Some Perspective

2007, the Stade Felix Bollaert. The Boks had fielded a weakened team against Tonga in the hopes of keeping their front line stars out of harms way and retaining freshness in what was a very physical list of fixtures. We nearly lost, had that been the opening game of our group the up roar would have been monumental! It's essentially where we found ourselves against Japan, only the team did not respond with enough urgency as quickly as the 2007 bunch and the bench was not unloaded as early. We ended up winning that World Cup emphatically, however, when fielding a full strength team, one that did not embrace a care free attacking attitude as the one who faced Tonga and Japan.
The fact of the matter is that the Boks tried to outplay Japan at what they do best. Japanese rugby is played on the ground almost exclusively. They play a very high tempo game and utilise far more sophisticated running structures than we do. There was no way that we going to win. I knew before kickoff that they'd stress our defence, yet I didn't think the Boks would be so foolish to play them at their own game. From a tactical perspective, Japan have two obvious weaknesses: height and size. We should have selected a team to overpower them and play an aerial game. Did we stress their back three even once? We have such a height advantage. Why didn't we use it? We selected a halfback pairing that has never succeeded in delivering an attacking game. Pienaar's slick service of the RC all but vanished. Lambie continued where he left off on the EOYT, being dominated. Has he ever outplayed an opposite number? If so, then who? He was absolutely outclassed by his Japanese counterpart from start to finish. Not merely in terms of skill and talent, but heart. Where were Steph and Kriel? Mvovo? The new boys had no heart or fight. The older heads, mostly, were those who produced anything.
We'll be better as the competition goes on, but we can ill-afford another attempt at indulging the fans with their no-hopers and a game we cannot play. We need to reinstate the core elements of Boks rugby. 

I don't necessarily disagree with you, but who are these big guns you speak off?The team that faced a very determined Japan outfit (Congratulations Japan) was what I'm sure we could all agree was simply outplayed.

 I prefer the New England Patriots approach: say nothing to the media, build a siege mentality, and use criticism as ammunition. And the mantra "do your job". It's the perfect recipe for success, but coach Belichick does not play favourites and removes anyone who does not toe the line or produce, very hard to find anyone like that in SA though, only Jake comes to mind. The Sharks got unhappy that they had to get out of bed in the mornings and have mommy fix them some coco puffs. 
But to the point, support comes with good and bad times. I remember when it was fashonable to lambast Jake in 2006 and 2007. "Everyone" knew that he was useless and wrong. Supporters of Jake were in short supply, but look at all the bandwagon riding flubs after the WC win. Wr can surely do better then that. Not the Dave types, "I won't support the Boks because that fantastic 12 year old Diaper Cup MVP isn't playing". I thought he was English anyway? Cannot support his own country? LMAO!

Sharkbok, the team that lost the plot was guided by flubs. Louw and Steph were poor. 9-10-12-13 were dominated. There wasn't much else we could do. With no breakdown presence, no ball carrying power and no incision in the midfield what did you expect would happen? You cannot tell me the replacements I have listed would not have made a difference. They have formed an axis that even New Zealand couldn't handle, and all that time at No.2 in the world. We went into that test unarmed, literally and figurativ ely. And even I was nervous about that loose trio. The backline was never going to be our competitive edge.

 Desert Disaster
I happened to be in the stadium when SA played Tonga in 2007 and saw the game firsthand.  It was not the best team the Springboks could field and the game for a long time was in the balance - but in the end the Springboks won the game playing their second-stringers.  They won  even with the second stringers.
The problem si you blame Lambie - as expected - Du Toit and Louw for the loss on Saturday, but the worst players were a string of the golden oldies you so strongly support (inclusive of Matfield - who was absent from Tight 5 play altogether) whose performance was way below par.  
As was stated elsewhere a tablespoon of sh!t spoils an ice cream - while a tablespoon of ice cream does not improve sh!t.  The whole team was sh!t poor on Saturday, the result of Meyer's selection of player on reputation and not performance.  Lets look at the list of players who contributed to a sh!t performance on Saturday:-
Kirchner - just about clueless as only Kirchner could be.  Inaccurate and aimless kicking handing over ball possession
De Villiers - clearly not match-fit and disrupting the backline comprehensively \ very poor performance
Pienaar - just absolutely useless
Burger - active, but lost ball possession constantly during the match
Matfield - stood around in the backline and made zero contribution to Tight 5 play - Du Toit had to do that part of the supposed function of Matfoeld and also play as a loosie.  The top passenger in the team.
Bismarck - the generous contributor to penalties for the ebnefit of Japan
Jannie -played for ten minutes and then vanished from sight
Beast - did he in fact last 10 minutes?
Louw  - was useless as a loosie.
The real flops and you go for Lambie and Du Toit.  When last tdid you see your shrink?