The Springboks' World Cup aspirations ended as they began, with a two-point defeat. That is where the similarities end. One was a match against the minnows of Japan, the other a loss to a team that has lost only once every 17 matches since becoming world champions in 2011. The former was condemned as the lowest point in our rugby history, while the semifinal defeat has, in many circles, been hailed as a valiant effort.The loss to Japan triggered, to quote Heyneke Meyer, a "return to basics and Springbok rugby".The stats from the World Cup back this up. If I showed you a list of some indicators of game play from World Rugby's analysis department, South Africa would be easy to tell apart from the other three semifinalists. We averaged one ruck or maul every 12 seconds of possession, compared with their average of one every 15 seconds. That may not sound like much, but over the 20 minutes of possession in a match, it means we average 20 to 25 more rucks. That is how we have earned the label of "physical brutes" who bash the ball through the opposition (I saw at least three such descriptions from newspapers while in London recently).Kicking is another differentiator. We average a kick every 56 seconds of possession, while New Zealand, Australia and Argentina are at 1:24, 1:06 and 1:22, respectively.Ours is a game built on defence and territory.Ironically, one of the areas that New Zealand out-thought and outplayed us on Saturday was kicking and territory. They put dozens of kicks behind us, because our line-outs and kicking from hand were poor. Because our game plan involved winning the match with penalty kicks, we were both denied scoring chances and kept under pressure, particularly in the second half.The semifinal was won not only by execution in key moments, but also in adapting the strategy for the situation, and we were, to be blunt, out-thought before we were out-played.Our brand of rugby is also not well-loved. In his match report, Owen Slot of the Times of London wrote: "Only one team tried to play. [It was] a victory for the team who tried to play."But the Springboks aren't there to be loved, they are there to win .Still, might our probability of victory improve if we shed our conservative, defensive style? This past weekend, the Lions completed an unbeaten season of Currie Cup rugby, playing an expansive, adventurous brand of rugby that many have suggested points to an untapped Springbok potential.I'm not sure that's entirely true. The whole purpose of strategy is to maximise your strengths, minimise your weaknesses and exploit the flaws of your rivals.South Africa, for years, have done the "obvious", to a fault. Simply imposing the Lions' style into international rugby against the best in the world is not a solution, but a short cut to a hammering, because the requisite strengths to do it aren't there at the necessary level.But the Lions do suggest that our players have skill that is rarely explored.When every line-out is viewed as an opportunity to set a rolling maul, then back line players will appear bereft of creativity. Our tactical myopia limits the attainment of true potential, and we don't help ourselves by panicking every time we lose. It's always about "back to basics", and the result is that we never change.Perhaps this World Cup failure (and it is that, as much as we are proud of losing narrowly) will catalyse an exploration of our skill reserves. Bring on 2019...