Awakening old ghosts: Graham Henry
This week we will mostly be concerning ourselves with history, just desserts and scheduling...
A conversation I had with a Kiwi not long ago ran thus: 'So are you happy now you finally have it?' Him: 'Mate, it's not just a case of happy...it's like the whole nation's at peace with itself once more, like the end of some uncontrollable humanitarian or economic crisis. We all feel like we can carry on as normal again and start living our lives.'
The 2007 World Cup quarter-final defeat to France was, for the New Zealanders, perhaps the worst moment in their rich rugby history. It was also a freak result given the match statistics, which included a staggering 73 per cent territorial advantage to the ABs, France having to make over 300 tackles and a whole host of other stats that might normally be found in a 40-point win.
Many French players doubled personal tackle records that day, they did not concede a penalty the entire second half and of course there was that forward pass to Freddie Michalak for the crucial try, missed by the officials and which, after a long and costly professional inquiry process by the NZRU, was given as the reason New Zealand failed in 2007. Not a lack of planning, not a missed beat in the coaching, but plain, simple human error and some extraordinary circumstances.
It's little wonder the ABs found defeat tough to digest, it's also little wonder that thoughts of match-fixing clouded the mind of Graham Henry in the aftermath, even to the extent he felt compelled to present a case for it to his employers.
Henry also confessed to feeling physically sick in the weeks after the defeat, again little wonder when you consider he was being asked to re-apply for a job in which he had one of the best-ever records, all against a background of wailing and gnashing of teeth that once again, best ever team or not, the All Blacks had choked again. Five years on, thinking back to the extraordinary pressure of the time, it's more than feasible to consider that back then, Henry might have been wrestling with reality somewhat.
This is a pretty tame revelation though, a truthful recount of how disappointed Henry was that his work had not panned out. He's not insisted it was match-fixing, just said that at the time he found it to be the only logical consideration. Fair enough really - for all you coaches out there, for every one who can tell me he's always found referees to be fair and just, I'll give you another 99 who will immediately recall a game, even a series of games, in which defeat was wholly down to being 'screwed by the refs'. Henry's claim that some 40-odd penalties could have been awarded to the All Blacks is a truism of pretty much every game of rugby going.
So we don't really know what compels some responders to say that this 'damages Henry's reputation', 'brings into question his credibility' or will make him 'ridiculed in many parts of the world'. It's just a coach being a coach, telling a story of an emotional reaction to a particularly stressful day. Let him tell - he's probably earned the right.
If there is a lasting image of the weekend's South African Super Rugby semi-final, it came in minute 52.
A Sharks player took the ball into contact and awaited support. Meanwhile, Jean de Villiers, noting the proximity of one of the Sharks players, took it upon himself to: a) stand a good 2m on the Sharks' side of the offside line, b) sidestep from one side to the other, c) lower his centre of gravity and d) actually stick his arms out behind him in some warped kind of Batman style, all to make sure he was comprehensively blocking the Sharks' cleaner from getting to the ruck.
Sadly, for De Villiers is a terrific player worth much more than such acts, it epitomised the Stormers this year: the sheer negativity with which they have approached every game, the lack of ambition to do anything beyond stop the opposition, the frequent disregard for the spirit of the game. Their defeat showed that to win championships, you need to have a little more than an ability to kick, chase, disrupt and stifle, need to be capable of chasing a game and scoring points. It serves them right for deluding themselves too - for this Stormers team has players who could light up a game if given the initiative.
It was deliciously ironic that the Sharks should score their first try in a manner to which the Stormers are so accustomed - kick it as high as possible and get on the end of it - and it has set up a significantly more worthy and exciting-looking Super Rugby final than we might otherwise have had.
Warren Gatland must be giddy with excitement at the moment.
His counterpart for the Lions tour next year, Robbie Deans, has already cast a nervous eye over the extended Super Rugby schedule and noted that, unlike Graham Henry in 2005 and Peter de Villiers in 2009, he will have barely a week to get his team to Test level before the Lions come-a-calling for the first Test in June.
Quite aside from that, there's the issue of how to cram the touring side's matches against the Super Rugby franchises into the schedule, with Deans advocating an extra two weeks to be added into the June break. Even that would probably not be enough. There are going to be some weary and under-prepared Wallabies on those fields next year.
Meanwhile Gatland will have, with the exception of those players required for semi-finals and finals, the squad together and feverishly sweating up a storm a full month before the first Test. They'll have time to get over injury, long hours to learn the new patterns... pretty much everything they need for a successful tour actually.
