Heyneke Meyer take a bow.

If you were going to tell me that South Africa would rack up 958 running meters against the best team in the world I would have laughed in your face.

If you were going to tell me that the pace and power of the South African attack would cause 31 missed tackles by New Zealand, I would have found that equally entertaining.

If you told me an expansive game by South Africa would be an invitation to New Zealand to counter from turnovers and errors I would have agreed with you.

In 2011 Pieter de Villiers was called in front of the South African Sports committee in lieu of the Rugby world Cup preparation, during the interview he was asked why South Africa played so much within themselves and why did they not embrace a holistic approach to rugby.

Pieter de Villiers answered with a simple “They have a fear of failure”

In my view fear of failure has plagued South African rugby for some time. I fondly remember a game at Murray field during 1998 when Bill Mclaren described the running of Pieter “Slap Chips” Rossouw akin to that of a Gazelle on the African plains. During that same out bound tour, South Africa put such a hiding on the French in Paris that the local patrons booed their own team off the field and gave the South Africans a standing ovation.

Prior to the isolation era Springbok rugby reigned supreme, and it was largely due to the natural physique and the lifestyle attributed to Afrikaners at the time. Professional rugby has negated the natural physical advantage South Africa has had for so long, with professional rugby players now having the best facilities, equipment, coaches, fitness and strength instructors at their disposal.

The need for more intelligent play, more possession and guile in attack has now become a pre requisite for teams to triumph on the international stage. For too long I have listened to South African supporters saying we do not have the skills to play expansive rugby, for far too long we have sold ourselves short in the skills department.

Expansive rugby does not mean you move away from your core strengths, our core strengths will always be the mainstay of any professional rugby team, that is a given.

However, it is the mind set that needs changing. Compare a defensive strategy based game plan to that of a lab rat in a controlled environment where he runs through a maize to find a piece of cheese. It is inevitable that the rat will find the cheese, no matter how long it takes or how challenged he is in the intelligence department.

Having teams launch wave after wave of attack, affording them the opportunity to probe your defensive line relentlessly for 80 minutes will eventually result in a defensive breach. It isn’t rocket science to understand that.

Yes, we lost the test this weekend, however the mind set of going for gold meant that the shackles have been broken, the fear of failure was suppressed and rather than see a team intent on playing a kick and chase strategy and a defensive setup, South Africa ran the ball, for almost 1000 meters, a statistic in itself that almost defies belief.

Yes there were mistakes, it is inevitable that when you have only played expansive rugby for four months, that you would not be as polished as you will be after doing it for 10 years. But the important issue here is that the change came. The importance of this mind shift cannot and should not be underestimated, we played rugby, positively and adventurous beautiful rugby.

You may be critical and look at all the negatives, the fact that we ran out of puff in the last quarter, the fact that we conceded too many turn overs, the fact that we missed so many tackles, the fact that our line out went to shambles in the last 20 minutes.

But what you cannot ignore, is the absolute delight the game has brought to your senses, the mistakes can be corrected, the techniques can be worked on, our defensive system is not yet set up to scramble on the counter and will need restructuring.

Heyneke Meyer has shown us what we can do, he has shown us that we do indeed have ample skills in the team to run tries in from deep or close against the best team in the world, but most important, he now needs to carry this forward. There is no stepping back from this methodology, he has a responsibility to continue the growth of this team, a few personnel changes will improve those odds.

Ultimately if we can push the All Blacks this hard, the rest of the world must be quivering in their boots.

Yes agree BT. I hope they stick with it and don't take what in the end was a comfortable All Blacks victory as mental baggage fueling that fear if open rugby and forcing them back into an overly controlled tight game.

It says something that the second best team in the world are treating a 38-27 loss as a form of celebrated metamorphosis whereas NZs similar score line against England last year was seen as a humiliating drubbing.

Absolutely Bilts....tell you what though...a few guys have certainly put themselves in the shop window for Irish provinces ......

Good stuff BB. I saw another thread saying hindsight tells us SA should have shut up shop, not worry about the tournament and just go for the win doing what they do well. Big problem with that. What did SA do well on Saturday? Line out? No. Rolling maul? No. Scrum was good but didn't get as much dominance like The pumas in the first half two weeks ago. In short they didn't find dominance in areas where you would say SA is traditionally strong.

