The Roar
The Roar

Advertisement

The four-year cycle that undermines the Rugby World Cup

Roar Guru
23rd September, 2014
Advertisement
Sir Graham Henry - another example of New Zealand getting it right when it comes to coaching. AAP/NZN Image, David Williams
Roar Guru
23rd September, 2014
136
3121 Reads

I love the Rugby World Cup, it is a celebration of rugby – the opportunity to see 20 teams compete in a tournament where every game has relevance.

Sometimes I find myself watching a Test match outside of the World Cup and start losing interest simply because I have no interest in the outcome.

But not during the Rugby World Cup, because every match influences every pool. Points differentials matter, so even when Wales plays against Namibia I am interested.

But as much as I love the Rugby World Cup, I don’t like it. Doesn’t really make much sense, does it?

What I don’t like about the Rugby World Cup is the fact that most nations, most unions and most coaches are stuck in this four-year cycle where every decision they make is about the future.

I find it frustrating when a coach keeps selecting players who should be sipping tea on Test day, but instead they drag their tired old bodies around the ground for the sake of experience. I find it frustrating when I see youngsters with oodles of talent waiting for a fair shot that never seems to come.

What is even more frustrating is seeing players under-performing, but there simply because the coach does not have the gutspa to try someone obviously more talented – albeit inexperienced.

And the reason for all this frustration?

Advertisement

The four-year cycle. Coaches appointed on a four-year cycle and a performance clause are debilitated because they have 40 Test matches in which to develop a game plan, build a squad, negate injuries and still keep on performing.

The easy answer for them is to retain as many experienced players as possible while ignoring obvious talents as they cannot risk losing.

They are not keen on bringing wholesale changes to the game plan as it has been proven that teaching old dogs new tricks at Test level is simply too late. Adapting players skills when someone has been doing the same thing since age 10 at Test level is simply not done. Basic skills are taught at schoolboy level when we are sponges, eager to learn and adapt.

By the time we hit thirty, new skills become a challenge and the will to adapt and learn a thing of the past. So the four-year cycle limits coaches in almost every aspect or process necessary to build a better squad.

But what of the brave ones, you ask me? Well, them you will most often find in the unemployment line as they got fired due to a performance cause.

My suggestion?

Appoint a coach on an eight-year cycle, with obvious key performance indicators. It will force the administrators to be more actively involved in the planning stages and provides a much needed understanding of the challenges in building a world beating team.

Advertisement

This process can involve the processes of acquiring the necessary players, how they should be managed, centrally contracting the earmarked players and ensuring the protection of the players.

Aspects such as support issues, game pan, the development of a national blueprint of how the game must develop should be part of this process.

Set expectations for the first World Cup, have regular progress meetings and ensure the coach has the administrative support at all times to achieve his goals. It is also necessary to ensure continuation of processes, coaching and transfer of knowledge to the next coach.

In modern day rugby coaching teams consist of a number of potential candidates that can be earmarked as the successor, while being part of the coaching staff and building experience, learning methodologies and getting to know the players.

By the time the successor is appointed he will have been working on his own methodology and will be ready to take over to ensure a seamless transition.

This does not suggest that you should not believe you can’t win the World Cup in year four, belief to perform is a vital cog in any team, however the mind set of having an eight-year process removes the debilitating issues for the coach and his staff.

Much can be learnt from winning or failing in a World Cup, giving a coach a second bite at the cherry is not uncommon, it has happened before.

Advertisement

The logical way to build squad depth is to provide your coach with enough time to develop his game plan and experiment without the fear of failure, which very often becomes a mind-set shared by his players.

If the administration can buy into a methodical progressive plan for success and the coach and the players believe in these processes, success will be more certain than the haphazard approach taken by so many coaches of whom most have failed miserably due to time and performance constraints.

Granted the World Cup has been won by teams who had coaches for shorter periods of time. Kitch Christie only had six months, but why not improve the odds and take a more measured approach to achieving not only the World Cup dream, but to build better and more consistent teams?

I find the sacrifice and compromises taken by coaches simply to focus on World Cup success in the inter leading period unacceptable.

Think of how many opportunities are lost for young talented players because coaches are risk averse, consider the loss of knowledge that is not transferred from the exiting coach to the successor, think of the benefits of having an assistant coach walk into the head coaching position.

New Zealand has shown the way forward, if anyone suggested to me Steve Hansen will have a higher success rate than Graham Henry I would have laughed my backside off, partly because I couldn’t possibly believe someone could be more successful – but also partly because of envy.

Short term fixes do not win Rugby World Cups.

Advertisement
close