Graham Henry's words about the Twitter afair

"I had to find out what bloody Twitter was. I thought it was a new guy playing five-eighth for England."

Steve Tew said

"I'm going to watch with some interest how Graham goes with the lineout"

All Blacks touring squad

The most surprising thing about the squad that will travel northwards is not the inclusion of Delany or Smith. My personal opinion is that they, just like a number of young New Zealand players, really deserve the call.

The most surprising thing is not the absence of Rokocoko, de Malmanche or Ross, either. Rokocoko is a shadow of what he used to be, de Malmanche has indeed got to improve his throwing in, and Ross... well, the selectors had been given hints that he wouldn't tour, had they not?

The most surprising thing about the squad is the coaching reshuffle that Henry has orchestrated and that points towards a name: Steve Hansen. He, as forwards coach has already been named as the ultimate responsible for a poor forwards delivery (mainly in the lineout, really) during the Tri Nations and by taking over the forwards coach duties, Graham Henry implicitly acknowledges Hansen's critics.

Steve Hansen would have been dropped from any other coaching staff, but not from this one which seemingly will march apiece or die apiece.

Interesting. This ought to be seen as loyalty. Loyalty of Henry towards Hansen, just two years after the toughest times in Henry's coaching career, when both Hansen and Smith remained loyal to Henry.

Depth in NZ rugby

I was wondering what to write about Graham Henry's comments on the direction the game is going when I fetched the post of Totalflanker on this very subject.

While I basically agree with his point of view, there was something he said that's giving me headache after headache. He (wisely) adviced Graham Henry to look inside New Zealand Rugby for answers and solutions to the underperforming All Blacks instead of blaming the rest of the World.

But what in opinion of Totalflanker is a main problem is the lack of depth at lock, first five and openside flanker; When I read that, it totally stunned me.

I then said to myself there's no lack of depth at first five: Slade, Cruden, Brett, Bowden and even Witt are gifted players... the only problem is the World doesn't know of his existence as they have not been internationally tested. At lock we have been missing Chris Jack and Ali Williams, while Brad Thorn has been outstanding and two new guys are up there: Ross and Donnelly. We cannot forget Boric and Eaton, as well. They all need more tests, indeed, but there's no real lack of depth.

Openside flanker is another story and I do conceed there are not many openside flankers for Henry to choose from.

But then, I review what my thoughts about depth are and I say to myself that quality is undoubtedly there, but quality is not exactly depth.

Jake White was always proud of the increasing test experience of his squad. The Boks are, right now, the most experienced squad in the World in number of test caps, with over 600 caps. How many caps do Slade, Donnelly, Cruden, Boric, Eaton and Brett add up?

And then I say to myslef: What the All Blacks need is caps. Not more caps on senior players, but caps on the youngsters. Caps for Kaino, Thomson, de Malmanche, Donald, Masaga, Gear, Ross, Boric, Eaton, Slade, Vito, Cruden...

But how in the hell are you supposed to give caps to the All Blacks if they are neverallowed to lose? Do you choose experience to win a test or capping ahead of the next future?

And then I thought that being the All Blacks coach must be one of the most delicate tasks a person may have in NZ.

But that does not make Henry innocent of doing a "Peter de Villiers" about the penalty goals.

Oh, no!!!

Graham Henry, from this blog I have ever been supportive of you as an All Blacks coach and I was the first to say you deserved to stay even when your own words were to judge you based on the RWC performance.

But I must say that I would have never expected you to say, just one day after Jerry Collins announced that he was to break his NZRU contract, that he would not have made the All Blacks in any case.

Mr. Henry: I think it does no good to anyone. Not that people could not see that JC was a bit out of form, but still he was our clear first option at blindside. And, if it was not yours, it does no good at all to say it just one day after JC spoke. It is good that people like Kaino or Read have a chance. They do deserve it. But, does JC deserve you saying this? Are you at war on him or anything? It is, in the best of the possible situations, a very nasty thing to say.