Where they did trouble NZ was out wide. They found space on both flanks. They kept ball in hand and the back row forwards linked up with the backs. NZ were to a large extent falling off tackles because they weren't coming up in the line. They were expecting a kicking game.

So they fell off tackles. So they decided to attack when they shouldn't have like the end of the first part. Just as NZ made errors so too did SA. What they didn't get was a win but they will put doubt into the NZ defensive line the next time they meet. What will their tactics be? When will they decide to run it? By adding that variety to their game SA have become less predictable. They can learn to choose when to run. Their front five might not be as adept as passing as NZ but the backrow showed they are.

SA will be gutted they didn't win. But NZ will be wary that if Meyer refines the attacking play, they will be more formidable. Just as Hansen taught his team the high tempo game so too can Meyer further improve and vary the SA attack. It's not copying NZ. It's finding out what works best for them and having the fitness and players to carry out those tactics.

Meyer must continue down this path. They can deal with failure if they sense they are heading in the right direction. You have to go back to probably another Ellis Park test to remember SA putting so many points on NZ.

As well as paying homage to Meyer and JDV forgive me BB to also salute Hansen and his assistants. Two unbeaten RC tournaments integrating so many young players into the sides with such consistency is a phenomenal achievement.

Meyer has got that consistency this year by learning to beat both Argentina and Oz away. Now NZ must be in his sights. The NH will be feeling shaky about facing SA. They got greater consistency in the NH lady year outperforming NZ.

Are the Springboks in a better place 2 years out from the RWC though, given they (I think) have the younger age profile and more scope for improvement than NZ?

New Zealand has a host of young players as well, I think their biggest concern at this point in time is number 2.

We do also have a host of youngsters that was called up but got injured.

Jaco Taute, Pieter Steph du Toit, Arno Botha and Johan Goosen are all to return.

Paul Jordaan would have likely seena call up was it not for his long term injury.

But I think we are better set than previous world cup two years out.

I'd say numbers 1-3 are All Blacks worries and comparative bok strengths. Having said that Du Plessis was a bit anonymous and yanked early? Any feelings on that one?

Biltong,please be more accurate with your statements,prior to 1981 the Bok reigned supreme?
Not since before 1956 was that statement true,Lions draw 1955,series lost France 1958,64.
All Blacks 1956,65,81,lost to Lions 1974.The Invincible Boks ended after 1955.Since1992 then
you have a 33% win rate versus the AllBlacks.Boks going route1 have been more successful
traditionally than the running game,BUT nice to see them running.

Alan, we were the only team with a superior win record against every other team, what is wrong with that statement?

I think the feeling was that there were a few mitigating factors of that record. Lets not be specific for fear of starting an argument.

Agree, the statement in itself is correct, it does not take anything away from New Zealand.

Might I say what a refreshing change it is for NZ to win something without an hysterical backlash with claims of refereeing leniency and conspiracy. Top marks for being appropriately Sporting, all.

Ok,Biltong and lads I`ll leave it there we both know what I mean congratulations to all concerned both sides and the Officials.

Biltong

I know you don't rate PDV but credit where is due

Mallett played 7, won 4, lost 3. 57%.
Viljoen played 2, won 0, lost 2. 0%.
straeuli played 5, won 0, lost 5. 0%.
White played 9, won 3, lost 6. 33%
De Villiers played 11, won 5, lost 6. 45%
Meyer - played 4, won 0, lost 4. 0%.

He did ok during a time when sure the boks were strong but NZ were stronger. The best in modern times after Mallett... A time when NZers will probably say they were at their weakest in pro era.

Running rugby is great and all but there is no substitute for winning rugby. As much as the running aspect of the game it was the to and fro contest which got us going.
Some of the best rugby matches ever have been zero try slug fests.

In a stand alone test match don't expect Meyer to play like that again.... No one will ever beat the all blacks leaking 5 tries and that's what it took to score 4 themselves.

It was an outstanding test match and I'm glad Meyer went for it... But in the long term I wonder if it was the best option.... Will the players have got more confidence and progression from beating the ABs rather than put up a gutsy performance like Ireland often do against the top sides for instance???? I myself can't decide.

What is apparent though that SA has a lot of potential, a lot of talent and bravery but also a long way to go.

FA, PDV ploughed with another man's cattle.

Two years in the All Blacks adapted and then things went south.

