Building for the next RWC?

Bored ,so I am starting a new thread the opinions are mine alone so take that as read.A Coach is judged by his win/loss results . In the top 5 whether or not they deliver a RWC.By Top 5 I mean RWC winners/finalists not necssarily the BEST at a given time.Time is an important factor
in this debate.Bok supporters may argue 1987 and 1991 RWCs would have been there`s,certainly IF RWC s had occurred in 1990,1998,2006.The AllBlacks ,would probably have won in 1990 and 2006 ,Boks in 1998 purely on the performances of the relative sides.All sides go thru cycles the AllBlacks 1935-50,1970`s,1998,2009 for example.THE two mos t successful sides have for various reasons been in
in cline/decline relatively speaking against each other since at least 1928.Politics was involved in both cases but that i leave there,since then they have both waxed and waned since.Things change not always for the better a Coach in the Amateur era was one man,selection on the strength of a series of trial matches etc.Players on the losing side in a Trial match no matter how good missed out on tours.JB Smith[legend]1953-4,Guy Bowers 1960,1963-4,Kel Tremain 1972-3,but on the whole they worked.Very few players got thru the net but the odd one did to his embarassment.Problem then was if you did`ntplay for winning club your chances of a trial were poor.Today the Coach is part of a team,Manager,Defence/Attack Coaches,Forwards Coach,Backs Coach,Kicking Coach etc.In theory he picks the team,sets the game plan,etc in practice.There is in the background a board of Selectors, and a Director of Rugby or whatever the name is.THEN the Coach is told by the Blazers
who he can`t pick and the reasons.Drunk,Thug.wrong politics,not PC etc his social skills being more valued than his footballing ones.
The Coach has to find a balance,especially after a RWC with keeping or dumping players and bringing in new ones.Club/Franchise Rugby is a notoriously poor guide when some players seem to play within themselves but are different when pulling on there Countries Shirt.
Even the best Coaches get it wrong in a touring party it is difficult to dump players who are leading a revolt Lions 2003.Or Players who should`nt have been there Toeva in the Ai`s early in his Career,Wilkinson in 2005 never been the same since RWC 2003.PDV and the Boks revolt during his reign.After RWCs there is often a large egress of players especially in SH,post 2007 the All Blacks lost virtually a whole squad.
2011 every experienced Prop and 10 with the exception of the squad,and so on.Now the AllBlacks are relatively speaking at a disadvantage at the next RWC.OZ,The Boks,England,even France will have a lot of new faces.Many of the AllBlacks will be over 30,Hookers,DC,RM about 34-5,with current Sports Medicine most are capable of another RWC but should they?There is no shortage of young talent and many will go abroad for cash and gametime rather than wait.It makes sense for a new Head Coach to build a coachin g team from people he knows,and even players he knows.BUT they may not be THE best options which is where we come in because we know best don`t we?An AllBlack or Bok Coach has no leeway the Media in those countries are un for giving. The win is every thing methods don`t matter just results.

I think coahes who focus on building a winning squad for a specific date in time is missing the boat, how does one try to coincide having you best players ready to a world cup when you can't predict future injuries, upcoming law changes, loss in form etc.

Look at what Jake White and PDV did over the last 8 years, both had this concept of trying to outwit time, de Villiers failed and JW was lucky enough, but at what cost did they use this formula.

Both sacraficed test for the greater good, both relied on a host of unpredictable future events in the hope that they will win the cup.

When looking at PDV and his senior players, they refused to adapt to the new laws, they refused to adapt and get used to playing with ball more in hand.

The truth of the matter is if a coach played 12 matches per year and he selects his core squad plus a hand full of upcoming youngsters every year and use these newbes as impact subs on an astute basis, he will automatically have enough experienced fringe players around at any given time because he has developed a good squad.

This means he won't have to out guess future events, and by focusing on winning every match will be more successful, which will not only create a winning culture, but assist him in maintaining the mental ascendancy over traditional foes because he hasn't sacraficed test matches.

It is simple, building a squad is something that is a continuous motion, it shouldn't rise and build like a sinus wave, it must be a constant

For us we have the luxury of getting on with blooding new players straight after the World cup...win or lose.

SA and England made grave mistakes holding on to WCup winners too long and with SA are only now starting to make changes- same reasons as most teams- injury, cash cow and age...

I think a lot has to do with being flexible and adaptable. Player injuries, the cash cow and rule changes are the 3 main tings coaches don't have a lot of control over so being able to adapt, adjust etc in the best possible way to ensure winning is kept at an optimum level. This is something I think we do better than most but having a surplus of available talent certainly helps.

In the modern game rigorous constant analysis is a must. I read today that SBW believes he has been able to improve his overall game through video analysis of past performances and given the main problem with AB first ups is with getting combinations up and going quickly the 9, 10, 12 at the Chiefs will figure strongly against Ireland.

So...hard...to...read