Saders use old style rugby to beat the Canes

The offload was hardly in evidence because the defence was so tight in this match. Defence and set pieces dominated this game. The Saders scrum was the difference. ... Mo'unga was taken out of the game as a creative force by the attentions of Perenara......who was very effective. Except for the one time he drifted and Hall took the gaping gap. The role of the scrumhalf in hurrying the opposing flyhalf perfectly reprised. .... We also saw the value of a power centre targeting the weak tackling 10 as Laumape crushed Mo'unga. Rohan could do,this for the Boks. ... The tactical kicking was particularly poor in this game and had been very well sussed out before the game, why don't our teams do their homework. With all the crowding of the game line, short kicks were not going to work as Perenara showed snapping up the short chips. ... This was a very well played game of rugby, but certainly not beyond the reach of a South African team if properly coached. We can't match NZ teams in a fast, wide open game.....but this tight affair was not beyond our reach. But to do this we have to put the emphasis back on defence and set pieces.....or stupidly try to outrun these teams and lose.

Note also the now standard use of the high cross kick when advantage is called inside the 22.....funny how this tactic was derided by some when it was first raised.

 Mox I think the cross kick under advantage was debated more because it gave the attacking team two bites at the apple.
Point taken though. Strong defence with good set piece is still viable. Tough to refute the evidence dished up today.

 
Thank you, Plum.

That was exactly my point.

Some are a little slower on the uptake.

 

But in effect if you run a series of phases the same thing happens Plum. A well delivered cross kick is almost a 50:50 chance to get a try, and done quickly you are never at risk to lose advantage.

 With skills like Barrett has the odds are better than 50/50 and under penalty I would always go for it.

To get back to your point about solid defence and good set pieces. 
My guess is that the entire thing relies on stamina and communication. A fit team can defend the way the Lions did yesterday because there are more players getting to tackles and putting more pressure on rucks. 
What type of players do you need, in the present rugby climate, to be able to give you that? In my book, not the Lomps of the world and more the RG Snymans and Mosterts.
Or a team of giants coached extremely well by a competent coach who can trade speed for positional play and strong communication. 

 Sorry about the font size

No problem.....but you also need size in the backs. If Tamanivalu was jumping over Kolbe rather than Jordie Barrett that was probably a try. ... The Lions have this thing right. They can play the attacking, offload game when available. But as you point out yesterday they did it with defence. It's impressive. But my guess is they still don't have sufficient individual talent to make it all the way....not in every position. As a team they get more out of their talent than any other Super franchise, which is more than one can ask.

 Moz, for me Kolbe should play at 9. Having him as the last line of defence is a liability. Anyone who hits him always makes ground. 
When I talk about having smaller guys, I'm specifically referring to the pack. For me a mobile pack like the Lions would be well complimented by larger backs. Provided they can step and don't wanna play donkey rugby. See where I'm going with this? A small pack to secure you quick ball with big backs to attack the gaps created by fast recycling. 
Defensively, on paper, anywah this should also be an ideal setup.

 Kolbe should go back to 7's permanently.

As long as the small pack can scrum and maul effectively. Agree that Kolbe, elusive as he may be is a weakness to easily exploited.