Selecting Players who will be around for 2015-is it the right thing?

Now, recently, a lot has been said about building a team for the next world cup, whether it be Gatland publicly saying it, or it being in everybody's minds, see Wilko's retirement and just generally what critics have been saying. Now one thing that I enjoy about rugby is the fact that every year the international sides have a serious competition, whether it be Six Nations or whatever the new Tri Nations is called (sorry can't remember the name:P). So it seems to me that coaches and everyone in general are focusing too much on the World Cup. Take the example of Stephen Jones, from what it seems, it looks improbable that Gatland will select him for the six nations. For me however, this seems wrong (obviously if he is in form, if not then dont take him). whilst one of the criticisms is that older players prevent the development of younger players the bench in rugby plays an important role, so for every position, there needs to be back up. I want to see the best squad/team possible out there for the 6 nations because I want wales to win it. Obviously you want your team to be looking towards the future and looking at the younger players coming through. Anyhow, those are my thoughts,most of you will probably disagree saying that winning the World Cup is soo much more important than anything else.. I respect Shane's decision to retire for example, he won't be getting any better and wan'ts to leave on a high (relative), but for example, he would still be starting this 6 nations if Gatland picked the best team regardless of whether available at the next WC.

Oh and i have read people posting that you can't take players to a world cup on just one year of international rugby (eg YOungs) because they can't cope, that is utter rubbish, look at the welsh side please, that is just down to the players.

Oh and i have read people posting that you can't take players to a world cup on just one year of international rugby (eg Youngs) because they can't cope

Couldn't cope or wasn't properly fit? Richard Cockerill was less than enthused about the shape in which Ben Youngs returned from the RWC. He still saved England against Argentina as well.

I think a winning team is always easier to bring new players into and adapt. The confidence is high and mental focus is there. After that it is down to fine tuning. Trying to do the same with a losing team is a lot harder. I think it's more important to get that winning mentality first and then build from there. Four years is a long time in rugby and it is impossible to predict who will be going to the next RWC. Four years ago most England fans would have put good money on Matt Tait and Shane Geraghty being at this RWC for England.

The longevity of rugby is very difficult to predict hence why a 3 year deal is considered a long one for a rugby player.

I still think its all about balance and whilst Gatland is bringing on boys who will (injuries prmitting) be pretty experienced by 2015 you can't IMO just throw out all the ones who are not going to be there.

If that was the case then you most probably looking at a 6 Nations squad in February minus:

Jenkins, Rees, A Jones, R Jones, Phillips, S Jones, Byrne.

Now ok I know some of them possibly might not be involved anway but thats a lot of experience to just throw away because they won't be around to play in 2015.

Here's my problem with the 2015 RWC thing: I want to win the 6 Nations in 2012.
And 2013. And 2104. And beyond.

I think there is a point to developing a small number of select players for the long haul. But, in general, if players are good enough to force their way into a nation's 6N, June or November International squad, then they should be good enough to represent thier country in a World Cup. For example, the same England players who were good enough to defeat France in the 2011 6 Nations, should have good enough toi defeat France in the RWC. On the other hand, I also believe it is equally bad to rush young players up to the top level as it is to keep players past their best. It is a tough balance.

You can´t just toss out the old and bring in the new. BOD is injured but hopefully he recovers well and I imagine he´ll still have a role to play and rightfully so. You need to have a long-term goal in mind for sure but by 2014 you should have a regular side more or less that plays games consecutively forging strong combinations. But until then you´ve got a lot of leeway to build your side around experienced players and bring in the new talent. Get rid of that experience too soon and the young players don´t have wise heads around them to steady their nerves and you lose shape and tend to be rash in your selections. Look at England. How many players in the backs alone have played for England and in different positions. Just as combinations seemed to be settling down and the results started going their way, the RWC came along too soon.

[quote="doctor_grey"]Here's my problem with the 2015 RWC thing: I want to win the 6 Nations in 2012.
And 2013. And 2104. And beyond.

exactly my point. and since this RWC got a feeling that coaches and critics giving too much emphasis on the next RWC, maybe that is just to get good press or smthn

and formerly known as Sam, about Youngs it was just something I read on this forum, not so much a personal opinion.

Just spent 10 minutes writing my thoughts on this only to get a 'Gateway Error' when I pushed post.

So my new (short) answer is no!
(I may revisit the topic later though)

I think teams do look a little ahead to the world cup when picking and building teams....however not as much as people think....

I also think older players shouldnt just be thrown out of teams because they "wont make" the next WC...as we have 6n's games to be fought for...

Nick Easter probably wont make the next WC...but i wouldnt throw him out now and put a young kid in because they "might" make the next WC. Easter will be solid for a season or two...until the young pretenders can take the shirt off him and this allows us to still challenge for the 6n's whilst rebuilding...

After a Rugby World Cup most teams have players that are retiring and players have to be replaced.But to just chuck some one in with any experience to a national team (mathew taite) when andy robinson was incharge and not nurture them could be a disaster for the team and the player.

Players need to given a chance but to get rid of the most experence players just because they will not make the next Rugby World Cup is plain crazy.

