Much has been said about the revision of the New Zealand World Cup campaign. Blames have been like knifes, thrown here and there to any unwarded back.
Our dear friends at RugbyHeaven ask why the World Cup revision has been published only after 6 months are past and the new coach is already appointed. I wonder if this terrible timing would have been so harshly criticised by them with Robbie Deans coaching the All Blacks. Richie McCaw has also been blamed of lack of leadership (again).
I have not paid much attention to any of these comments but I want to talk about the last one, appeared again within the articles of RugbyHeaven, by an ex All-Blacks coach, Laurie Mains.
Laurie Mains is surgerily right when he says that such revision cannot seriously focus only on 10 minutes of a match. NZRU should not be pleased with such a simple analysis. I mean, just remember the infamous article: "France pose absolutely no threat to the All Blacks". Even if the All Blacks would have won that match via a drop goal, it became clear that France certainly posed a kind of threat. The question after Laurie Mains article is: How did the All Blacks manage to perform worse than ever? This has not been answered yet. Laurie also asks loudly for the apparent lack of independence in a so-called independent review. Why no ex All Black coaches were asked to give their opinions?
All in all, it seems certain that NZRU should put more effort in trying to be more open. Now I wonder... Why was Deans not chosen? Has it got to do with the different ways that Deans and Henry carry these things? Is Deans too open for the NZRU?
