On Rugby:Perceived wisdom has it that "experimenting" or "rotating" squads is not as conducive to winning as having a settled side. Yet, while the Six Nations' table is admittedly still in its formative stages, the two squads which have rotated the most thus far lead the way with two wins apiece.
Having rather daringly, if cleverly, opted for 13 Ospreys in his first selection against England, Wales coach Warren Gatland surprised many by making three changes for the win over Scotland, and a further six changes for Saturday's game at home to Italy. Nothing raised eyebrows more than the decision to promote the experienced Llanelli pair of Dwayne Peel and Stephen Jones and move Mike Phillips and James Hook to the bench.
There is still deep suspicion of rotational selection policies, and were Wales to come unstuck against Italy no doubt this will be the first stick to beat Gatland over the head with. Mr Tinkerman. However, as one Irish player confided: "That's clever. It keeps the squad fresh and motivated."
Only time will tell whether Gatland's way is the best way, and besides, as Eddie O'Sullivan is wont to say, this is not an exact science.
But does it necessarily follow that rotating players militates against winning? After all, in an era when use of replacements has never been more pronounced, the need for 22 players to seamlessly fit into playing patterns has never been more acute. Wales exchanged their halves with half an hour to go against Scotland, and can always do so again this Saturday.
Gatland sees benefits in Hook watching and learning from the bench, and cited the Ronan O'Gara-David Humphreys rivalry from his time as Irish coach as an example. "O'Gara learnt from Humphreys by watching him play and sitting on the sidelines. Sometimes that experience can be extremely beneficial," said Gatland.
"A problem I had with Humphreys and O'Gara was that the media in Ireland built it up into an either-or, which was not fair on them and did not reflect how it was for me. When you have guys like that, you can use them both, as we did with our two outhalves last Saturday (against Scotland)."
Indeed, in the media rush to hail a new kid on the block, we are perhaps too keen in encouraging coaches to ditch the older player who had been in situ. It's partly out of restlessness, a boredom thing. But why jettison or make little use of a player with the experience of a Humphreys or Jones?
True enough, having granted O'Gara his debut against Scotland eight years ago, well though the young newcomer played, Gatland brought Humphreys on in the 51st minute to steer Ireland to a 44-22 win with a 14-point haul. He did it again in the 62nd minute in Paris when Humphreys kicked eight points, including the winning penalty.
Thereafter, in the remaining 14 games of his reign, Gatland started O'Gara eight times and Humphreys six, while one replaced the other in eight games. Both were very much part of the scene.
O'Sullivan first went with Humphreys, before alternating between the two for extended runs. Yet the punditry wisdom in Ireland was that O'Gara suffered for not having a steady run in the number 10 jersey and whenever he was replaced by Humphreys. Ultimately that thinking won out, and the jersey was pretty much the younger man's from the 2003 World Cup on.
Humphreys was in the 22 for the next 25 matches, but started only four of them, the autumn games at home to the US and Romania, and the two Tests in Japan in 2005.
In his last three Six Nations' tournaments, four of Humphreys' five appearances off the bench amounted to eight minutes, give or take a few seconds. Mid-way through the 2006 Six Nations, having not seen a single minute, Humphreys resolved to retire from Test rugby. Who knows, had Ireland made more use of him in those three years he may well have been an invaluable back-up to O'Gara at the recent World Cup.
Even if you also accept that the remarkably consistent Girvan Dempsey is more worthy of the number 15 jersey, might Ireland also have made more use of Geordan Murphy in the last few years, as O'Sullivan did in the 2006 autumn series, when Dempsey and Murphy started at fullback, in turn, for the wins over South Africa and Australia?
Murphy had been the first choice fullback in the Six Nations of 2003, and the Triple Crown campaigns of '05 and '06. But since the win over the Wallabies in November '06 - when he and Denis Hickie scored the tries - he has started in seven of Ireland's 16 Tests. Only three, though, were in his more favoured and effective fullback role.
The enigma wrapped in a riddle that is Murphy was exercising the mind, yet again, of Stuart Barnes during his commentary on Sunday of London Irish v Leicester - when the boot of Eoghan Hickey propelled Irish to victory. Barnes deduced that Murphy is "a great player" in a Leicester environment, where his abilities are given full rein, but has become merely "a good player" with Ireland.
The argument for making more use of Murphy is arguably greater now given the reduced threat in midfield and on the wing following the loss to retirement of Hickie's exceptional pace and finishing (liable to become even more appreciated in years to come). Where else can the Irish backline create openings? You think of Murphy hitting the line, putting players into space and running those trailers as O'Driscoll looks to offload.
Alas, that said, there have been too many missed tackles over the last year or so and, given his treatment, it's understandable that his confidence isn't the same with Ireland. Thus it will be no surprise if Shane Horgan returns at Murphy's expense when the team is announced today. Even so, you can't help but think that an exceptional talent is not being fully utilised.
The club game has already shown us that "rotating" players - as opposed to "dropping" them - is the way to go. Maybe, as a means of freshening things up and maximising the talents at one's disposal, it is increasingly true of Test rugby as well.
Maybe it's time to ditch perceived wisdom.
