World Cup game plan

In NH conditions, is it really wise to be moving to an attack oriented game plan one year out from the World Cup? On face value, yes it is, but I have one or two issues with that. 
Firstly, why implement this mindset now only? If Meyer had started implementing it from the start of his tenure, then we would have had enough time to refine it before the World Cup kick-off. I am not entirely convinced that we have enough time to catch up and more importantly, overtake teams like the Wallabies and All Blacks that have utilised the ball in hand approach for ages. 
Secondly, do the NH conditions favour the running game plan? In short, I don't know. I know Australia won in 1999, but in general, the NZ and Aus style running rugby is less effective on the slower fields up North. Which is why our Northern rivals tend not to play running rugby. In the knock out stages, conservative rugby invariably wins the game, just something to bear in mind.
Now, before the death threats start, I am just playing devil's advocate. I love the new brand of Springbok rugby, but when it really counts in knock out games, our old style of play may be more effective. Debatable I know, but it must be considered.   
A side thought, Ricardo Laubser was not a very popular choice for back line coach of the Boks, but judging by what the Bok back line has done this year, maybe there was some merit to Meyer selecting him? 

Sorry about double post guys. 

 Bluebok: I know what you mean about the old style game winning out in the RWC. This is what happened in 1995 if you discount the Suzi factor. The ABs destroyed the poms but were a completely different team when we played the Boks. 
However, I don't see it as black or white but rather that any style of play can be beaten if you have dominate with your teams style. In this case the Boks could control the possession of the ball - starve the ABs. This puts pressure on the team with less possession to score on the few occasions they have the ball. If you throw in field possession dominance then you just wait for penalties & you win. If the A Bs were able to score on when they got the ball all the pressure would have been on the Boks & as they can't score quickly through the backs they would have had a problem.
So it is a matter of execution of the game plan not just a matter of what game plan is best. Boks & ABs are trying to ensure they can play both styles of game.

 
Couldn't have put it any better.

It makes us unpredictable ... difficult to read ... dangerous ... professional.

How many times have we not called for a change in game plan during a match ... one we're losing ... only to plod on with the same play till the final whistle ... ending with the inevitable result?????

It boggles the mind.

It's like moving to your opponents left constantly when he has a powerful left hook and then expecting a different outcome.

A little intelligence in our play would be a welcome addition.

 

  BB
I am not sure that the kick and chase game is effective anymorre - not even in NH conditions.   Looking at the European Championship games - there is much more running rugby with ball ingand than was standard in the past.
Matter of fact the NH game plan shcanged significantly since 2008 - when rule chnages to enhance a different brand of rugby took effect.   I think the 2011 WC was an anonoly in the broader state of affairs and doubt whether there willbe a similar situation in the 2015 WC.
The basic idea seems to be that teams must have a very good forward combination that could ensure that the ball can get back to the backline - but then not to kick the ball away like we used to do in the past.   The better option is to keep ball in hand - rather than to kick it away.   If players do kick the kick must be a dicersion and not a re gularity abd the kick needs to be part of the broader attack criteria.   
The idea of donkey kicking the ball is out - that was I believe the reason for the demise of Morne Steyn and a major part of his problems at Stade Francais as well.   That is alsp the reason why I am not really impressed with the selection of our present Tight 5 - the Tight 5 is weakened by the selection of the gruntless Matfield.   
However in essense to win the WC i future, the backlines will have to keep the ball in g and much more frequently with variations in the handling of the ball   Under these cir[removed]stances we need to ensure that we have loosies in place that can do both ball pretection and recovery - as well as having ball handling skills.
Meyer apparently realizes that as well.   - but we are yet struggling ith implementation.   Pollard and Le Roux is fine - Habana is also tops.   The weakness is with the centers and with Hendricks.  The latter is good enough but his weakess underhigh balls and his poor defense are really problematic.   De Villiers last year was fine - but he has shown a serious decline in performances this year - while Serfontein is good enough in defense - but not really up to standard in the ball handling department.
In essense I think that a variation in plat system is what is required at present under NH conditions as well otherwise we will sb second best in the WC series.   Kicking the ball for the sake of kicking - which in the past caused serious problems for us - wil not work in future.   - 

 
Ummm ... Mike, perhaps you should read his post again.

 Its all about being able to use your resources accross the board. We now have a functioning backline. We are not aimlessly kicking all our ball away. The only fault I have with the current situation is the weakening of our pack through poor selections. 
Obviously one has to adapt to conditions and opposition to a degree.  But having a full aresenal is a must.
Bluebok we dont know who has effected the changes etc but what I do know is you dont get a Vodacom coach with little experience to take over as the Bok backline coach because of skin colour. When we select our coaches we should be aiming to get the best the wo rld has to offer. Coaches who have proved they are the best etc. 

 
From the innovative running lines I saw the Boks put together I'd say we leave the coach where he is.

It was impressive.

Perhaps with the new game plan in place, our back-line coach, for the first time, is permitted to bring his skills to the table.

Don't fire the guy just cause he's got a darker skin ... rather see how he goes with the shackles off.
 

My thoughts on the matter exactly CC! How could any back line coach thrive with the game plan the boks have implemented up until the last couple of games? I didn't rate Loubser either, but as I mentioned, something is going right in our back line!

As has been pointed out, I think the ability to adapt the game plan to that which is required for or during any given game is vital. There is still a place for a conservative game plan. For example, there is not going to be running rugby in a World Cup final! I think this very fact is one of the reasons for New Zealand going into basically all the World Cups as favourites, but only twice winning the event. Unfortunately, they seem to have figured it out.   

 Kicking is more important now than it used to be. The way back lines function now any of the teams are capable of punishing a wayward kick or a penalty that doesn't find touch and a match can and has turned on one misguided kick. Kicking needs to be spot on now and backed by a very solid defence. Conservative play can be tough against a team full of run and willing to chance it. I am not so sure that there will be no running rugby in a WC final. Teams this time around will be more willing to play the style that got them there.