Which is good for him, but surely in the light of this, surely now, even without the constant bickering and cheapening of competitions and events down the past few years, the global schedule needs a serious look at? We're in danger of compromising the Lions tour as well at the moment...
Loose Pass compiled by Richard Anderson
Comments
Dingbat32 says...
ruckingkiwi,
Surely even you must agree that the mafia betting conspiracy theory is every bit as pathetic as the Paddy O'Brien conspiracy? If not, then dont try and distinguish yourself from the likes of BokAvenger. Both conspiracies are pathetic, as are Henry's comments.
Enjoy the RC? What is RC?
Posted 16:49 06th August 2012
Dingbat32 says...
7ton,
I agree, and I criticise PdV and John Smit for publicly going tears too far in their criticism of Lawrence, with the latter certainly knowing better.
I simply respected Henry more when I thought he was the man who quietly took it on the chin then turned it around 4 years later. The ref mistakes were only ever a minority part of the reason for the loss.
Posted 07:43 06th August 2012
ruckingkiwi says...
"Got carried away, I admit it. Oh look, I backed down without insulting you, unlike that baby ruckingkiwi!"
So you admit to talking kak and then throw in an insult while trying to say you don't make insults. Well played.
And Dingbat, no I did not call you a homosexual, I may or may not have implied it but I did not accuse you of being one. See the difference?!
Anyhow, no harm done, enjoy the RC.
7ton , the belief behind the food poisoning is that is was set-up by a mafia-type gambling organisation.. because the ABs were hot favourites, the poisoning happened and they made a tidy sum by betting on SA. It was never implied that SARU had a hand in it and a nation cannot be responsible for the actions of those who act outside the law. The fact that 13 of the starting 15 were vomiting on the morning of the game cannot be denied and I doubt the 30-40 New Zealand players, management and officials would sit on a cover-up like this for 20 years. It's just an unfortunate thing which happened but that's sport. Many of those senior players have been qouted as saying they shouldn't have started or played but their egos were too big to let the B team run in their place, or to ask to postpone the match, if that was even possible.
Posted 21:45 05th August 2012
7ton says...
Dingbat32
Thank you again
I'm sure you're aware that plenty of people from other countries have whinged about their WC woes as well.
I assume you will read the actual book as it should give a better idea if Henry is just stating the thoughts that went through his mind or actually seriously making accusations. I probably won't read it as I don't have much of an opinion about the wrongs and rights of it.
In regards to 07 I would be untruthful if I were to say the idea of a fix or blatant biased officiating never entered my mind but the sensible side of me (if i have one) thinks that it is very unlikely. Looking at the replays there may have been poor refereeing but NZ had plenty of chances and did not take them and they can only blame themselves. Credit also must be given to France and well done to them.
As for 95 while it did appear that many of the AB's may have had stomach upsets it is very unlikely that they were deliberately poisoned and I haven't seen any real evidence to say otherwise. S. Africa rose to the occasion and played very well and full credit to them.
Posted 16:33 04th August 2012
Dingbat32 says...
7ton
Fair point, NZ only whinged aloud in 2 of the world cups as far as I know. Got carried away, I admit it. Oh look, I backed down without insulting you, unlike that baby ruckingkiwi! Still 2 whinges is 2 too many! In my personal opinion, the teams NZ had in the years they didnt whinge were actually the better teams and should have done much better. The whinge year teams were overhyped and overconfident.
Posted 23:30 03rd August 2012
ruckingkiwi says...
Dingbat, Henry's reference to "Squeaky McCaw" disobeying orders was to the 2011 world cup final which we won, nothing to do with 2007 and Wayne Barnes and whoever. You've confused even yourself in your unsubstantiated rant.
So references to suspected match fixing means he is accusing someone of match fixing? I am yet to see where, who he has accused of match fixing, please share.
Potentially big trouble.. shouldn't you say he is in big trouble if you are so sure?!
Anyway, it's not so much Barnes who missed the forward pass, take a look at the touch judge running exactly in the line of play who called play on, maybe that might explain why no forward pass was called :)
Posted 22:02 03rd August 2012
7ton says...
Dingbat32
Thank you. However please expand on the sully bit and answer the Question fully as you said NZ did it with every WC they didn't win.
Posted 18:20 03rd August 2012
Dingbat32 says...
