No new coach but we have acommitte strategy.....the fabled blueprint

Alexander described the draft blueprint as a huge milestone for South African rugby. 'We now have the guiding principles of a much needed blueprint for South African rugby and the draft is the result of excellent collaboration between the local franchise coaches and the Springbok coaching staff,' the SA Rugby president said. 'Co-operation and collective action is key for the implementation and success of this blueprint. 'We are not expecting all our teams to play exactly the same game, but it will be good to see our Super Rugby teams use similar fundamentals when it comes to the basics of the game, and from there use their own unique style in their game plans. South African rugby can only prosper if our unions and coaches collaborate with one another in the implementation of our collective plan. This blueprint plan does not dictate your provincial or franchise game plan, but it is a necessary strategic framework for our rugby. 'It is my firm belief that the coming together of local coaching experts and their sharing of knowledge, aided by their desire to improve our game, will put the Springboks in a better position in terms of preparation for their June series against France and the rest of the international season. 'Some of the important topics discussed during the three indabas included learnings from the last few seasons, player contracting, player retention and succession planning as well as the development and retention of local coaches,' added Alexander. ............ All South African rugby needs is a competent coach and an effective Bok playing style.....which as always will be emulated by players all the way from Super Rugby to Schools rugby. This Blueprint will be about as effective as the various High Performance centres .

 Piffle - piffle - piffle by SARU.   However I did phone SARU and their PRO assured me that the issue of coaching will be dealt with/announced within a week - even though I mentioned 14 days in my posting. 
I hope the junk talk shop reported on above is not the famous announcement because nothing was really discussed.      

 Well he mentioned 'excellence' so I presume he's in accord with that Tradionalist oak . Although Alexander's probably in the poo for not mentioning transformation. 

 Look at England......lost at the WC. The second best team in the world 3 months later. All we need is a leader, a coach who understands the role.

The "Indaba Blueprints"- the circus is in town. 

 They are slowly exposing SA rugby trailing behind by several decades.
SA rugby has no collective idea. A pity for a team sport.

The question is about SA capacity to catch up. The answer is no. This will need a refoundation that would bear fruits in 20 years. SA rugby does not have not that time. And worse, no longer the resources to sustain the refoundation process.

That blueprint directive, even if it relies on a fact, the absence of the collective dimension, does not compare to the way NZ builds their collective self. The NZ process have been an inclusive, experimental process, taking initiative from all levels. Nothing like this top to bottom management SA is compelled to use.

 Look at England......lost at the WC. The second best team in the world 3 months later. All we need is a leader, a coach who understands the role.

Rankings produce first, second, third etc No ranking without that. Rankings by construction tell nothing about the number one, two, three.
In rugby, two leagues: a one team league, the AB league, the league of teams playing winner rugby. And the other league: all the other teams playing loser rugby. Being number one in this second league means one thing: playing loser rugby.

England is no example for SA.

Rugby is an english cultural product and England has a first hand motivation to keep and spread the activity worldwide. England can not withdraw their team.

For some time, England tried to play winner rugby. They failed. England cant withdraw their team though.

So they turned to their make believe rugby project that fits a demand from WR.

The rugby sporting events business will not survive an AB hegemony. ABs stringing a third and a fourth victories in the WC will kill the business. Another country must win. Or people will lose interest. There must be a contender.
This is when England stepped in. As a fabricated contender for ABs.

The ABs situation is as following: they are loved when they are quasi invincible, a pain when invincible and will be disregarded whenever they start to lose on a regular basis.
NZ can lose. Sometime.

A contender is needed. It is SA misery they can not afford pretending as England can. SA must contend.

England is a way better candidate to fill the shoes of the fabricated contender.
What could be the causes to give to that part to SA instead of England?

England is a big customer to WR, while SA is destined to grow in a lesser customer.
England offers practical advantages as avoiding regular matches against the ABs. SA plays regularly against the ABs.
NH clubs also consider the international scene as an obstacle to their business, there is an emergency for NH international teams to show results. The same does not exist in SA.
The english rugby has taken measures to ensure support to a team playing loser rugby. SA has not.

England can afford their make believe rugby project. SA can not.
SA rugby can not be the number one of loser rugby nations. Neither number two, three...
SA rugby must contend for the number one spot by joining the league of countries playing winner rugby.
This is far beyond SA capacity.

SA can not contend and they are not a fitting candidate for the part of the fabricated contender.

The incoming part for SA is the one of the old glory, the has been, who serves to provide a measure of progression to newcomers or ailing established rugbys. As it happened against Japan. As it will happen against France.