There are a lot of factors that go into selecting a team and they are not always empirical or scientifically based.One of the first considerations to go through my mind after a match is picking the team for next week.

Obviously, the approach of choosing the notional team straight after a game is fraught with danger as the emotional roller-coaster that surrounds winning and losing could have half the team being changed after a poor result and none following a win.

At the Reds, selection is something we devote an enormous amount of time to in the days that follow a game. The fact that it enters your thought process straight after a match highlights the importance of getting it right.

There is a lot to consider when choosing your side; along with the team’s tactics for the week, all have a heavy influence. But, there is more to it than that and as a coach you find yourself asking many questions.

Can, and has, this player answered the call before; can he outperform his opponent; and does he know what it takes to win?

These are the types of attitudinal elements that need to be considered and you need to have some answers before you commit.

However, one of the biggest elements that is often overlooked is how each individual fits into the specific weekly game plan. Some teams prefer to play the same team each week, but the importance of ensuring the tactics you devised are good enough to negate your opponent and enhance your opportunities can’t be overstated enough.

For example, if you are playing a team with a good lineout and likes to maul, then it would be silly to give them that opportunity – you don’t kick the ball out. If a team thrives on counter-attack then don’t kick the ball to them, instead kick it 10 rows into the grandstand and make them win the ball before they get to use it.

Sounds simple enough but for me the real enjoyment in coaching is to create a winning strategy and then get the players to embrace and trust in the plan before taking on the responsibility of executing it on the field.

Once you have determined your approach then you need to back it up with players who can understand the plan, who can execute the detail under pressure and who have skills that will ensure it happens.

So, when you are picking players you need to have one eye on how you are going to get the ball, how you are going to use it and then obviously how you are going to retain it. The public enjoys the notion of “horses for courses” as a catch-all phrase but that is perhaps a bit simplistic and does not give the importance of the game plan enough credit.

At the Reds we have become accustomed to dramatically changing our game plan depending on the circumstances and opponent, while employing a new set of tactics. Some argue this leads to confusion but a 72 per cent winning rate over the past three or so seasons means it can’t all be bad.

Naturally, over time the game-plan elements become familiar so it’s possible to use and park different approaches for different teams while keeping an element of surprise week to week. There is nothing better than a rival not quite sure what is going to happen next.

Uncertainty is a most powerful tool, and if you can employ it against your opponent then brilliant. Use it against yourself and then it can be your undoing.

I have been amazed at how many teams can function with players not knowing if they are in or out of a team as late as two days before a match. I still recall one rugby league team not finalising their line-up until the day of the game.

Anyone can be good at writing down a list of good players. Some can even articulate why they are good players and what they might bring to the table. The real challenge is to take all of that then work out whether their abilities are going to help or hinder your tactical approach to winning – the ultimate task set for the group.

Picking players is the easy part, getting them to collectively perform is the challenge.