7ton,
In asnwers to the questions:
"so who in NZ are you accusing of sullying each world cup?" - Mains, now Henry, and all those who support their comments rather than have the decency to at least look sheepish and embarassed like Sean Fitzpatrick does everytime someone mentions Susie.
"And who has Graham Henry accused of match fixing?" His references to suspected match fixing mean that at the very least he infers that Wayne Barnes is corrupt. Ask a lawyer how the law works on this - he is potentially in big trouble!
"And what is Graham Henry accusing Richie McCaw of?" - I raised this for 2 reasons - 1) to make a bit of mischief as I know how NZ'ers will not tolerate any criticism of Squeaky McCaw 2) to make a point that there are lots of reasons NZ lost that game, as stated in the independent report commisioned in NZ. So why is McCaw not getting as much flack as Barnes??? To be fair Henry did get the flack for his part in the loss (poor selections, substitutions and preparation).
Posted 11:41 03rd August 2012
7ton says...
Dingbat32
Putting silly personal insults to the side and with respect to you I would be interested in your answers to rucking kiwis 2 questions in his post of 2cnd August in this article.
Posted 11:17 03rd August 2012
Chubbylugs says...
@jaystar
Spent a season in ct a few years back so am by default a stormers fan, have to apologise, but haven't seen much of the s15 this year so I'm forging an objective view.
However, I'd rather see the stormers in the play offs and winning rather than the occasional great performance amongst 10/11 average games and ending mid log
Let's put it into perspective and call it progress. The foundations of a great side come from defensive prowess and set piece
Agree re Robbin fleck. Everyone in SA knew he could only step off one foot and made a career on the rest of the world not figuring this out. I think rassie
Posted 23:28 02nd August 2012
Dingbat32 says...
ruckingkiwi, sometimes you make good rugby comments, and sometimes you are a complete buffoon.
On this occasion you have called me a homosexual rather than discuss the point. Well done, you have gone further than BokAvenger in the offensive idiot stakes!
Posted 17:10 02nd August 2012
Rosbif says...
@JayStarr, maybe Stormers could have signed Michalak? (who is likely to be overlooked or played out of position at Toulon....) For me, Grant is the epitome of "safe", although hard to leave out a 90%+ kicker. Or hasn't Joe P played a bit at 10? That might get you back to Newlands, no?
Posted 14:33 02nd August 2012
JayStarr says...
@ Chubbylugs: Fair point, but our point (the Stormers fans) is that they are NOT playing to their strengths. They are playing it SAFE. Their defense is brilliant thanks to coach Jacques Nienaber, so now that fall back onto that safety net and don't risk anything else...
But they have some of the most dangerous attacking players in SA in their back line: they have the two fastest wings (Bryan Habana and Gerhard vd Heever), the two nippiest players (Gio Aplon and Joe Pietersen), as well as the best attacking centres (JdV and JdJ). So it is mind-boggling that, with a forward pack so dominant for large parts of this season, they did not have ONE game where they scored a 4-try bonus point. Even the Rebels and Force have more! They looked absolutely CLUELESS on attack. It is inexcusable...
Robbie Fleck and Alistair Coetzee are simply not good enough in this regard. Coetzee proved it with the Boks, when White had to get Eddie Jones to sort out the Bok backline and attack before the WC, and Fleck proved it over the last 2 seasons, where the Stormers backline and attack has gone so far backwards it's now laughable.
What we're saying is KEEP the defense this solid, KEEP focussing on forward domination in the set-pieces... But for crying out loud, learn how to attack properly! There is so much room for improvement on attack it is not even funny... But they are not going to improve by keeping Robbie Fleck there - he didn't even know what was going on as a player... he just scored so many tries because the opposition didn't know what the hell he was doing either. If we can get a skills and attack coach who can lift our attack to the level of the Cheetahs or Sharks, then we will be unstoppable.
It is no longer good enough to rest on our defense. It is time to be the best team we can possibly be. If they want to be champions, they need a champions attitude.
Posted 12:47 02nd August 2012
markpat says...
@ruckingkiwi - as I've alreasy posted, "As far as Graham was concerned, the major reason the All Blacks had lost was not because of conditioning or rotation policies or decisions by his captain, but purely and simply because the officials had refereed only one team, to a degree unprecedented in the history of the sport."
What is a "formal allegation of match fixing"?
