Henry could still keep job

Sunday News | Sunday, 14 October 2007

Graham Henry has been instructed by the NZRU not to resign as All Blacks coach as they attempt to buy time to save their preordained plans for the home assault on the World Cup in 2011.

It's an open secret the NZRU planned to give the head coaching job to Steve Hansen,  after the World Cup.

But those plans had been drawn up with a World Cup win in France in mind.

After last week's dismal loss to France in Cardiff, the NZRU's top brass chairman Jock Hobbs and CEO Chris Moller asked Henry not to resign.

It was in those discussions where it became apparent Henry was determined to stay in the job and right the wrongs of France in New Zealand in four years.

I understand Henry is still a favourite with "the suits" because of his pre-World Cup record and favourable work with sponsors.

But reappointing Henry would have consequences for All Blacks rugby.

It would see Robbie Deans, offered the Wallabies coaching job and if he took it on, the NZRU would have no one to blame but themselves.

Retaining Henry would be hard to sell to the New Zealand public.

On one hand they would have to convince the rugby nation to reinvest in Henry's failed policies while at the same time having to justify not selecting Deans.

It would verge on the criminal to snub Deans.

Unbelievably, NZRU staffers have been quoting website polls that have Henry leading Deans in the "preferred coach" category.

But two days after John Mitchell's side crashed out of the 2003 World Cup, TVNZ's Holmes Show ran a poll asking if Mitchell should be sacked. A resounding 82 percent said he should remain in the job.

There is a natural sympathy for the All Blacks from fans when they suffer disappointment.

And the NZRU is banking on that vibe to continue through to the release of an independent inquiry to be set up into what when wrong at the World Cup.

But the rugby nation already knows what went wrong. Henry had intervention on a mass scale his rotation and conditioning policies making sure of that but delivered the worst World Cup finish in history.

The inquiry is simply a delaying tactic nothing more, nothing less.

It's widely knows that CEO-in-waiting Steve "Teflon" Tew has a strained relationship with Deans. The pair worked together at the Crusaders and Deans' would challenge him regularly.

But who is given the All Blacks reins needs to be a rugby decision and not a political one. Deans is without a doubt the best man to be charged with winning the World Cup in 2011.

His coaching record speaks for itself four Super rugby titles. But it's intangibles like loyalty that should see him win the board's backing.

www.rugbyheaven.co.nz

The joke's on 'arrogant' ABs, says Davies

Sunday, 14 October 2007

Former Welsh and British Lions star Jonathan Davies says the All Blacks paid the price for their arrogance with an early exit from the rugby World Cup and that Wales do not need New Zealand coaches.

In his column in the Independent on Sunday, the former first five-eighths is highly critical of the All Blacks' and the team officials' attitude.

"There are two good jokes in circulation. Firstly, what do you call the seventh and eighth place in the 2007 World Cup? The answer: the Bledisloe Cup," he said.

"Joke No 2 -- where are the world's most under-achieving coaches? Answer: New Zealand. Where have the Welsh Rugby Union's top three officials gone looking for a new coach? Answer: New Zealand.

"... I suggest that now is hardly the best time to go worshipping at that particular shrine.

"What happened to New Zealand and Australia last weekend is still difficult to grasp, as was the arrogance they brought with them into the tournament. This applies to the All Blacks especially. They never used to be like that. Supremely confident, yes, but never arrogant.

"It applied to the coaching staff as well. They had the best 30 players in the world under their control and carefully regulated their preparations over the past year, at the expense of all other considerations. It is beyond belief that they got it so wrong."

Davies said coach Graham Henry's rotation policy didn't work and the reduced game time for players was a "big minus".

When it came to the crunch, they didn't have the game awareness or the mental toughness to impose their superiority and there were no excuses, he said.

"They had far more possession and territory than France but couldn't cope with the pressure. Much of what went wrong with both New Zealand and Australia can be traced back to their Super 14 competition, which has been held up over the past few years as the epitome of what rugby should be."