In my view there is little credit due when you consider the team he had.

Hi,Biltong my main area of Rugby Knowledge expertise pertains to NZ versus SA and was interested in your earlier comments.Especially concerning Nick Mallett and PDV and not crediting a Coach inheriting a winning team.So I have done a little research even my memory
has limitations.Neil McPhail Coached the AllBlacks 1961-5 with the exception of 2 tests 1962
under Ron Bush 20 matches for a 16,2,2 80% record.Including the 1963/4 Europe Tour.
The side included Whineray,Graham,Nathan,Tremain,Grey,The Meads Brothers,Dick,Kirton,
Laidlaw,Davis,Ian Smith,MacRae,Lochore,Herewini,and of Course Don Clarke.
Sir Freddie Allen inherited the Team or the hard core of it and 1966-8 went 14-0 for a 100%
record and is lauded for it.Peter De Villiers did the same thing and was relatively successful
with it and is reviled.
Nick Malletts record of just over 70% win record,coincides with John Harts AllBlacks record
of 75.6%.Including 1998 when every one and his dog was beating them.Wayne Smiths
record was 70.1% and coincides with the OZ brief rise in1999/ 2000,John Mitchells rose to
80 %.
Now getting to the meat of the matter 2008 Ali Williams pre injury was the best lock in
World rugby.The Bok players based in Europe had difficulty adapting to the Experimental laws
in place for the 3Ns.In 2009 Matfield and Botha were back in SA,most of the Experimental laws dumped.It was trial and error for all sides but was dominated by kicking,Lineouts/Rolling
Mauls.The All Blacks were injury riddled,and until Donnelly was introduced post 3Ns had
no lineout virtually.As an example 2nd 3Ns test versus AllBlacks Morne Steyn set a record
one try,a conversion,and 8 penalties for all 31 points.By the end of the year the AB`s had fixed there lineout.In 2010 it was the Boks and Oz who were injury sufferers the IRB had
fine tuned the laws.The kicking ping pong was less effective but more important the Auckland
Blues.Had developed a Counter to the Bulls style Rolling Maul in beating the Bulls,the Highlanders repeated the dose at Loftus Versfeld Bulls first Home loss in years.That tactic
has`nt really bothered the AB`s much since.NOW back to PDV he wanted to develop a more fluid style to counter the AB`s.BUT Player Power stopped him,now in his place what would
you have done.Dropped them which would have probably meant even more losses and your
job or soldier on and hope for the best.Tried Googling Boks win/loss record since there return
in 1992 without success overall its about 65% I think.But that goes back to 1903 have a
idea versus the AB`s and know it was pretty torrid 1992-5 versus OZ and France.Also
they lost a few versus Woodwards England side like all the SH sides but apart from that?

I would start keeping stats on SA from this day forward (or even this year) and compare. I think the results will be compelling with every test played from here on.

Assuming all overseas players won't be selected from now on, we may see a new look squad for the autumn series? Bit of a backwards step, but Meyer has pretty much been building a squad since he took over.

True..but somehow I dont think thats going to be as much of an issue if not for the change of style...which requires all 15 to share the load..so theyre no worse off at least...

Saint it is a backward step worth taking.

But I doubt Meyer will change much. His goal is to win every game, so he would more likely than not only make a few changes, the one thing he has shown throughout this campaign was consistency in selection.

In the front row we might see Frans Malherbe as the other tight head prop.
Loose head I don't think we will see any new faces.
Hooker is sorted.
At lock we do have a bit of a void, there are no experienced locks and all the good ones are very young. but we could see Pieter Steph du Toit.
Back row we could possibly see Jaques Engelbrect get a run and I think Arno Botha might be back from injury.
Schalk Burger has played his second game of rugby, so he might be looked at for November.
We Must see Piet v Zyl or Cobus Reinach at halfback this November.

I think Lambie will be at 10.

We just need to make a plan at 15.

