Suicide tactics verus high risk rugby

There is obviously a fine line between the 2 but obviously NZ has mastered it...it is time to explore and change or else we will repeat ourselves over and over again and start attacking individuals. Ofcourse individuals are important but it's rather like putting the cart before the horse...NZ rugby is simply played the way it should using individual skills in a team with confidence and game winning mentality...that's why they win more than lose...I believe in all top rugby playing nations there are the tools to win but the NZ'ers know how to use their tools in the best manner...in fact I actually believe in South Africa, France and England, Ireland, Wales and Australia they have man for man talent.

 

Game plan, mindset and confidence are the skills that make champions but NZ have tutors and mentors that give the individuals the right input to make champion teams.

 

In SA we have talented tutors that sit on the sidelines because of our political complexes. It's time to be honest and politically free to award those mentors without hidden political agendas.

Seb: watching the games this weekend what you say has some truth to it for sure. When NZ teams run the ball in their backs they are creative & powerful. Yes they take risks but when I watched the Cheetahs they are creative but look in almost panic mode. When it works it looks great but there are two many 50/50 plays.
When I watch teams like the bulls play they just try & crush the opposition (Cheetahs). Mindless bludgeoning waiting for a mistake from the Cheetahs. They are good at the set piece play for sure but that is not enough.
The Boks have enough talent to play a balanced game but few SA teams at the S15 level do (some teams like the sharks have the talent in the backs but often don't use it).
As for the political agenda, Jake White does not have a political agenda that I can see & he still resorts to mainly 10 man rugby. I think it is a style of play that is part of SA culture & it will take a while to change.
Of course if SA teams were wining more games everyone would be talking about NZ teams not playing real rugby & how they need to change their rugby culture. 

Dr Win...you misunderstood me...I didn't refer to Jake as having political agendas or any other coach for that matter...it was the administrative hierachy of SARU that lackeys up to the ANC and other sycophantic bodies I was refering to and coaches like Nick Mallet who sit on the sidelines because of their blighted and sinister agendas. Rugby as a result is not structurally free and it often results in the wrong coaches being selected...the Stormers coach for example and as we saw with PDV in the past... but it's more complicated than that...that's why I refer to them as hidden. You cannot quite high light it because you will be accused of being a racialist...it's a sort of catch or ploy. True democracy and fairness is colour BLIND and all peoples must be treated on merit but I'm going slightly off the point.

 

The rest of your comments I agree with especially you take on the Cheetahs.

 

The point really is to change constructively and create the balanced sides of old...10 man rugby will never beat 15 man rugby when functionally correctly...so obvious at times it becomes embarrassing why we still have peculiar tendancies to commit suicide.

Seb 
Prior to the 1980's South Africa played  the traditional 15 man rugby game and the norm was not that much different from other countries.  Then Naas Botha came on the scene for the Bulls.   Naas was an excellent goal kicker and the Bulls built their game plan around his ability to kick at goal.   For that purpose the rest of the team was structured  around a game plan where the forwards would dominate and force the opposition to make penalizable offences which is then converted to points.
The position became ingrained in the SA rugby psyche and the results are felt up to present time.   As a result -
*   Anybody who can kick at goal is suitable at flyhalf - even if the rest of his game is poor and robotic;
*   To enhance the required dominance up front - the loose forward play has been sacrificed by selecting  slow and heavy players as loosies without regard to their ball handling skills and ability to play the full scope of loosie rugby requirements.   The loosies became an extension of the tight 5 forwards.
The abilities of the half back pair became more robotic and predictable as time passes.  The idea that the flyhalf should be on the move when getting the ball went dead and with rare exceptions our flyhalfs stand dead still when getting the ball.  However, the issue does not stop there.  The flyhalf position became dependent on goal kicking ability - and reading of the game died a death with that as well.   Since the flyhalfs had minimal ball sense and decision-making abilities the natural reaction always was to kick the ball - virtually all the time aimlessly and without any other thing than to hand the ball possession back to the opposition.
The fact that defense became the virtually only function of backline players - the situation then developed that backline players should be bigger in size on the theory that bigger players make for better defenders. In the process Ball handling skills became a secondary issue and they were not a consideration - while speed was also sacrificed in the process.   
What will happen in effect is that the flyhalf would routinely kick the ball or the no 12 center would crashball if he ever gets possession of the ball.   
Now lets look at the theory as provided for by the Sharks at present.   Their idea is that Francois Steyn is central to their backline play - whether he is playing at flyhalf or center.   The theory that because of his size he is a better defender had been disproved repeatedly and his speed deficiency and poor ball handling skills is clear.  He is also devoid of the ability to read the game and he passed the balls - often inaccurately - when he should kick and kick the ball when he should pass.  That ensures that the whole backline of the Sharks became ineffective.   
The question is - how is the problem to be solved?   The answer is complicated and as is evidenced on this site very problematic.  a different psyche is necessary.  We have to get away from certain so-called traditional approaches.
*  We must start up front and select players for the tight 5 who can pass and catch balls and at least not lose possession of balls in contact, while at the same time be strong in traditional Tight 5 play and can make their tackles.   We have the props to do that - Beast, Oosthuizen, Malherbe and Chadwick are a few that comes to mind. .
*   Our locks should have the strength and speed to carry balls as well.  We have players like Etzebeth,  Du Toit, Du Plessis, De Jager and even Willemse that fit thet requirement to perfection.
*   Ou loosies should not be additional locks and props.   They should be loosies that could add value to the tight 5 - but also capable to link up with backline players in attack and defense.   In essence they should be reasonably mobile and have good ball skills so as to protect balls in tackle situations and recover breakdown balls quickly and efficiently.   We have the payers for that as well.   We have Brussow, Van der Walt, Labuschagne, Burger and Arno Botha, who meets most of those requirements.
*   At flyhalf we need players that can read games and take decisions on the field of play - the robotic ones who have been to;d in advance what they should do must go.  In that regard we have players like Lambie and Goosen - with interesting younger prospects coming through.
*   The main problem is at center.  De Villiers is good enough - but we have limited resources at present.  Serfontein is being told to crashball all the time by his coaches - not his natural game at all - and he needs to be re-orientated to play his natural game.  De Allende shows much more at present than any other center.  Jordaan has to live of scraps he receives.   Sadie is very good and innovative as well.  From those we should be able to select players who also are instinctive decision makers themselves.
*   Our wing and full back situation are interesting and we have the players to operate in all varieties of the game.
The present situation is as you said suicidal.  We need a major essential - skilled players in the loosies and backline - players that can vary games - not one-dimensional robots.   Until that ideal is achieved we will remain we are or go back in rugby terms.                                            .            

Good post CleverMike  I thought to the present style of SA rugby originated in the 60s but you could be right.  

 Welcome to the real world folks.
Colour was/is/and will always be an issue in everything us humans do.
Be it sport, education, work, religion or politics.
Pity, but that's how our lives have evolved.

Great post Mike and could not agree more. 
One consideration that you did not mentioned on the 'Naas effect' is that this period of rugby was played when generally the only competition was in fact ourselves (Currie Cup), due to isolation. As you mentioned the long lasting effects of this is still there for us all to see. A South African 10 is selected on his goal kicking abilities alone. (How dumb?)