Davies said while the Super 14 was exciting to watch, it was far removed from the vital realities of what successful rugby was about.

He said "winning ugly" was a newish phrase in the game but every World Cup, bar the first one in 1987, was won ugly.

"The inaugural 1987 tournament was won pretty, and that was by New Zealand.

"That was, I believe, the finest rugby side ever to step on to a pitch. A team with Buck Shelford, Sean Fitzpatrick and Grant Fox, and they could win any way they liked. I was there with Wales and they stuck 50 points on us playing fancy stuff. But they were just as capable of playing tight and fierce. Whichever style they played, it was awesome.

"If you had said then that 20 years later they would still be in search of their second win, no one would have believed you. If you had forecast that in 2007 they would not make the semifinal, you would probably have been locked up." – NZPA

Poll's shock result: Henry should stay

Tuesday, 16 October 2007

Most rugby fans think Graham Henry should be retained as coach despite the All Blacks making an early exit from the World Cup, according to a survey conducted by UMR Research.

New Zealand posted their worst World Cup result when losing in the quarter-finals to France this month, leaving Henry's position tenuous at best as the New Zealand Rugby Union reviews the failed campaign.

Previous coaches John Hart, in 1999, and John Mitchell, in 2003, did not stay in the post after New Zealand's semifinal exits at World Cup tournaments.

UMR Research conducted the telephone survey of 750 New Zealanders aged 18 and over between last Thursday and Monday.

It said 61 percent considered Henry deserved to be reappointed, with 33 percent saying it was time to give someone else a ago.

Crusaders coach Robbie Deans was seen as the man most likely to be appointed should Henry lose the job, with 30 percent identifying Deans as their preference.

However, a majority of 56 percent said they were unsure who should replace Henry, while his assistants since 2004, Steve Hansen and Wayne Smith, gained the support of just 3 and 2 percent, respectively, of those surveyed.

In a head-to-head selection between Deans and Hansen, Deans won the support of 47 percent and Hansen 18 percent, with 35 percent unsure.

New Zealand's 18-20 loss to France in Cardiff was put down as one bad game by what otherwise was a champion team by 63 percent, compared to 27 percent who said it was a result of deep-seated weakness in the team.

UMR Research said when asked a similar question after New Zealand's demise at the semifinals stage of the 2003 World Cup, 38 percent blamed it on a deep-seated weakness in the team.

Responses to the survey came from 533 of the 750 people approached who said they were "very interested" or "fairly interested" in rugby. The survey had a margin for error of 4.2 percent. – NZPA

Laporte says ABs still 'best in world'

By MARC HINTON - RugbyHeaven | Tuesday, 16 October 2007

Do not adjust your screen, you are reading these words. France coach Bernard Laporte says New Zealand remain the best team in the world, despite the All Blacks' latest World Cup failure.

Laporte's reassurances of New Zealand's "true" position in the world game's pecking order will come as slim reassurance after his French side knocked the All Blacks out at the quarter-final stage of the current World Cup.

It was the New Zealand team's worst ever World Cup performance, and came as yet another thunderously disappointing conclusion to a four-year period where they had otherwise dominated the international game.

But it appears Laporte remains an admirer of Graham Henry's team, even if his Bleus were able to tip them up 20-18 in the Cardiff quarter-final, a result that shocked the watching rugby world.

Laporte, whose French side were eliminated in the weekend's semifinal by England and now face a bronze medal playoff against Argentina, feels no team can rival the New Zealanders when they're on top of their game.

"They have the power and the genius, something that no one else has," Laporte told reporters in Paris this week.

"They are the best team in the world. We beat them but if we had played them the next day and the following days, there was a great chance we would have lost.

"The All Blacks are the only team who can put 30 points on everybody else."

The French coach has been bagged by his home media for the conservative and defensive approach he took into the semifinal against England, won 14-9 by the defending champions.

