The Sharks are the best Springbok model

Much is made of the Sharks strong squad. But in effect only four of our starters against France were Sharks. There is considerable depth in the squad at loosie and at flyhalf for example, but the main point is players are better in the Sharks system.

I doubt a player like Keegan Daniel would have lasted anywhere else. No not even at the Cheetahs who play a wide open game, because they don't have the surfeit of tight/loose power that allows a player like Daniel to function.

The Bulls play their kick and chase game and use the lineouts as a platform. How dependent that strategy is on Matfield is apparent this year....you can't put all your eggs in one basket. But lineout dominance and a powerful maul are crucial strategic elements for the Boks.

The Stormers have evolved into a very defensive team that tries to force errors and then counter attack. Again not a complete strategy, but the defensive wall will work at the RWC properly executed and should be part of our thinking.

The Lions offer great heart and effort, but it's hard to say they are driven strategically. It's mostly get it to Marnitz and let him win it with the boot. Although I will say Faf has demonstrated again that a scrumhalf who can make the breaks is a dangerous weapon. The Boks have obviously used the Marnitz strategy before....notably with Jannie de Beer in 99.

Sad to say, the strategy least likely to work for us is that used by the Cheetahs. It will take years, going all the way back to junior rugby, to inculcate the skills we need to run them off their feet. That, or a young Bryan Habana, whose pace in 04/05 was such that we suddenly had the fastest man on the park and long strike capability.

If you take the aggregation of all these strategies....powerful mauling, stern defence, lineout dominance, match winning kicking and ruthless exploitation of turnovers....I think they most closely describe the way the Sharks play the game. It's balanced, not dependent on one strategy and capable of coming from behind.

The Sharks have always played that kind of game. Now with Jake in charge they are fine tuning the plan and building individual skills. It's a good thing and one the Boks can emulate.

I think both Moz and Mike have mentioned valid points and not necessary at cross purposes...I agree with the Sharks model and Mike's variation in play but it must be balanced not for balanced sake but honed in with strengths of what we do have.

It's time for coaches in SA to have intelligence and foresight and to start thinking..not copiers...once upon a time we had this...the NZ'ers have this...even France...despite the odd interruption now and again...due to radical coach changes...in SA Jake White is set to change this I believe.

They key to what you said is the following:

"If by the time they play Super 15 rugby basic skills are not there and players have not picked those up after nearly a decade of playing rugby on senior level - then Jake White will never be able to enhance their individual skills".

Your own words. Well our players are not as developed as Aussie and NZ players in ball skills when they start the S15. Yet you advocate a change at senior level to "variation in play". It can't happen at senior level...it's a programme that has to start at the schools. If our senior guys start to play like NZ we will lose, as we saw at Ellis Park.

And there is no proof that variation brings success. The Boks didn't have much variation when they won two RWCs....nor did England. NZ was very conservative in their winning match against France. A simple strategy flawlessly executed has always been very competitive in rugby.

You keep drifting towards AB strategy, which by your own admission wont work. You rarely win in any competitive endeavour by adopting the tactics of your opponent, especially when you wont execute them as well as they do.

I'm in favour of evolving and flawlessly executing the tactics which are successfully employed every week by our own teams.

 Mox said..."You keep drifting towards AB strategy, which by your own admission wont work. You rarely win in any competitive endeavour by adopting the tactics of your opponent, especially when you wont execute them as well as they do."

Very sound point...how can you out maneuver your opposition by using similar tactics when they have perfected them...it's like going into battle against Napoleon,Rommel or Von Bismarck (Iron Duke) using their same tactics...you can never beat the creators of tactics at their own game. You have to create your own with your strengths against their weaknesses. It requires intelligence, thought and planning...imitators get nowhere and become "also-rans".

At the next RWC the game will be very physical with almost no space. Have we seen anything from Goosen that suggests that kind of environment is a match for his talents? He will be left to kick or pass the buck to the player outside him. In fact apart from a few pool blowouts, choosing Goosen will likely lead to a lot more kicking....he isn't physical enough to take the ball into contact and retain it.

So you are selecting Goosen based on the wrong premise. I'm happy to revise this view if he shows us he can carry the ball effectively in tight matches.

So onto Jordaan. We now have a weak front on tackler in Goosen and to balance that we add another smallish chap at 13? And possibly a small chap in Sarel at 9. Who is going to do the hard physical work for 4 positions....Jean by himself?

Nope that is the kind of backline we had under Destroyli when the Aussies ran right over our defenders. We need some tough chaps to take on Nonu, Roberts, Bastareaud and all the giant loosies like Reid that are going to pound our inside channels.

I would play Willie, JP, AN Other, Jean, Habana, F Steyn and F du Preez. Willie can be used as a rotating attacking option at standoff if we want to go wide....but Fransie is our only option at 10 who can carry the ball into heavy traffic. Goosen feels more like a bench option if we need to chase the game.

Thirteen is the biggest puzzle. De Jongh is the best of the current bunch....better than Sadie, de Allende,  Jordaan or JJ. But I still think a bigger presence is called for at the RWC. That may not be Fury, who has the experience....but is slowing and he was never quick off the mark.

Physically and from what little I have seen of him emotionally Esterhuizen is the only player I see that looks the part. He is big and seemingly combatative....but he needs playing time. That's not likely to happen at the Sharks with Sithole and Jordaan ahead of him.

S etting that aside, make no mistake about it....our backline better be manned by strong, hard and competitive athletes. The RWC is no place for the faint of heart.