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?
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.
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.
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.
kelefua
Guest
Rugby needs a World Cup to compete with other global sports. I can understand the frustration of many fans drawing conclusions that their national teams are too focussed on winning Bill.. ordinary results can do this. Fortunately for me im a AB fan so my team just keeps on rolling so to speak. But i dont think other teams devalue tests in between partucularly the coach and players themselves. Sure systems may dictate rotational trial teams for lesser opposition but does anyone really believe these guys dont care much if they win or not? Bokkes & Wallaby fans in particular seem to harshly critique their team selections and systems. This is a good thing as it places pressure on their unions to produce results. I'm sure most understand there can be no harder judge of the ABs than their own fans.. one loss and its "burn them at the stakes stuff" ;) This is why these 3 countries are 1, 2 and 3 in the universe (until the Vulcans enter the frame) As the saying goes play every game as if its your last.
Rowdy
Guest
For goodness sake, Pot, don't start rocking the comfy boat of NH spitefulness vs SH all-round virtue and 'good of the game'! nick - they're also called 'Tests' up here, you'll be astonished to learn. I do have a concern that worldwide, coaches are seeing the RWC as the be-all and end-all and every game in between as just a trial for the real thing. It seems to be limited to RU at the moment, although England cricket reporters over the past few years seem to think that everything is a prep for the next Ashes series which is boring and immensely disrespectful - but I don't think that, seeing the passion of our players in the 6Ns, that the players feel the same way - no such thing as a friendly outside of football..
Jerry
Guest
There's no conspiracy BUT the seeding structure is still pretty stupid.
Wal
Roar Guru
Great Point OJ, The winner of the RWC isn't always the best team in the world but should at least be ONE of the best France 2011 were not that until the final. England 2007 would be another one, that if they won would have been galling So by good fortune all the winners so far have been deserving if not consistently the best side in the world at the time.
Wal
Roar Guru
Case and point Birdy some of the Ba Ba's teams have been incredible on paper and very ordinary on the field.
Jerry
Guest
"if I did I’d point to the fact that England were winning very comfortably at Twickenham before taking their foot of the gas and allowing the ABs back into the game" You could point out that 'fact' but as it's not anything that could possibly be proven or disproven and is actually a very subjective opinion, it'd be completely pointless & irrelevant.
Kuruki
Roar Guru
Hail Henry!!!!
Armand van Zyl
Roar Guru
You guys over there are very persuasive...
Birdy
Guest
I'd suggest both you and 'Marto' are/were wrong. The Lions provide the best players from the three 'home' nations plus Ireland every four years, but they're not necessarily the best 'team'. You can't throw four different sets of players together on 3-4 weeks preparation and expect them to play like an established international squad. That's the trade-off of Lions tours. The SH sees the best players from 4 NH countries, but that team is handicapped by an inability to fully get systems and combinations established. For an example, if such a game was possible, which obviously it isn't, I'd bet that a combined team of ABs, Boks and Wallabies, given only 3-4 weeks preparation, would likely be beaten by, certainly the regular ABs and Boks teams, and possibly even by the Wallabies. With the Lions, there is also always an unwritten rule that all the countries are represented in the squad and preferably the match day squad (although Scotland are putting a bit of a strain on this lately).
Wardad
Guest
In the Ads for the LIons tour last year Marto was droning on how the Lions were supposedly the "greatest rugby team of all time " Given that they have won only one series against NZ and their winning percentage vs the ABS is worse than England [10%] I would say more like the most over rated team ever rather than the pinnacle of rugby. Big money spinner though it is actual results arent that great.
Birdy
Guest
Not sure I have to spin a played 2 won 2 record, but if I did I'd point to the fact that England were winning very comfortably at Twickenham before taking their foot of the gas and allowing the ABs back into the game; and won a slug fest in not great conditions in Wellington when at one stage they were reduced to 13 players by some 'interesting' Aussie refereeing. The main point, though, is that just as Kiwis rightly roll their eyes when other fans celebrate 'running them close' so implicitly denying that that England team was a 'great' side, when their record is blindingly obvious, makes you look like those people who desperately try and deny how good the ABs are now.
Jerry
Guest
I don't think the slight difference in margins adequately shows the difference in those results. In the Eden Park match the AB's got a lot of 50/50 calls and kickable penalties most times they got within range. The Wallabies were actually far more dominant, the only points the AB's managed was a breakaway individual try to Mehrts, they were shut down for most of the match.
soapit
Guest
and we gave them a slightly bigger touch up in sydney a month later
Firstxv
Guest
Didnt say they werent a good side, but in terms of the AB's, the greatest side ever to come out of the NH beat the AB's by one, and two points. No matter which way you spin it...that is the reality.
Rugby Tragic
Guest
Psssst Armand ... OB made that all up ... *S*
Johnno
Guest
99 AB'S smashed the wallabies at Eden Park that year.
Derm
Roar Guru
Is that a bit like when the June tours are seen as warm-ups/cannon fodder/starters by fans for the real rugby main course tests in the 4N?
Derm
Roar Guru
I was beginning to think that all Roar posters had lost the plot before I read your post. Conspiracy theory in seeding is based on the top 4 forming the 4 pools. Easy solution for the SH, just don't finish in the top 4 in the month leading up to the draw and you'll be safe. All three of you will make it into the final. ;)
Old Bugger
Guest
Greetings my friend Come back to your land, to your people Welcome, welcome
Armand van Zyl
Roar Guru
I have no idea what that means... I'll have to ask my Mother next time I see her.