I hope you can keep playing this way, but as an england fan(not suggesting we are as good- but very similar in styles) I know my hopes have been dashed before. WE allways seem to go back to the negative tactics after a great expansive game..(we had a similar experience v australia a few years ago)

When you have a defeat or series of them teams usually resort to what they know best.
By tradition the Boks have won more matches with Power Rugby than the more fluid style.
All Blacks copied the style post 1949 and went nearly 20 years without losing a series .England and France had there best results when adopting the no risks attitude
it is certainly a winning formula.The so called RWC Winning Formula[one of the reasons
I despise these].
If you look back at the Boks recent record just how many defeats have they suffered
post RWC2011 very few.Ok they`ve lost to the All Blacks but most teams have too
they have replaced.Smit,Matfield,Botha,Burger[on a temporary basis].They have a
young side with many players coming thru Meyer in his way is getting things right.
I`m an AllBlack supporter,proud of it,BUT want more stiff matches against them
like Saturdays.England play them 5 times in a year,and next year with there whole
centre field missing on sabbaticals will be at there most vulnerable?
Of Course if the AB`s have Crudon/Barrett at 10,SBW at 12,B.Smith at 13,Coryjane 14
and maybe Kaino and certainly Romano back?
WELL Done Meyer,WELL done Boks RWC winners 2015 you heard it here first.

Mallet made the point on reunion tonight about the Bok 5 needing a front 5 with the skillset- passing and tackling- Etzebeth aside- of the ABs when the game opens up which is the point Otagolad made yesterday. That will be part of the challenge for both Mallett and young players in SA who might be focussing too much on the set pieces...opportunities also for those who like a more ball handling mobile role as a tight forward.

I think the skill set of our props are limited.

when Pieter Steph du toit comes in, he will immediately alongside Etzebeth make a difference.

Coenie Oosthuizen in my view have decent skill sets and Bismarck and Adriaan are good as well.

the tight five doesn't ned much overhauling, just the props.

sounds good, and on top of that more games using the ball in different ways will only enhance those skills...can only see exciting times ahead for the boks...

John Robbie wrote on his column last Saturday that at the end of the day NZ are simply better than us - its true. We have played against NZ four times with Meyer here. 0 BP, in contrast, they have three Bonus points win vs us on the trot. Feels a bit like the Emperors new Clothes - and we all keep denying that the man is naked!

Nobody else scored 4 tries against us this year though have they. No one said the Boks were the better side. What they are showing is theyre able to compete with a different style of play.

Look at it this way- they were poor defensively and let tries in, they tired more easily at the end, yet at 60 mins they scored their 4th try, were leading and had the title in their grasp.

The AB's hardly put a foot wrong- across the board. And still only won by 11.

Much more to read into that match than the loss Kingraf...

The only way the boks scored 4 tries was to open themselves up.. had they played with a stronger defensive structure they wouldn't have scored 4 tries, but they wouldn't have leaked 5.

The subs changeover was a big downer, it was meant to increase the intensity, instead it caused a lull and we lost momentum. Strauss lost near all his lineouts, dropped passes, missed tackles... one of the worst cameo's I've seen in a bok jersey.

I myself agree with Kingraf that a win and a RC loss would have serviced this team better then an unlikely shot at glory. If it was the climax to a team such as a lions series or a RWC KO match then sure, throw the kitchen sink at them... but this team is only halfway through its journey and a scalp of the ABs even if it meant losing the RC is not common and would meant a lot to the players.

Thats 1 win in 9 matches now... and that 1 win came when NZ rested Nonu, Smith, Carter, McCaw, Franks etc and sent a B team to SA in prep for the RWC. Thats a record that will play on the mind of the youngsters especially. Chaps like Etzebeth have never tasted victory vs. the ABs.

I disagree that a win would have served us better by playing conservatively.

All it would have done was impede our development.

The mistakes of this match was glaring should be mix things up, now Meyer knows where to address the areas.

If we played another conservative game, our game would simply just get stuck in the stone age.

What Meyer wanted to know was whether if we go full bore at NZ can we score multiples of tries.

The answer is yes.

Now he can find the balance.

The other aspect of this is that he now knows he can blow most teams out of the water.

You cannot play heleter skelter all the time, but you cannot defend all the time either.

It is all about balance. That is they key.

But SA has played the other style a lot more in recent times and has lost too FA. It's conjecture to say had they reverted to type they would've won. If you keep playing a certain way and think you can win you will be found out. You have to adapt and tweak your game. If SA had kept ball in hand a little more in Dunedin last year I have no doubt they would've won. Of course I don't know how the game would've panned out but it was obvious that the kicking was relieving all pressure on NZ who couldn't get any decent ball.