But he used New Zealand's ultimate failure at the hands of his own side as a graphic example of the fact that it's defence, and not sparkling attack, that wins big matches at the World Cup.

"There have not been many great matches," he told reporters.

"Who has played any (attacking) rugby? The only ones are the All Blacks."

And look where it got them. A few empty words of assurance from a French coach. And not much else.

www.rugbyheaven.co.nz

Unbreakable French recall shades of '99

France's heartstopping defeat of the All Blacks is a result that does not bear rational explanation, at least not at this moment in time.

October 6, 2007 10:59 PM - blogs.guardian.co.uk/sport > Andy Bull

It isn't right that a man should have to write in this situation: I should be jumping up and down, returning the lunatic embraces of the French journalist sat next to me, screaming my vocal chords sore, sitting and staring and soaking this up, gasping for air and asking myself whether I've imagined everything I've just seen.

Because I've just sat through one of the most astonishing matches in the history of rugby. Really. I say that without a trace of hyperbole. By the time the Cup is finally won, this tournament will have had at least two finals because it is impossible to believe that any game could surpass this one for drama, intensity and passion. It was utterly startling.

So the best team in the world have once again been knocked out of the World Cup by the French. Of course there are shades of 1999, but this French team is a very different animal to its predecessor - this is the team that Bernard Laporte has been building for the last seven years (during which time they have won just one of their 11 games against the All Blacks).

So often castigated for the manner in which he had robbed them of their flair and sought to replace it with something more pragmatic, Laporte was totally vindicated in Cardiff this evening. The manner in which his team defended during the last five minutes was breath-stealing, it sucked the air out of a crowd of 71,000 people. Defending a two-point margin in the face of a relentless, churning All Black assault, you would think almost any team would buckle. France didn't. Ninety-nine was a triumph of irrepressible attack, this was a triumph of unbreakable defence.

Through the first half, New Zealand were undeniably superior, displaying a complete range of methods of attack. With a 13-point lead, there was surely only one direction the match was heading. Even now, with Raphael Ibanez giving a post-match interview on the big screen, the manner in which France came back doesn't seem credible.

New Zealand were superb, and the first half of the match was a lesson in how to dictate play. France's kicking game, a tactic they'd broadcast through the week looked deeply flawed. Both Lionel Beauxis and Jean-Baptiste Elissade had missed kicks at goal. The line-out was being dominated by the superb Ali Williams, who helped steal five French throws. France were simply not in the match.

So what the hell happened in their dressing room at half-time?

Certainly the penalty count was heavily against New Zealand, but they appeared to be coping with almost every situation the game presented. Luke McAllister, who had been the best back on the pitch by a distance in the first 40 minutes, was sin-binned for obstruction.

And again New Zealand responded by taking control of the match: they advanced down field and camped in the French 22. And then? Well, the French really started to play.

It was not the loose, broken dashing madness that characterised their victory in '99, it was something more controlled and clinical. A three-man overlap down the right nearly evaporated into nothing, the ball was tossed left and again held back. But the try came, and the scores were level.

Still New Zealand didn't tighten up: they regained the lead after Rodney So'oialo finished an irresistible series of drives.

And then came the crucial series of changes. France's bench had an astonishing array of talent on it, New Zealand's seemed rather impoverished by comparison. The introduction of Nick Evans, with the match boiling over into its most intense final minutes, seemed to exemplify that disparity.

I dipped my head and when I looked up Frederic Michalak was on the pitch, storming free down the left wing, and then setting up Yannick Jauzion with on off-load of startling spontaneous ability. France had the lead, and McAllister's missed conversion after So'oialo's try suddenly became the margin that would end New Zealand's World Cup. That in itself was a cruel twist of fate given his game-breaking performance in the first 40 minutes.

This was not the kind of result that bears rational explanation, at least not at this moment in time. New Zealand made 36 tackles out of 47; France made 178 out of 197; New Zealand had 72 per cent of possession.

