So what did we learn from the Round 2 matches?

It is a bit early to make any conclusive deductions - but there were three issues which is clear already and those are that -
*   the Meyer - Ludeke - White - Coetzee game plan of stampkar rugby has had huge negative impact on SA team performances in Super Rugby in the first instance as well as on test level; 
*   that the players who retired or went to play in NH clubs were not missed and that their presence in Super Rugby over the last two years in fact had a negative impact on performances of the teams they represented; and
*    that there are a very substantial number of younger players coming through now who will make a huge impact in future.
Lets take a few examples in this regard.   The SA teams in Round 2 played three foreign teams and won all three games.   The Rebels beat the Bulls last year and the real handicap in that game was Matfield and the stampkar rugby Ludeke forced them to play.  The Sharks beat the Jaguares playing rugby if a higher standard they managed over the last two years after the massive damage White did to the team in 2014 by insisting on stampkar rugby and unable to recover last year with the older players they did play.  The Lions played the strongest team they met thus far and beat the Chiefs with a sparkling display of running rugby - something Meyer could not stomach and him refusing to select any Lions players for the WC squad.
Insofar as the allegations that SA will suffer badly as a result of the loss of senior players, the fact is that the SA Franchises in Super Rugby over the weekend had only 8 players in all teams playing this round in the age group 30 and over. T he average age of players now in Super Rugby teams is below 25 years of age.   Of the older players who played this weekend Burger was poor and with the best one being Joe Pietersen.  The rest were very average.   So were the old guard of Meyer. Ludeke and co missed?   Definitely not.