Yes I've made assumptions on the gameplan from the coach's side but my reasoning is simple enough to understand, we know EJ is a finnicky 10, and that his recent run of form has a lot to do with the Lions and their style of running the ball etc. When the idea to focus on tactical kicking against Aus was proposed, surely they should've realised EJ might not be ready to sit back in the pocket and run the game with his boot after his few shakey performances, at least not as well as how he has been playing when the boks were a bit more direct on attack and retaining ball.

My point is, they could've added in someone in the backline to aid him with the tactical game, or they could've played a 10 more suited to tactical rugby otherwise they could've considered just playing the way they played him against the French or the Argentinians. It seems to me they chose the latter option in the second half to a degree, once they realised EJ could not live up to the task and opportunity arose for line breaks at the base etc.

I said he had a good game defensively and with ball in hand, he was woeful with the boot and I think it's hilarious he was playing a tactical game on top of his bad form, he could've won us the game had he not missed posts and touch but, I think we also would've won the game despite his errors if we played with some ball in hand from the start, it's a tough one because imo we had no viable 10 to replace him coming into this game (looking back AC wouldn't have been  justified dropping EJ or playing Pollard so soon, but then again I assumed a ball in hand approach was the order of the day).

My question to you [USER=40658]@TRF_heineken[/USER] is if not Elton than who? For both this game and the next? and do you think he can execute a territorial/tactical game? We have to play NZ next week and I reckon if EJ plays this same style of rugga, with the same gameplan, we will have damaged our chances before the whistle blows like this game, perhaps not, but if the coaching staff insist on a constant territorial/tactical kicking game against the ABs, imo, Elton is not the man for the job, but who is then?

I'm saying if Elton plays against the Kiwis it should be where he is stronger, they can still play him if they give the tactical job to someone more accurate with the boot. Criticizing Elton for his bad kicking and then expect him to change to a "territorial/tactical" flyhalf for the ABs seems like madness to me, I don't have faith he will be able to handle a Kiwi aerial onslaught if he has a tactical directive hanging over his head, and it'll only be worse if our back 3 don't shape up

Perhaps it's simply that you guys didn't see this game as a failed attempt to play a territory/tactical kicking game in which case it makes a lot of sense that you're focusing on Elton's mistakes rather than a failure of game plan which is fair enough but I think the evidence speaks for itself.

I just fear we will get sucked back into this idea that you can't run your own ball against the top teams and that we're going to forget the work everyone is putting into developing a solid ball in hand game. I don't think it too absurd to question whether the coach had a lapse of faith, considering how it has hurt the boks in the past (choosing "experienced" players that are not on form or not allowing offloads as much, or ignoring the fact that constant kicking helps rounded opposition more than your own team if you cannot execute)