I think the comments are a bit unfair to be honest. Teams like the Cheetahs have been playing a pretty expansive game over the last few seasons. It's not like players such as Willie Le Roux and Cornal Hendricks have ust been playing chick and chase rugby. The Sharks have certainly been playing that way, but I don't think it is fair to tarnish all of South Africa with the same brush. It was pretty obvious last season that South Africa were willing to play more expansively..
It may not be extremely exciting to watch, but I'm happy for bish-bosh rugby to exist, it just has its limitations. I wouldn't begrudge a tennis player who won on the top of extremely fast serves and never got rally's going, just because it is more boring to watch. South Africa were probably the best I've ever seen them in 2009, off not at all thrilling rugby. I think its just a matter of finding out what works and hitting a balance. South Africa certainly have the players to play an exciting and expansive game and win, but I'm not too sure HM would be the coach best suited to implement it. I doubt South Africa are going to throw the baby out with the bathwater, as their pack is probably the most physical in world rugby.
I have to agree with you Nick. Especially the part about limitations. We also have to take the criticism from where it comes from. Nick Mallett is starting to make a reputation of slanting the rugby styles employed by SA teams, when they lose, yet praise them when they win.
Also, I think he's missing the progression made by the teams the last few years. Teams like the Lions and Bulls, who used to be the front runners for 10-man rugby aren't even mentioned in that article. The Stormers and Cheetahs always had a bit of flair in their playing style, yet it didn't always bring them the desired result.
I also think that Mallett has to look at the players. The Sharks used Frans Steyn as fly half for most of the year. Most of us agree that he shouldn't be a fly half and be rather used as a centre because of his lack of creativity. Lambie was injured for a long period, but when he played (apart from the final) the Sharks were fluent and scored great tries.
Now how about we look at the First game againt Wales and the only game against Scotland during the June internationals. Mallett was a pundit for Supersport during all those matches and during Half Time and after Full Time, I watched him praising the Boks for expanding their horizons, using more creative ways of scoring and giving a guy like Pollard and Le Roux the chance to show their brilliance. Oh, but that won't be mentioned in this article, because that would contradict everything that Mallett has been saying...
As for the Sharks game against the Crusaders, yes, they were poor. Actually they were S.H.I.T!! So what did Mallett expect would happen? The only 2 victories by SA teams against Canterbury/Crusaders was earlier this year by the Sharks and then back in 1996 when Northern Transvaal (now the Bulls) won. That is a terrible statistic. The Sharks didn't have the luxury of being in NZ for a long period, and was in SA for only about 5 days. They brought in Lambie for his first start after injury. There were just way too many signs that Jake was going to throw in the kitchen sink and see what happens. And it blew up in their faces.
