Take your eye off a team for a day or two and you'll be liable to miss a major change in hierarchy–be it team captains, coaches or bench-warmers. Many observers were expecting much better results for our home grown talent this season, what with the introduction of the ELV's and all. But in top-flight rugby there's no such thing as a "blue chip" share.

Looking back to the start of the Super 14 season the Australian sides were super-confident of better performances this year. Supporters were certainly eager to believe this. "We're in the business of winning" exclaimed ARU boss John O'Neill. The poor performances of yesteryear were seen as a wonderful catalyst to make a much better go of it in 2008. Inspiring speeches were made, many backs were to be slapped and extra hard pre-season training to be endured.

No sooner had the season begun and there were changes being made left, right and centre. Now look, I am all for change when it's due and change is inevitable, but the playing around with lineups and captaincy's is all to reminiscent of my high school First XV. Have a bad performance one week and boom you're gone, banished to the 2nd's or even the 3rd's.

The Reds have had four captains in six weeks, yet their ability to lose matches is as scintillating as ever.

Changing out poor or slow performers makes your investors happy because it seems as though their money is hard at work. It also is on the face of it a quick and relatively painless band-aid solution to your skills problem. To the fans and more importantly to the players themselves it does put pressure on team continuity, which takes time to develop.

Which leads one to ask why teams bother with pre-season training? Isn't bonding, continuity and discipline developed during these times? Wouldn't it seem pertinent to iron out the problems before the season starts? This includes the coaching staff just as much as the players.

When a new coach is hired or headhunted, he is heralded as the answer to all the teams woes, and the credentials on his CV are championed to the press. It's interesting that precisely the same credentials were on the departing coaches resume when he was appointed, probably not that long ago.

Each time there is a sacking or a reshuffle, the team involved "is hopeful this change will bring a return to the glory days of [insert club]" or "the previous coach was really good but obviously we wanted to be in some finals".

Coaches especially are unshouldered with the responsibility of the teams success or failure. In times past, building of team culture and playing "style" would take years of wins and losses, good times and bad. Those experiences build character, and professionalism has put a stop to a good deal of that. Shareholders often want a return on their investment quickly so they can shift their money into another more profitable venture.

Profitable ventures in rugby are the teams that win and the coaches that lead them, not a team that loses but has a good work ethic and a coaching staff dedicated to the spirit of the game.

---