In short it was a glorious nonsense of a result. It confounded everybody's expectations, as well as the bookies' odds, and it has left me absolutely flabbergasted.

Kiwis in denial

October 10th, 2007

Graham Henry believes the All Blacks are still the best team on the planet.

New Zealand have been ranked No 1 by the IRB for the last four years, only to choke against France in the World Cup quarter-finals last weekend. However, their coach insists the side that lifts the Webb Ellis Cup on 20 October won’t rule the world.

“We are the No 1 rugby side in the world and we have been for a long time and we still are,” Henry said after arriving back in New Zealand. “It’s just that we don’t have that little yellow cup which is a bit of a problem.

“I might have to go and steal the bugger at some stage. But we will get it. It’s only a matter of time if we continue with the same traditions and hard work in New Zealand rugby.”

Henry denied claims that New Zealand rugby was arrogant because the All Blacks couldn’t be called world champions.

“That’s not fair,” he said. “Our win-loss record is far superior to any other side in the world by a considerable margin. That’s factual, it’s not arrogant - it’s pride in what we have achieved over a long period of time. Every cup this team plays for apart from the World Cup is back in the trophy cabinet at the NZRU and you can’t do any more apart from winning the World Cup.”

By Simon www.keo.co.za

Winning ugly’s a skill

October 10th, 2007

The World Cup has once again shown the folly of a four year plan.

You don’t prepare to win a World Cup over four years. Ask Graham Henry or any other coach who has failed. You play the moment during the tournament and you hope the moment plays easy for you and your team.

England, at this World Cup, were in a state of chaos three weeks ago. France were a rabble in their opening defeat against Argentina and yet both are in the semi-final, while New Zealand, winners of 42 of 47 tests before the weekend’s Cardiff implosion, are gone.

The Springboks, this time last year, had lost five of their last six tests.

To win a World Cup you need to win two big games in the final three weeks of the tournament and have luck go your way. You also need to recognise the momentum motorway. France have momentum, fashioned through making 200 tackles and not being prepared to play with the ball against the All Blacks in Cardiff.

France’s most capped test player Fabian Pelous said the battle plan against New Zealand was simple because it could only work once every four years. He added that if they did it in the next five games they would fail every time. France, he said, did not want the ball.

France won with 30 percent ball as they felt they would have been a danger to themselves with more possession. What an advertisement for the game, you may ask.

Unfortunately, this is the reality of play-offs rugby, when the occasion has no regard for attacking skills, form or who is the more talented player. It comes down to who deals with the pressure better and who makes the least mistakes. It is a success formula that shows up the ignorance and arrogance of this modern day obsession in sacrificing everything over four years when it can all go wrong in 10 minutes.

You play great rugby for four years and then you prepare to play no rugby for three weeks.

New Zealand still hasn’t learned. Less than a day after Henry joined four other failed All Blacks World Cup campaigns, the country’s rugby boss Jock Hobbs was talking about building for 2011. Why?

Just accept that for two big games every four years you don’t want the ball and you don’t want the risk of playing rugby.

Defence, in the professional era, has won World Cups. Teams trying to play rugby have killed themselves.

That is what makes the World Cup so different to the Tri Nations and the Six Nations. It is a knock-out competition in which the equivalent of English soccer’s Sheffield United can knock over Manchester United by simply not being prepared to entertain a game of skill.

And that’s why England and France’s wins at the weekend did not turn the world order on its head. Neither side relied on skill to win, but both recognised the crassness of a situation in which no one cares how much you bleed in winning the fight. What matters is you are standing at the end to collect the belt.

The romantic notion is that the Boks could be different and actually play some rugby in the final two matches. The reality is the Boks have been at their best in World Cups when they haven’t had the ball either.

All of which shows how New Zealand is already getting it wrong for 2011 because they confuse being World Champions and World Cup holders. To be world champions and dominate between World Cup you have to have the ball.

To be World Cup holders – something they haven’t been since 1987 – you in fact don’t want the ball.

By Keo - www.keo.co.za