All team coaches will be looking to wards the next game(6ns) get that out of the way, see what the team is like (injuries) and build for the next game. summer tours.

B91212 it's not just you - I've been getting it all day - though luckily only lost 1 post

Smirnoffpriest wrote:B91212 it's not just you - I've been getting it all day - though luckily only lost 1 post

Lost another post since (not on this thread), this time the message was about a missing URL something or other when I hit post. Have mice gotten into the 606v2 server?

I think that is Stupid stuff.
I'm confident that McCaw, Carter, Jane, Nonu, Weepu, Hore, Mealamu, Woodcock and probably one or two others wont be around in 2015 BUT I'm sure they'll be in the squad next year. Still got teams to bet now and not worry about 4 years later.

Some of these guys may well be around. Some players can play past 34 and until they are nearly 40 at the top level. But baring in mind some of the injuries these players have over come in their careers, retirement is a must.

I have a problem with coaches concerning them with an event 4 years away. That is exactly what SA have been doing with PDV, he decided to keep a squad tgether for four more years which should not have happened.

The now is as important as the future. Exposure to new players should happen every year to establish the best available players in a country.

There are roughly 50 tests played during a four year cycle, of which the RWc is only 4-7 matches depending on the success you have at the world cup. You can't sacrafice 43 tests, just in the hope of winning the RWC.

I am of the opinion i would rather never win the RWC again if it means that we can have a success of 75% wins on a year to year basis.

Looking back at England's success under SCW, the team that eventually won in 03 started to take shape as early as 98, but was still being tinkered with up to a few months before the tournament - I'm pretty sure Steve Thompson for one had less than ten caps at the start of the RWC 03, and I'm failry sure Tindall and Lewsey had only been in and around the squad for 18 months.

Obviously the RWC cycle does play a role in when players retire, and this forces some selection decisions, but it isn't necessary to bin half of the team and start again - far better to build on solid foundations and if necessary make the necessary changes on an as and when basis (e.g. for England, Easter won't make the next RWC, but at the moment is a good pick because he's a good enough player with experience and some leadership qualities in what is otherwise likely to be a fairly young and inexperienced pack: COle and Hartley with about 20 caps each being the next most experienced guls likely to be picked).

Or 85% success and a World Cup as well. That´s what Henry achieved Biltong!

Despite all the best preparation and long-term planning, injuries can hamper those meticulous planning. So you need to strike a balance between having a fairly stable squad with solid combinations and using enough players to cover for injuries. NZ went down to their fourth flyhalf. You can´t plan for that amount of bad luck. But it´s a difficult balance giving enough game time to other players and getting your A squad match-fit and gelling nicely. Any team though solely concentrating on a four year cycle is frankly not good enough to win matches all the time. Friendlies don´t exist in rugby. Matches that fall outside of major tournaments are still chances to get one up on your opposition.

kiakahaaotearoa wrote:Or 85% success and a World Cup as well. That´s what Henry achieved Biltong!

Despite all the best preparation and long-term planning, injuries can hamper those meticulous planning. So you need to strike a balance between having a fairly stable squad with solid combinations and using enough players to cover for injuries. NZ went down to their fourth flyhalf. You can´t plan for that amount of bad luck. But it´s a difficult balance giving enough game time to other players and getting your A squad match-fit and gelling nicely. Any team though solely concentrating on a four year cycle is frankly not good enough to win matches all the time. Friendlies don´t exist in rugby. Matches that fall outside of major tournaments are still chances to get one up on your opposition.

Kia it was your time. for the past 24 years you have consistently been the best performing team every year. But there are many reasons for this.

Other countries such as ourselves and england have poor administrators, we also have the political angle and nepotism etc.

Most people in SA rugby from schools all the way to SARU don't do what is best for rugby in general, it is either power struggles or politics that influence our game.

The fact is We have a culture whereby coahes guarantee themselves a position for four years by having cemented this mentality of " judge me at the world cup."

We can be so much better than we are, we should challenge New Zealand for the top spot allways, not just when a coach gets it right for a season. The first step is to appoint the right coach and have him focus to win every game.

I would not even consider the 2015 WC until the summer tours of 2014. Before that pick the best team...simple.

Definitely agree with you there mate. Hopefully you get a coach your team deserves. The Springboks are the team with the proudest history against the ABs and obviously because of that get the most respect from me. Australia and France are next with England next. No coincidence that those are the teams that have beaten NZ the most.

It´s unfair not only for England and SA to be in the administrative mess they find themselves in. World rugby needs the top of world rugby to have a handful of teams competing for the top spot. How great it´d be to have the normal SH 3 powerhouse teams finding it even more difficult against Wales, Ireland, England and teams like Argentina.

Geoff998
Some truth in your comment - the only proviso would be if you are picking between 2 players of similar level, go for the one more likely to be important by the time of the next RWC.

Kia raises a good point about the best laid plans being scuppered by injury, - it is the nature of the game that some players will fall by the wayside because of injuries either limiting their development or shortening careers. Take as an example the England 03 front row, who were all of an age that should have seen them available for 07, yet in that 4 year period 3 had been forced out of the game with injury and VIckery had been surgically rebuilt (and he's retired now you know).