The fact that SA lost again playing a different way isn't relevant. The fact they discovered that at certain times NZ is vulnerable at times if you keep ball in hand and seek width is important. NZ have out thought the Boks previously. Last week they outplayed them. The Boks proved that they can outthink and outplay NZ if they vary their play. That was an important lesson. They just have to tweak their game accordingly to do so.

Kia is 100% correct, in Duneden last year we lost because we didn't use the advantages we created, too conservative, this year we used our advantages better but lost because of poor decision making which put us under pressure and our defence was poor.

The reason why the All BLacks are the best is because they have learnt how to balance everything, they are smart enough to know when to run, when to kick, when to consolidate and keep their errors to a minimum, now we have to learn how to do all of those together, it is about putting all of it together now.

It will come.

BB is 99.9 per cent correct.

It's Dunedin.  

BB - its not about playing conservatively.. its about playing smart. You take your chances but you don't gift the opposition points by being dangerous.

SA could have scored 2-3 tries playing their normal game, building pressure, strong carries.

Lineouts they got rattled... even though they brought in a specialist. So predictable. No 3rd option at the tail, few middle jumps and Etzebeth was overused... throwing to the front is always the most dangerous in terms of opposition spoils/steals.

The tackling was awful. They tackled high because they wanted turnovers... Well it was high risk as it meant they missed a significant number of them... against a AB side, you don't gift them linebreaks as they will convert.
Get your tackles in Kolisi style (low, never smashing the player back but successful) and even the best teams will give up after a while and change tactic.

Its not about being fancy and open, its about doing your basics and making the opposition react.

SA could have scored 2-3 tries playing their normal game, building pressure, strong carries

 

FA, please explain to me what you mean by building pressure and strong carries.

NZ aren't the best because they score lots of tries.. they're the best because the concede the least. You could say, well since NZ attack a lot of the time then they keep the opposition from scoring tries by default. Not the case....

since 2012 NZ have scored 2.77 tries per tier 1 match (3N + ENG & FRA) vs. SA's 2.42 (a -0.35 deficit against the boks). The boks almost match them try for try.

however NZ have only conceded 1.23 tries per match against 2.00 for the boks. (a -0.77 deficit against the boks). That is where the boks need to close the gap

Biltong wrote:

SA could have scored 2-3 tries playing their normal game, building pressure, strong carries

 

FA, please explain to me what you mean by building pressure and strong carries.

BB - Had the boks kept things more tight, kept a little more conservative they wouldn't have made as many chances, but they wouldn't have been isolated as often, turned over more.

Look at England last year. How did they beat NZ? First off they smashed them upfront, took their penalty chances and forged a 12 point lead. They built a gap which caused NZ themselves to force the game.

How did Wales beat England this year.... the exact same way.

Fa, this whole discussion revolves around you wanting Sa to be more conservative against NZ, not other nations.

In 2010, NZ scored 11 tries in three tests against us. We scored 3
In 2011, NZ scored 7 tries in two tests against us. We scored 2
In 2012, NZ scored 6 tries in two tests against us. We scored 2



How many tries we score against other nations is not relevant to NZ.

If they continue to outscore us by three tries to one per match when we play tight, what makes you think it will ever work?

BB - please note I only included matches vs. NZ, AUS, ENG and FRA. There were no tryfest opposition included such as Argentina, Italy etc.

What I was saying is that I feel that the boks were playing fine attack wise up to this game in question... but the tries conceded was the biggest issue from turning losses into wins.

and that the biggest improvement would IMO be seen by shoring up the defence, not becoming more attack minded.

FA, our tight game has not worked against NZ since 2009.

since then they have been outscoring us three tries to one.

How do you not see this?

I am talking about balancing attack and defence, to beat the all Blacks we must attack more, otherwise we won't beat them.

In the end BB its just our different approaches. Nothing wrong with that.

The problem with attacking NZ for me is that too much of it is a death trap. Turnover and you're in massive trouble. Against any other side in the world its ok, they convert a lot of turnovers into points.

Play an open game; can anyone out NZ, NZ? They are happy playing that because man on man they are better with that sort of rugby.

FA wrote:Play an open game; can anyone out NZ, NZ? They are happy playing that because man on man they are better with that sort of rugby.

For now.

they have been playing this way for a lot longer than we have.

We have been doing it for four months.

Biltong wrote:

FA wrote:Play an open game; can anyone out NZ, NZ? They are happy playing that because man on man they are better with that sort of rugby.

