact every time. The more I talk about it the less most people seem to understand it. But I'll be posting a vid of the Samoa test and it will be patently obvious what I am saying is true. The key catalyst to the Bok attack under Meyer is Willie, he is the one who comes into the line and creates space. The draw and pass is the biggest secret to his success. A threat which is amplified by two other parts of his triple threat: 1.His ability to beat defenders himself, which makes defenders hold their line as they repsect his pace and step. 2.His boot. He can put defences under considerable pressure with the boot. Willie does what our centres should be doing. 
Oh, and Michael. Frans was very good in 2012. But do note that the Boks ran a very limited gameplan initially for the first few games under Meyer because of a lack of time with the players and a need to rebuild the pack. Frans was also good in 2014. Olivier wasn't bad, just painfully average and passive. Taute could run very smart lines. Better than Kriel, JJ or a few others but cracked under defensive pressure. The current pair are not a world class duo. They can run one on one, but no more then that 
Just think about this, Australia could not get a free running centre play to work with players like Giteau, Lea, AAC, Beale, Barnes et al. Far more naturally talented players than Damian or Kriel. It just doesn't work. 

 DF
I read your whole story and in some ways agree with you.  However, your argument went awry with Steyn being very good in 2012.  In the main Steyn was shockingly bad in 2012 - my abiding memory of him was that he was so fat that he could not see his feet when trying twice to make relieving kicks from deep in the Springboks 22 and the kicks rolled along the grass - putting the whole Springbok team off-side and allowing the opposition to score points against the Springboks.         
You referred to De Allende and Kriel and said the following:-
"They can run one on one, but no more then that." 

If there is one player that ran one-on-one it is Fransie.  The difference is that it is easy for the defending player to tackle Fransie - it is difficult to tackle De Allende or Kriel.   That is confirmed by the fact that De Allende broke nearly 10 times as many tackles in Super Rugby than Steyn did.