Time to smell the coffee....

Looking at one or two of the other threads here I see we have gone back to the stupid argument about defensive structured play vs attacking running rugby. Mike, Moz, Denny, CC.....seriously boys, catch a wake up!!! The AB's and the NZ Super Rugby franchises have not made a decision to adopt either the structured defense orientated pattern of play or running rugby, they do both equally well. You guys can haggle back and forth until the cows come home, but both sides of the argument are fundamentally flawed. 
NZ can attack from anywhere and run teams ragged, but it is hardly like they don't know how to scrum, take a line-out, ruck and maul or defend. Statistically, they kick just as much as our boys do, in some cases more. It is their execution of any given facet of play that sets them apart. 
It is very simple , to beat the best teams in the world, you need to be able to attack as well as the best, defend as well as the best, kick as well as the best, and compete in set play as well as the best. Until the South African rugby administration, supporters and players realise this blatantly obvious fact, we will continue to wallow in the dump of rugby. 
I know there are other factors involved that influence our teams, like quotas, the weak rand etc etc, but fundamentally our thinking is flawed, and that is our greatest Challenge. The Lions to a great extent have figured this out....but everyone else in this country seems to have their collective heads firmly up their arses!  

Exactly right. Rugby requires competence in a lot of different areas. It doesn't help to be excellent in one discipline and crap in another.

That is where the NZ sides have it over everyone else . . . they're good at everything. They're not necessarily brilliant in every area, but they're also not weak in any.

The SA sides might even be better than the Kiwi sides in the set pieces but certainly not dominant enough to make up for their weakness in other areas like defending, line-breaking and turning the ball over.

Of the SA sides it's only the Lions who play a balanced game and their results last year and this year are proof of this. It makes perfect sense to build the Springbok team around a core of Lions players, the major problem being that instead of being coached by the person who built the Lions team and had the guts to run the ball past the flyhalf, they'll be coached by a clueless clown who has proven that he has no idea what to do even when he has plenty of Lions players in his squad.

Oh well, hopefully Coetzee is not so profoundly stupid that he doesn't recognise that the Lions brand of rugby is the way forward . . . imagine being the drooling half-wit who said the Lions players had all been found out at international level and their style of rugby will mean they finish mid-table this year!

LMAO!

Coetzee might be a fool but not even he is that big a fool . . . or let's hope not!

bluebok
I think to an extent you got my arguments on the issue wrong.   I believe in everything you wrote above and my main problems are with execution.  That is why I am strongly opposed to -
*  aimless and inaccurate kicking for the sake of kicking without it being part of a strategic attacking or defensive plan, where the kicking game is just handover of possession and open up the field for counter-attacks;
*   poor defense coupled to virtual non-existence of ball protection and recovery at breakdowns - whether it is opposing team breakdowns or our own;
*   poor reading of the games and option taking by especially the half backs;
*   and totally defective play by our loosie combination - they are mostly useless in all aspects of loosie play requirements. 
I do not think scrumming and line-outs are serious deficiencies although I agree with you that the few of the present Tight 5 can participate adequately in other facets of play outside of scrumming and line-outs.
The problem can partly be blamed on inadequate coaching and partly on poor player selections.   Meyer had no discernable game plan and Coetzee even less so.   Stampkar rugby was the only requirement of those two coaches and they were helped along in that by other franchise coaches such as Gold and Ludeke.   Matter o f fact the caches ruined more players than they assisted in development of their careers.   Typical examples are Pollard, Serfontein and De Allende - but there is a long list of those.
The players are not allowed to play their natural game according to abilities and that has been the ruin of many players.   I can refer to Pollard as an example.   Ackerman has been a coach who has allowed players more freedom in that regard and it shows in the team performance. 
However, congratulations to you to get to the core of the problems and not mincing words on the issue.    After all - best quality performances is what is required from players. 

 
Can't really think of a time where I opted for one or the other (defence vs attack) ... please show me the post where I did, BlueBok.

I may have said that abandoning the one for the other is madness as is the case with the Stormers. In other words a balanced approach is best suited to good rugby.

Either way ... you are right. Each plays a very important part on the field. Neglecting one will cost you.