For now.

they have been playing this way for a lot longer than we have.

We have been doing it for four months.

thats the spirit BB! :)Give or take a few months.

Actually when Goosen comes back and fingers crossed is fit and back to his best then I think the fortunes of the boks going forward will improve.

There is a chance Goosen will actually be playing this weekend.

I think SA need to learn to time box a test and read opposition tactics better. A legacy of the one dimensional game plan is the desire to do what they want regardless of the opposition approach - hence Steyn's critical error on 38 minutes last weekend. 

They need to shock with their ball skills with periods of control rather than the helter skelter we saw.

Agree with you GE, it has been Steyn's problem in particular. Da Man canna read a game.

Meyer said the same himself'''"Steyn may not be the best player I have coached...but"

Fa I cant see how you think SA needs to play smarter when that has been the problem for years. This match was cleartly an attempt at that. No it didnt come off but there is definite progress here.

Rather than tweak meyer- correctly- used this match to explore the possibilites- throw it all out there and see what happens- and in the one match it exposed perfectly where improvements can be made to make progress. It may be 1 in the last 9 but they will have learnt more from this match than all the other 8 put together.

Biltong wrote:

FA wrote:Play an open game; can anyone out NZ, NZ? They are happy playing that because man on man they are better with that sort of rugby.

For now.

they have been playing this way for a lot longer than we have.

We have been doing it for four months.

One thing I have noticed is that the springboks do have the players for keeping the ball alive and playing an expansive brand of rugby. I genuinely do not think there is a whole lot of difference in quality when it comes to the players, rather that one team is gelling together more (and have had a consistent game plan for years) while SA are starting something new to them. They really do have some exciting young backs and forwards in the mix right now, who will continue to pose a threat to New Zealand.

The likes of Le Roux may not be great defensively but he is as dangerous as any back in NZ rugby at the minute I think. He is both a danger himself and creates so much opportunity for the other players. If he plays 15 I doubt his defensive liabilities will matter a whole lot. A 15 doesn't actually make a whole lot of tackles. Positioning is far more important in my opinion.

Focusing on the strengths of these players is vital. Look at Dagg, would you say he is the most prolific defender out there? No, but he is one of the most dangerous running 15s in the game.

Very true Rory, I have often commented on Dagg's defensive ability in the past.

Something I have not considered about Willie.

Our other defensive problem though was Morne Steyn, he missed something like 6 tackles on the day.

Naas Botha said something interesting tonight on Boots and All.

He said the missed tackles is misleading in the way that once the first time tackle is missed, the rest of the defence are not positioned to tackle the ball carrier, and often despairing dives are ineffective as they are trying to tackle someone who has already beaten the line.

It does make sense what he says.

And I think it has merit to also count the first time tackles missed, as those are usually the crucial ones.

Taylorman wrote:Meyer said the same himself'''"Steyn may not be the best player I have coached...but"

Fa I cant see how you think SA needs to play smarter when that has been the problem for years. This match was cleartly an attempt at that. No it didnt come off but there is definite progress here.

Rather than tweak meyer- correctly- used this match to explore the possibilites- throw it all out there and see what happens- and in the one match it exposed perfectly where improvements can be made to make progress. It may be 1 in the last 9 but they will have learnt more from this match than all the other 8 put together.

Taylorman

I showed earlier how the boks leak a lot of tries at the moment. Their record of scoring tries is good, near as good as NZ against Tier 1 sides (3N, FRA & ENG) yet their tries conceded is 4th in that group in he last 2 seasons, only better then AUS who are haemorrhaging tries like no tomorrow.

tackling in SA for me is an endemic issue built around the macho culture of the boer. they want smash people, they tackle chest and shoulders... The problem with this is that they suffer a lot of line breaks and a lot of tries.

guys like Alberts, Jannie DP, Strauss, Frans Steyn are below par tacklers... some on the edge of pathetic.

Guys like Kolisi and JDV are diamonds in the rough for us.... They never knock people backwards but they hardly ever miss a tackle.
If you convert your tackles time and time again it makes the opposition change their attitude and try an alternative method of attack.

I've always had the philosophy of getting your house in order before you decorate.... SA have an immense wealth of attacking talent but offense doesn't win trophies and if SA ignore this they won't any time soon.