Two fairly even teams. SA in transition, Australia are not, so I give them the nod on this. As I keep saying, I really don't think this Australia team is quite as bad as people think (admittedly, it is quite limited and the club form of the players has been poor). SA were fairly awful in the first half in Argentina with Faf & Jantjies kicking aimlessly for territory (which as others more knowledgeable above have suggested isn't their strong suit). However, I thought the team showed quite a bit of promise in the second half, admittedly against a banged up Argentina. They scored two fairly expansive tries (one an absolute beauty) and could have had a third with de Allende. To do that in one half, away from home, against a top team indicates there are signs of life in the Boks.
The ongoing decision for SA seems to be how to combine selecting the most in form players (often from the Lions) and marry that to a non-Lions gameplan; essentially asking those players to rip up their play style. I think the direction of traffic in rugby globally is that teams with flamboyant, open running attacks are beginning to have more success than teams that play solid fundamental, territorial rugby. For example, Lions, Connacht, NZ teams. This is possibly an intentional consequence of rule changes over the years that appear geared to making the "product" more attractive / entertaining.
I'd imagine selecting non-Lions and playing a completely non-Lion gameplan would bring more short term success than what SA are currently doing. However, I think it's debatable if that is in the best medium to long term interests of the Boks. Plus, if you are going to experiment, the time to do that is with a new coach. Fans will be even less tolerant of starting to experiment (and the resulting inconsistency) if a coach already has a dozen games under his belt.