Fair comment CC, you were just in the middle of the back and forth between Moz, Mike and denny on the "who should be the Bok 10" thread. In general you are normally opposed to Moz's sentiments, but to be fair, lately that has not been the case. 
Still, this is an argument that has been lingering for ages. Mike, I hear you, but if I were to ask Moz weather he wants a defense based team or a balanced team on set play and attack, he'd go for the latter...just as you would, indicating that you both agree. Yet whenever the conversation comes up, you two, and a couple of others, are on opposing sides of the fence. 
 

 bluebok
The problem is that Mozart has a history of support of certain aspects of play contrary to a balanced game.   This comes clearly in his post when he just criticize defense of players and teams  and criticize teams for not kicking more - even in recent posts.   In some cases I believe it is prejudice against some players.  For instance he criticized  Du Toit for missing tackles never mentioning the high number of tackles he actually made and without reference to where the missed tackles occur.
For the rest he praises players for kicking - but the quality of kicks does not count with him even in recent posts.
I doubt not he would agree with your comments on "but if I were to ask Moz weather he wants a defense based team or a balanced team on set play and attack, he'd go for the latter."   But whether that would really be confirmed in his actual discussion of games and what went right or wrong is another question - eg he would in actual posts mainly quote defensive deficiencies and lack of kicking in games as frequently happened in the recent past and for him to praise players for scoring tries is almost unheard of.  
 

From what I can gather, Moffie wants a Springbok team with as few Lions as possible.

Yes, I know he's trying to sing a different tune now (surprise surprise) but there's no getting away from the following comment he made before the Lions applied liberal amounts of egg all over his stupid face: "The Lions myth is over. Virtually every Lion has been discredited on the Intenational (sic) Stage.....they will finish mid pack."

LMAO!

 Good statement bluebok.  SA use to do the same thing very well.... what happen?? Is it that the SA players lost the ability to think for themselves, or they stick to a plan thats flawed regardless of what the opposition's doing and aren't capable of adapting on the field. NZ isn't doing any magic tricks... tho Barrett is some kind of wizard, anyway.NZ players are disciplined in the basics. Kicking, passing tackling and offloading in the tackle, they just get really good at the basics then they add speed. The basic fundamentals are honed into them during their junior days, no matter if your a forward or back everyone must know how to pass tackle and look for opportunities.

Actually I disagree......the Boks played a defence oriented game against NZ at the WC. Ireland inherently played the same type of game against NZ at Soldiers Field.....those were by far the hardest games for the ABs in the last 2 years. ... What does one mean by that is the rub. That doesn't mean kicking aimless up and unders. It means a very disciplined game, not trying phase play inside your own 22. Kicking balls to touch to force set pieces......and extremely precise, fast outside/in defence. It means not having a free NZ player out wide without a marker. ... But when the opportunity arises as it did for Connor Murray as a result of turnover ball you attack. It's stifling defence and aggressive counter attack. And it's probably still the best way to beat NZ.....'me too' rugby has yet to work against such a talented well drilled team.

Just to underscore the point: .. NZ out gained Ireland 514 to 194 metres . Ireland kicked 29 times to 13 by NZ . NZ passed 191 times to 125. . But Ireland scored 5 tries to 4 and won the game 40 to 29.

 
One would swear that we're a country new to rugby ... that we're an inexperienced mob looking for a certain style that would make us competitive in the test arena.

One would swear that the style we've played all our lives no longer applies.

That the basics we learnt are no longer considered basics ... that we have to re-invent ourselves ... and the way we go about playing rugby.

So many think that copying others will fix the current mess we're in.

I have news for you. It's not the style of rugby that's the problem. It's putting 2nd rate players into positions that should be occupied by our stars. It's appointing idiots as coaches to lead these 2nd rate players to victory without a gameplan.

There is no need to adopt anyone's style.

Select the best players in each position and bring a quality coach in to show them the way.

Why are you guys complicating everything so?

