Editorial: New roles no substitute for fresh blood

Opinion

When any enterprise has a worse-than-expected year, the call goes out for fresh ideas and new vigour. There are two main avenues for achieving this. One is the metaphorical rearranging of the chairs, whereby senior managers are expected to be revitalised by the challenge of new roles. But on most occasions, the introduction of new blood is seen as the best answer. Not in the world of the All Blacks, however.

The 33-man squad about to leave for a six-match end-of-season tour of Japan and Europe is notable not so much for some odd selections as the startling rearrangement of the coaching triumvirate.

Four losses in nine tests this year created a powerful case for change. The 2011 World Cup is drawing uncomfortably close, and only the eternally optimistic could feel comfortable about the All Blacks' progress. The New Zealand Rugby Union can hardly be immune from such sentiment, and any review of the Tri-Nations championships and the earlier local international schedule would contain considerable criticism. Having reappointed Graham Henry, Steve Hansen and Wayne Smith earlier than was necessary, the union would have been exercising itself over ways to extract a better performance from them.

The trio, saying it is at their own behest, have come up with a formula. Henry will inherit Hansen's role as forward coach, including the troublesome area of the lineout, Smith will tackle Henry's defensive coaching role, and Hansen will take over Smith's attack portfolio. The reshuffle, they say, was initiated after consultation with a five-strong senior player group, including captain Richie McCaw, while the rugby union was kept abreast of the development.

The players, said Henry, were "excited" about the change. That may be so. When the same coaching staff has been in charge of a team for almost six years, a degree of staleness is inevitable - although the likes of Sir Alex Ferguson and Arsene Wenger seem able to combat it. The coaches, Henry said, shared the same excitement and, in his own case, there was some apprehension. It is many years since he was in charge of a forward pack. Likewise, the other coaches should feel nervous. They, after all, are also quitting what have come to be accepted as their main areas of expertise. Indeed, such was the trio's confidence that there was not even a call for outside help this year when securing lineout ball began to resemble a mission impossible.

Clearly, the switches are the result of much-needed self-assessment over the past few weeks. New blood in any substantial shape or form has, however, been resisted. Henry will take a more hands-on role and attach his name to the most problematic area of the All Black game. He becomes more answerable as a result. That, at least, is worthwhile. But if, as Hansen suggests, their coaching "blueprint" will not change, the whole exercise smacks of sterility. The idea is to introduce new ideas, not to stick to a plan that, this year, featured ineffectual forward play and limited attacking vision and verve.

The seeds for this reshuffle were sewn in mid-July when, without contestability, the rugby union reappointed Henry, Hansen and Smith to the end of 2011. Gone was much of the room for manoeuvre that would have existed if the decision had been delayed.

Now, with or without pressure from outside, the trio have been able to install their own solution to their team's flagging fortunes. It is not the response that would be adopted in such circumstances by most businesses or sporting teams. At worst, it will sponsor virtually no change. If so, it will bear the hallmarks of deckchairs on the Titanic.

At best, it could be a masterstroke. If so, it would be an exception to the rule.