The kicking game wins

The kicking game is the surest way to lose against strong teams = nobody kicked more than the Sharks did today and they lost the game.   The Bulls always had a better side - the Stormers were poor and the fact that the Bulls kicked less and ran at them more was evident.    They may not have made as many meters as the Stormers did in two movements only - but  is clearly due to less effective runs by some players.
Look at Pollard stats.  he handled the ball 25 times and only kicked 6 times - passed the ball 13 times and carried the ball 6 times - that does not represent a kicking game scenario as you try to make it out to be. 
Steyn on the other hand played a kicking game - he kicked the ball 17 times and only passed the ball 8 times.
Your theory about the value of the kicking game has once again proved to be useless and a sure loser of games against stronger teams.   Rugby is a 15 man game - not a game consisting of 8 forwards and a half back pair.   No team playing a predictable ten man game can ultimately be successful.       

    

 When you play the kicking game, you take your own destiny out of your hands. You are in fact relying on the opposition to make mistakes and play badly. You are simply handing over possession and saying, well there you go. Try run it back and we will try catch you behind the gain line. What happens when your opposition back three have a good game? You hand them back the ball. They return it beating a few defenders and then you have them on the front foot making metres.This is what the Sharks are doing and it didnt work last night. We won the kicking game by miles but the Brumbies got 1 try and we had no answer!
When they scored their try and were up by 10 with 15 to go, all of a sudden, the Sharks realise they need to play some rugby. We then looked pretty good at times running the ball but it always ended in dropped balls and turn over of possession.
I dont understand why we wait until we are too far behind until we start "looking good" with ball in hand.
We can not be kicking away that much possession. Its bullshit and not going to win this comp!

This is a fallacious argument because it only takes a few data points to build reasoning. 

What about the Chiefs who are the current SuperXV champions, they don't kick the ball often.
Or the Crusaders who have won the tournament more than any other team. They have a balanced game plan with both kicking and running. It is about having all the options and applying the best one in each situation instead of being one dimensional.
The Bulls in 2008-2011 scored allot of tries, especially at Loftus. 
A kicking game is also dependent on having a "very" dominant forward pack, especially at the Lineouts with the likes of Matfield and the golden era of Bulls forwards.

It also does not take into context the bonus points scored for more than 4 tries. 
Nor does it take into consideration that South African teams are kicking more than the other teams and most are sitting at the bottom of the table.

This Mozart philosophy is badly out-dated and does not take into account the present game.   It is just impossible to think that 10 man rugby can beat 15 man rugby.   
10 man rugby depends on two things - 
*  a totally dominant forward pack where it is possible to win opposition line out throw ins; and  *  poor play by the opposition back 3 - which is all but a lost course against mosst Australian and New Zealand teams.
The most likely scenario is handing over ball possession to the opposition and hoping they are going to foul it up.   
If they run at you the defense becomes very difficult and chances are that the kicking side will be at a serious disadvantage in such a case.   There are nmany similar problems in the case where the klckiing side is ending up with loss of territory. No coach in his right mind will use the kicking game as the sole attacking scenario.
Kicking in rugby will always be a facet of rugby - but then kicking must be strategic and the kicking side must be able to follow up kicks and make life difficult for the opposing catchers.   Our kicking flyhalfs are in fact very poor executors of that - their kicks are way too far ahead for effective follow-up - which make it easy for the opposing teams to counter-attack and keep possession.  
I have no problem with strategic kickers - but am still trying to find them among players like the Steyns and most of our other flyhalfs.    

 ABS seem to have hit the right mix RE kicking ,the point is not to kick aimlessly without any tactical plan other than hope the other side have a case of the fumbles .The ABS kick MORE than other teams these days it just doesnt look that way because its not just done out of instinct [ the ABS instinct used to be to run the ball at all times it seemed ,you rarely see them run it out of their 2 these days ]

Actually the  Brumbies out kicked the Sharks 42 to 40. The Sharks outran them 415 to 266 metres. The point is the Brumbies kicked much more effectively than the Sharks....mostly because Mogg was much more effective than Steyn and Mvovo.
We have to grasp these simple points if we want to win....Wardad makes the crucial point, don't kick aimlessly havie tight patterns around your kicks.

Mozart
 Steyn's kicks are virtually all aimless - there is not a whisper of strategic kicking present in his kicks.   
The AB's vary their strategies and do not depend entirely on the kicking game like you seem to think.   In previous posts by you you took a very strong stand against variation of the game.   
Because of the emphasis on kicking our back line players have become very poor ball handlers - so when not kicking the next strategy is crashballing.   Both are easily contained by opposition and it kills the backline of any SA team.  That is what is wrong with the whole scenario of saying the kicking game is the answer to winning rugby - variation of play is - but then you need flyhalfs that can read games and not the Steyn robots.
And you need backline players with catching and passing skills that can't retain possession and knows how to attack.   That is a rare quality with our present backline players.       

Oom  you are a stupid,  argumentative man. Nobody  is saying just kick, nobody is saying just maul. But it is an undeniable fact that kicking beat the Stormers and the Sharks. So do it well....make it strategic....be the best in the world at kicking. Does that help you or are you still looking for something to get angry about. 
But perhaps you wanted another of those metre long Jordaan runs? But of course it's Steyns fault Jordaan is a wet noodle who can't ride an arm tackle.

I agree on the importance of tactical kicking. 
I remember when Carter first started using a much more tactical kicking game with the Crusaders, the commentators kept saying: "he's missed touch again, he's having a bad night with the boot".  They didn't understand that the Crusaders were losing the line-outs so they were kicking & chasing for field position. The master at work  

 Mozart
The bulls did NOT play a kicking game against the Storemers - get that into your thick skull.
Pollard handled the ball 25 times - he kicked 6 times (24% of all balls handled by him)  - passed the ball 13 times (52%)  and carried it 6 times 24%.  That is what is meant by variation of play.
Now lets look at Steyn's stats.    Steyn kicked the ball 17 times (41,5%) - passed the ball 8 times (17%)  and carried the ball 17 times (41,5%).
There was very little variation in Steyn's play - he kicked or crashballed 83% of the time - so the Sharks was easily dealt with and their backline totally ineffective.  
Pollard varied his game considerably - Steyn was one-dimensional and played a ridiculously poor game as a result.     

Oom firstly I never said the Bools  kicked more than the Sharks....we're they playing the Sharks? Nope. They were playing the Stormers and they kicked 50 per cent more than the Stormers and way more effectively than Taute and Coleman with their pop gun boots. This is what your hero Mallett says:

'I thought that the Bulls, in the last 60 minutes, got into the rhythm of their kicking game, making sure that they strangled the Stormers, played all the rugby in their half. The Bulls would've been a bit perturbed by that first 12 minutes, when the Stomers came out and played really well.

'What I was really pleased about from the Bulls' point of view is that [Francois] Hougaard played a far more instinctive game today, because his pack gave him front-foot ball. He made some good decisions and gave some quick service to [Handré] Pollard, who also had a good game. He kicked beautifully tonight.

Feeling as dumb as you are yet......oompie?

 Mozart
BALLS -  are diverting the issue from your original standpoint - because you were talking the normal Mozart BS and got cornered once again.  

On the contrary  I said the Bools and Brumbies kicked more effectively than the Sharks and Stormers. A point which was totally confirmed by the man, Mallett, you are always quoting as the authority.  Couldn't be clearer or funnier. Game set and match you old turd.