 Mozart
Nobody can fault relieve kicking - but how often does these kicks not find touch and is then used as a basis for counter-attacks?   How many times do kicks allow for quick throw-in and then for the basis of counter-attacks.    Too many such kicks cause havoc for defenders and that is why I refer to QUALITY of kicks.  
Like in all other aspects of the game it is quality that counts.   In the WC semi  you referred to the AB's had nearly 70% possession and scored two tries to zero by the Springboks and although penalties were awarded to the AB's there is no doubt that the performance of the Springboks did not really make the grade.   For instance the Springboks were never really in the AB 22 and making an attacking play.Beside that the Springbok game plan was so predictable that it really was a joke.   The Springboks lost the game - deservedly so - and that does not make that type of game acceptable. 
Then how do you guard against the AB's have an extra player out wide.   The player out wide is often enough a loosie or even their hooker - while our slow loosies are nowhere in sight?    

The way I look at it... the stats freaks cannot comprehend the whole game...stats have some importance but they tend to distort the bigger picture...if you cannot see the see the bigger picture then you miss the essence of a game well played. Those who watch a game to enjoy it get the heart and pulse and soul of side that plays well...a game destroyed is like the game of Sharks and Rebels...this type of entertainment is so boring  I rather go fishing with no fish caught, take the dogs for a walk or even help my wife washing up the dishes...

I agree with CC, there was nothing wrong with our traditional game, we scored many tries and have a superb WC record. But there is always room for improvement.....our forwards' handling, offloading prudently (not obsessively) in the tackle and sharpening our kicking. .. But fans decided we need to play just like the ABs.....and the result was 2016.

 Which fans actually want us to play like the AB's?

 
Ignorance sure is bliss, hey Mike?

There is a bit of truth from every body...with some not the entire lot

But ask yourself the questions...do I enjoy the game of rugby because I enjoy the game or do I watch and follow it not to hit others over the head...or suffer from a Saffa complex which has a few accolades left in the world, except cricket and rugby and cannot compete with popular international sports like tennis, boxing, golf, swimming, football and ice hockey.

We are a weak nation that cannot get recognition except in rugby or cricket but when that's gone nothing is left...sadly we don't even have a military strength or police force to stand tall with integrity and strength...our identity of the past is slowly disolving into a myth of smoke screens and rainbows...

 Really Bluebok??....
Well perhaps you want to look at this...
There needs to be a mix...
Mike, we're saying exactly the same thing.....if you want, base our platform on a Lions game but add some substance.

Now w ipe the egg off your face.

Oh "the egg..." insult. Get a new line, that one is overused and boring! Everything I stated in my opening comment on this thread is true. I find it amazing that you are such an advocate for a balanced game plan, yet you are forever getting drawn into these silly arguments of kicking vs running with Mike? 
  

At least Moz has the balls to back up his position. Suddenly Denny and Mike have never argued countering positions on the defense vs running rugby debate. Pull the other one. 

 Hey, can you read?.....or is your fat ego hurting too much after making a right royal Dik of yourself.
Here it is again.....sorry, I can't put it any more plain and simple...

".....if you want, base our platform on a Lions game but add some substance."
and as for your so-called silly arguments with Mike....there are none.....here...if you can read.
Mike, we're saying exactly the same thing....
Is that simple enuff?

 
My, my ... aren't we all emotional today?

 Oh yeah...silly me Bwhahahahahhahaha
Have a fat day.

 The AB's and the NZ Super Rugby franchises have not made a decision to adopt either the structured defense orientated pattern of play or running rugby, they do both equally well. You guys can haggle back and forth until the cows come home, but both sides of the argument are fundamentally flawed. 
At last somebody understand you need to excel in both. In fact all round excellence in everything is necessary
Well said Bluebok!

 Good gracious me even ou rooitwtterbug gets it. My education programme is paying off after more than decade of tuition!

Beeno has finally understood that rugby is about brute force and skill and also about being able to take advantage of what is in front of you. For years we have heard about pap forwards... weak tight five... net ball.... etc. Now suddenly most posters on this site understand what is required to have a top team.
Well done Beeno, et al. ! Now to what address should NZ rugby send your tuition bill?

Going by what's happened to ou Bluebok I'd have to say, no tx.

 
And yet the learned Beandip rates Fleck as a top coach.

Hmmm?

Puzzling to say the least .