"libel 1) n. to publish in print (including pictures), writing or broadcast through radio, television or film, an untruth about another which will do harm to that person or his/her reputation, by tending to bring the target into ridicule, hatred, scorn or contempt of others. Libel is the written or broadcast form of defamation, distinguished from slander which is oral defamation. It is a tort (civil wrong) making the person or entity (like a newspaper, magazine or political organization) open to a lawsuit for damages by the person who can prove the statement about him/her was a lie. Publication need only be to one person, but it must be a statement which claims to be fact, and is not clearly identified as an opinion. While it is sometimes said that the person making the libelous statement must have been intentional and malicious, actually it need only be obvious that the statement would do harm and is untrue."
Henry is saying that the officals only refereed one team, not that they were poor, or missed things and suggests that they should be investigated, not their performances reviewed (which is standard practice).
Or are you reading something else that I'm not?
Posted 11:29 02nd August 2012
Chubbylugs says...
Re: stormers negativity
Theres two ways to look at this. Is rugby a results business or an entertainment business?
There are many ways to play the game. Forward orientated sides have been more successful in the modern era than loose expansive sides. When it comes to finals, no team including nz plays a loose game
Why is there such a clamour to knock sides for playing to their strengths? Its just plain naive to play in a way that exposes you defensively or prone to turnovers. If a team has the capability to play loose then great
It just so happens that the current styles / laws have evolved and suit the nz / welsh style of play. It's cyclical. It will evolve again
As for entertainment, well that's in the eye of the beholder. As a fatty, I prefer an old fashioned arm wrestle of a game rather than basketball scores
There are many ways to skin a cat
Posted 10:52 02nd August 2012
ruckingkiwi says...
Dingbat, so who in NZ are you accusing of sullying each world cup?
And who has Graham Henry accused of match fixing? And where....?
(this space for the evidence please) .. for example, a name, evidence he has issued a formal accusation of match fixing... a link to quoted material or an official document. Anything other than what he may have thought..
Most of us think many different things each day, some of yours no doubt involve Freddy Mercury , but does that make you a flammer?
And what is Graham Henry accusing Richie McCaw of?
Ummm disobeying orders to win?
Errr.. ok, we're all against him now.
Posted 01:36 02nd August 2012
new_j4a says...
@JayStar, you say "The fact that I don't go to Newlands anymore." The blokes in seats around yours must be smiling....no more pontificating...peace at last.
Posted 18:43 01st August 2012
Dingbat32 says...
Just found this online "Elsewhere in the book, it's revealed All Blacks captain Richie McCaw disobeyed instructions from the coaches' box during the last 30 minutes of the 8-7 Rugby World Cup triumph against France at Eden Park last year.
Ad Feedback Henry demanded the All Blacks play for position and kick the ball deep into French territory late in the nail-biting final.
But McCaw, fearing a match-winning French counter-attack, chose to defend the game in the middle of the park, backing his players not to give away penalties."
Will NZ fans still defend Henry now that he is blaming Sir Richie Golden Balls McCaw? The independent report commisioned is undoubtedly the fiarest assessment of what happened.
Posted 12:06 01st August 2012
bigb6969 says...
If a referee was bias or paid to fix a match what would it look like ? well as per planet rugby "It was also a freak result given the match statistics, which included a staggering 73 per cent territorial advantage to the ABs, France having to make over 300 tackles and a whole host of other stats that might normally be found in a 40-point win. Many French players doubled personal tackle records that day, they did not concede a penalty the entire second half and of course there was that forward pass to Freddie Michalak for the crucial try, missed by the officials" Add on the rubbish yellow card and the All Blacks retained 100% set piece possession to Frances about 80%. If you read all IRB statistical reports of tournaments in the 21st century, and you find on average a penalty is awarded at the ruck roughly 70% of the time to the attacking team, and in this game the ABs were doing all the attacking , and the penalties went 100% France's way, a team that has never been known for it's discipline. That is what it would look like. Another note, the All Blacks handled it far better than South Africa last year, when the stats were nowhere near the NZ injustice, in fact SA got more penalties than Australia. Wayne Barnes has been to NZ and reffed, Bryce Lawrence is afraid to go back to South Africa, and I don't blame him.
Posted 09:48 01st August 2012
Dingbat32 says...
ruckingkiwi & mnyes - I think you know EXACTLY what I mean by NZ trying to sully world cups in which they have not won.
ruckingkiwi - No I aim not aiming that comment at every individual in NZ, and I think you know that, but apologies if it has hurt your feelings. That said, bringing up apartheid is pretty pathetic in a discussion based entirely on post apartheid era rugby. So you are right, your 'comparison' is childish, pathetic, irrelevant and inaccurate.
Posted 21:34 31st July 2012