There's something inherently Welsh about zeroing in on the negatives rather than the positives.
As a nation, we seem obsessed by what is wrong, rather than what is right. Perhaps Stuart Barnes picked that up during his time at Bassaleg High School.
Wales headed to South Africa with many expecting not just a whitewash, but a humiliation. Based on general consensus beforehand, only two parties seemed likely to benefit from such a result. The Pivac Out brigade and, quite possibly, the makers of BBC's Slammed looking for a nice starting point for a potential sequel.
That Wayne Pivac's side, months on from a first home defeat to Italy, returned from the world champions' backyard having not just avoided humiliation, but recorded a historic maiden victory over the Springboks in South Africa is worthy of plaudits. Unless you're Barnes, that is.
Writing for The Times, the former England fly-half was quick to pour scorn on the notion that Wales had really progressed from the side that won just one out of their five Six Nations matches.
"Wales have emerged from Lions-slaying, World Cup-winning South Africa with their honour restored," he wrote. "A first triumph in South Africa made the headlines but the reality is that Wales beat what was effectively a second/third-choice side, rather than a first or second-string 23. South Africa were not a semblance of their World Cup-winning team. There were, unfortunately, echoes of the Lions series. Bar some slick scores from Louis Rees-Zammit in the early stages of the first Test, Wales offered little ambition.
"Kieran Hardy, a clever scrum half, box kicked — and often brilliantly — for the time he was on the field. Wales took little to no risk in their rugby. If I criticise England for their conservatism over the years, it would be disingenuous to ignore the Welsh lack of ambition.
"It almost worked against a near full-strength South Africa in the first Test and Wales were in the game most of the deciding Test. If you believe the world champions were playing at 7/10 level, this was a successful series from a troubled Welsh perspective. However, if the Springboks looked like they functioned at nothing more than a clogged up 3/10, Wales may well have lost themselves even further in this falsest of dawns."
There are, of course, merits to what Barnes says. To his eternal credit, he is something of a rugby romantic in a world of pragmatism - wistfully longing for the days when defences could be broken down by a series of passes and offloads down a long and relatively deep line of backs.
Those days aren't what modern rugby is, though. And, as such, the idea that Wales 'offered little ambition' is quite wide of the mark.
Regardless of whether you think the Springboks were a 7/10 side or a 3/10 side - and pundits undervaluing South Africa's worth simply because of their style of play isn't a new thing by any means - you have to acknowledge what the world champions do well. In fact, what they do better than anyone else in rugby.
Ball in play time will be low, the aerial battle is where the game will be won and lost along with the collisions and set-pieces take precedence over building lengthy passages of play. Most in the game accept that as the way to play the Springboks - with one international recently explaining to WalesOnline in depth how to get around South Africa's aggressive defence within those parameters.
The fact that the non-negotiables remained, through, was key. You can break them down when you get the chance, as Wales did delightfully for Josh Adams' winning score in the second Test, but you have to win the kicking battle and generate territory before all that.
You can move their blitz around and manipulate it, as Wales did to good effect in the third Test with Nick Tompkins holding his position as a short option in midfield to turn South Africa's midfield inwards, while the floating presence of Josh Adams allowed Wales to spread it from edge to edge in order to stretch their defence. The usual response to play like this is calling it 'heads up' rugby, playing what you see, but the truth is it comes from analysis of the Boks' defence and work from the coaches in the week.
However, as promising as those passages were - in particular the work building up to Tommy Reffell's try - the reality is that the opportunity to create them are few and far between. South Africa's defence rarely give up the chances, their pack don't cede the ruck speed with their heavy collisions and good mix of breakdown and counter-rucking work and their kicking and set-piece proficiency means you don't exactly get the territory to do so that often.
Former Wales captain Sam Warburton has made the point during TV analysis several times that defences in modern rugby aren't just something to run at blindly. Often, the kicking game is the best policy of making metres and generating quickfire attacking opportunities.
The more romantically inclined, such as Barnes, are naturally positioned towards a more cavalier approach. Barnes has spoken in the past about culling the number of coaches and analysts in the game in order to apparently empower players.
Regardless of whether that far-fetched notion would actually work in practise, it's the antithesis of what people like Warburton preach. The former Wales captain is as polite a man as you might wish to meet, but you sense even he feels like he's banging his head against a brick wall when virtually every punditry appearance he makes coincides with an explanation on why you can't continuously play out of your 22 like it's a Barbarians match.
That's why the idea of Wales lacking ambition in South Africa is a nonsense, in my opinion. Ambition isn't just reserved for throwing the ball around for the sake of it.
Wales were ambitious in how they went about matching the Boks' physicality and downing them in an arm wrestle. They went there with a solid gameplan to win the series, one built on backing their defence and the other non-negotiables of downing the Springboks.
They should have won the first Test, lost the second Test and ultimately came up short in the final Test in Cape Town. But I don't believe it was a lack of ambition that did for them.
My fear is cavalier rugby probably would have seen them blitzed. Mere ambition means little when you're getting smashed in the collisions.
In boxing terms, Wales stayed in the fight, seeking to take the chances when they came in the 12th round. Better that than look to throw a flurry of haymakers and leave your chin wide open for the juggernaut to smash.
In that sense, perhaps Pivac has found more pragmatism after taking his bumps through the early parts of his reign, where Wales tried to be a little more cavalier in how they approached the game. Recreating the Scarlets' style of play just won't work at Test level, so perhaps Pivac's best bet is on efficiency rather than excitement.
Wales' scores in the final two Tests were nicely worked. They'll come away quietly pleased with how they created and finished those chances, but still acutely aware that the attack is still an area of the game where improvements are needed.
That's not for a lack of ambition, though.
Read next:
Wales' 50 young talents who could be the future of Welsh rugby as succession planning revealed
Sam Warburton reveals he considered quitting at 25 in wake of tragedy
New Zealand's Akira Ioane and Justin Marshall make contact after late-night confrontation goes viral
Wales facing 'falsest of dawns' in stark wake-up call after win in South Africa
