The TN team that expands the skill set......

....usually wins. Our wins in 1998, 2004 and 2009 came with new tricks in the bag. In 1998 we had a new dominating defensive axis with Joost, Honibal and Pieter Muller. In 2004 with the long strike capacity afforded by Habana and Jean, we were suddenly a much more dangerous team. Added to that, Jake's new push defence baffled our opponents.  In 2009 we honed our traditional lineout game, but Brussouw added the on ground game we had missed since Schalk's neck injury.

New Zealand is usually very balanced, but often beat the Boks when they are scrumming well....witness the 2003 RWC. Of late with Franks they have been strong in that area, and their loosie game has also come along.

Oz is usually strong when they can scrum, which doesn't happen that often.....but did with Robinson , before his string of injuries.

All of which makes me wonder why our coaches just don't take back play that seriously. It was left for young Jordaan, a sevens expert, to spark the Sharks this weekend. The Lions and Bulls never even tried to build a backline move. While the Stormers and Cheetahs were inaccurate in their attempts. The space behind the Canes flat defence wasn't attacked, for example.

So my guess is what we saw from the Bools, will be what we see from the Boks under Meyer. And it will work most of the time. But get into an evenly contested TN decider, and we will be right back to the OZ QF......with a backline that can't clinch the deal with great ball and position.

Why, one wonders, is it so hard to preserve the traditional weapons and add backline skills? We did it at the RWC07 and won.

Australia aside from the golden era in the 90s was never much of a union side. When they were very good they had bigger backs like Horan, Herbert, Campese et al who could break through defenders and keep the attack alive. This threat was further augmented when they were dominating the lineout and were scrumming better as they used those platforms very well to launch their dangerous backline. They've been able to gain parity at ties over the past decade, but their very poor tactical kicking and lack of penetration amongst the backs leaves them very easy to contain. Much like holding a kid by the head, keeping him at arms length swatting thin air.

New Zealand do most things well. I'm not going to go into the ref bias, but the fact is that they are at least a C in all departments meaning they can handle most teams well enough.

The Boks on the otherhand tick every box but the backplay box. We are actually the best all round side, particulary with the glut of talent available; but we just don't use the ball well enough. Having listened carefully to out coaches over the years it is clear that they don't actually understand what backplay is. We often hear things like creativity, synergy etc, but it's just ambiguous hot air. Rugby is not a game for the creative mind, it is a thinking man's game. Our players do not think very often. Many of our players who go to France say that it's the first time in their lives that they are forced to think about how they are playing. The coaches there question their players and challenge them to improve their puzzle solving ability in breaking down defences. Then there is the media that constantly pressures our coaches into looking for the next flash in the pan and playing a ludicrous style of play that Eddie Jones stated was only played on the Moon! Because cerebral rugby and organization, along with structure and physicality are the relics of the Afrikaners. The idiots of rugby supposedly. Yet the idiots who try to tamper with these values, these strengths, ALWAYS have egg on their faces. Those imbeciles who hated Jake got what they wanted in 2008 and look what happened! Just like Viljoen, or the frantic quick recycling game in 2000 under Mallett. It just doesn't work. Jake was successful because he respects the traditions and values of teams. That's why he will be successful with the Brumbies.