Well, dust settling, thoughts getting less black, so lets look back at a few things that have led to this latest RWC debacle.

First up, did the rotation work, and did the rest and recreation work (well, the recovery and reconditioning period thingy, whatever it was bloody called - the bit when the All Blacks were rebuilt - bigger, stronger, faster), that is the question.  The obvious answer is, well, no.  In fact, the an emphatic no, as the best prepared All Black RWC squad ever, turned into the worst RWC result ever, a quarter final exit.  Shades of the Lions in 2005, but I digress...

However, I want to look a little beyond the bleedingly obvious, and see what good and bad, if any, there is in all these R's that have come to plague our rugby language - a pity these R's don't include RUCKING, a glorious lost art, but that is another story altogether.

Te refute that bleedingly obvious answer, that none of the above worked, is mainly another question, unanswerable, "Well, would anything have changed if we had not R&R&R's??  Answer to that one, no bloody idea, as we did R&R, and we we got what we got. 

Personally, I don't think it really had much bearing on the result - had we done the normal thing as in the last four RWC defeats, I expect we might have got the same result, who knows - that's the great thing about sport, it's a contest, and you have no idea who is going to win when the final whistle is blown - all previous matches and preparation count for squat.  It's the next 80 that count, and Les Frogs were better in that 80 than we were.  And I will not mention that referee, as if we were good enough, we would have won, despite that inept scum sucking little bastard (who apparently is one of the better refs in the Pom domestic competition, but as we all saw, not one of the better test referees), but I digress.

R&R&R, then, I'll ask again, did it work?

Lets look at the rotation.  For starters, it pretty much has to be done.  Gone are the good old days of touring, when you can check out the form of new All Blacks in lesser games against the likes of Western Province, or Queensland or Toulouse.  Nope, now-a-days you have to test out the new fellas in test matches, which means giving away caps, and resting (or rotating) the genuine test players.

So I think fair enough on the rotation, but it needs to be tweaked a little.  There is no way in the world that rotation should be used in probably the last year before the RWC.  This Tri series, we should have settled on the top XV, and kept trotting them out.  If some players form slipped, than bring in the next man and give him a go.  Just like it used to happen in the pre rotation days.  You played until you were out of form, and then dropped.  Hell, at the very least the top XV should have been trotted out every week of the RWC, tweaked for injuries, and little else.

True though, the depth does have to be developed, but not at the expense of combinations.  And there were no combinations getting developed, as each week there would be a different 10, 12, 13 out there.  It would be a lot easier to bring in someone new to play centre in a vital test match if the other 14 players had been together, playing together for the previous ten matches.  That makes it one small cog in a large machine.  But when you have to re mechanic an entire  midfield in the ten minutes before a test match (or so it seemed, despite all the planning), that is a major overhaul, it won't be up to speed in a few matches, let alone 80 minutes.

Decided then, Rotation is needed in the modern day, but not in the year previous to RWC, lets trot out the best XV, and get them knowing each others games inside out.  There is only so much you can do on the training field to build that match awareness.  As a wise man once said, and I paraphrase as I can't find the bloody quote, "The best way to get better at playing rugby is by playing rugby"...  Give the bastards time on the front line in test matches, and see them grow as a team.  Seemed to work in '87, when only 19 players fronted for the six matches.

What of injuries though, won't Rotation see less injuries?  Won't the Recovery and Reconditioning see less injuries?  Hmmm, lets ask Dan Carter this one, or Mils Muliiana, or Leon MacDonald, Kevin Mealamu...  They all had a workload so reduced that they at times didn't wear a rugby jersey in anger for weeks at a time, and R&R'd for the first half the the Super 14 and for all the NPC.  But they were still injured - overtraining?  Probably not. 

Strangely enough, I am sure that many of you have noticed it, that rugby is a contact sport, and no matter who much training and resting and recuperating and reconditioning you do, injuries do and will happen.  So why not let the buggers play NPC and Super 14 - get a little match hardened as opposed to training hardened, and then maybe the injuries won't come.  I still say that injury to Tana in 2003 was thanks to the All Blacks not having been playing NPC, and not being 'match aware', where in an uncontrolled environment you ahve 15 players ready to smack the shit out of you at any given moment.  No matter how much you train you can't replicate that.  True Spencer and he collided, but had they been playing week in and week out, I doubt it would have happened.  But I digress.

Again though, like the Rotation stuff, I think there is a place for the Recovery and Recuperation.  Not so wholesale though, for two reasons.  One, it screwed up the Super 14 no end, and also the NPC, jeez they were, and currently are, rubbish this year - certainly from a Kiwi point of view.  Let the boys get out there and play code, it is what they love to do after all.  However, if certain aspects need working on, or there are injuries that just won't quit, than by all means pull the player and get him right, but not 20 of them in one blow.  Hell, if there are two from one team, and it is feasible, do them one after another too, so public get their moneys worth and players get themselves right - a win win situation for all.

Bottom line, or next to bottom line, rotation good, it did give us extra depth, but also bad, as we kept rotating when we should have started getting the combinations battle hardened.  So next time arounf, just don't bloody over cook that part of proceedings.  Ditto the other R&R thing, rugby players need time on the field, pretty constant time in fact, so in the words of some move (Remember the Titans), "just let them play".  I am sure Jerry Collins would love that edict!

Soo, while R&R has not proved to be the magic formula to win a RWC, it still has its place, suitably adjusted, in the modern game.

At least until they bring back bloody tours and rucking...