I have always supported you, Mr. Henry, but I feel it is fair to say that this was an ugly thing to do.

Graham Henry speaks

Apparently, the level of the 2008 Super 14 has not been good enough for Graham Henry for much of the past 4 months, as he has publicly stated that it is a luck that the level has been raised during the last weeks.

What now? Is Super 14 not enough for the All Blacks? Or could it be that it is a bit difficult to adapt to the new ELVs?.

What are then, northern hemisphere teams going to face if it is needed at least 2 to 3 months to get used and reach the test level that Henry wants? What is going to happen in the test games in november?

Independent review of the World Cup.

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?

All Blacks mid field

I have said throughout this 2008 super 14 season that I would pick the Blues front row, the Crusaders second row and the Hurricanes third row for the All Blacks.

Now I begin to wonder whether 12 & 13 would not be wisely given to the Hurricanes.

After the flights of both Mauger and McAlister to U.K. voices raised about the All Blacks mid field. Credit is for Graham Henry as he said that he had no worry about the mid field. Ma'a Nonu is playing simply great. Just watch him fire in the game against the Bulls, while Conrad Smith may certainly be the most serious player at centre.


What will Henry choose? Brett at 12? Toeava at 13? Nonu and Smith?

Whatever he chooses, he has a wonderful pool available.

(Update: April 13th, Wayne Smith seems to agree)

New Zealand's national sport is rugby, not hate.

In October the All Blacks had their worst ever performance in a RWC. The outcome of the All Blacks coaching job was determined on December and for these two long months no man had gathered more hate in New Zealand than Graham Henry. Why? Failure at the RWC is not a crime, is it?

Graham Henry has been out for longer than a month. Once the Super 14 season is starting again he is back and has for the first time expressed his opinion in this interview.

Criticised for the so-called journalists at RugbyHeaven for (among other things) not giving public account of what went wrong (as if he ought to), two of them seemed to be waiting for him to open his mouth to resume their holy war against him.

The first one, the guy you can see below is called Doug Golightly.

He is the author of the welcome-back article for the All Blacks coach. It is quite normal, RugbyHeaven is quite a good rugby site except when the All Blacks are the subject.

The other one is called Marc Hinton and looks like this

I can't understand his behaviour anyway. He's RugbyHeaven's co editor and that ought to mean some kind of responsibility, but when he writes this article to kick the Super 14 season off one can't avoid wondering what's going on?

Is RugbyHeaven so enamoured of Henry that they can't live a second without writing about him? Even when the All Backs are not playing? Is hate New Zealand's national sport or is it rugby?

To RugbyHeaven: Ladies and Gentlemen, Graham Henry is the All Blacks coach, like it or not. We all have our own ideas on what would we do if we were on command, but we are not, fortunately. Fortunately the person on command knows a full lot of rugby. Live with it.

Why did we lose?

December the 12th. Two months ago we received a painful defeat that left most of us empty. It happened at Cardiff, October the 6th. The score was close, 18-20, the tears were intense, the scars so deep.

It still hurts to me but as a new year is drawing near, I think it's time to move on. And I think having my say on what went wrong is a required step in that direction.

Over the past two months I have read this and that and I have not got a clue on what went wrong. I know the numbers: $ 20 million spent, the reconditioning program, the number of games every player had, I can tell you the surprises of that day's line up: Howlett not in, Mils at centre, Robinson at second line, All Blacks coach claiming that the team had to learn from the errors on 2003...

I have gathered a few different points of view on why did we lose:

• Planet Rugby has an interesting post. It states that New Zealand did not play that day the way it used to do. Too many rucks, much too different of what had taken the All Blacks to beat France the previous 5 times they met.


• At Yahoo! Answers you will find lots of opinions: Most of french fans blame it to over-confidence. Some say the All Blacks proved not to being able to win a close game, some say the player selection was not good and some say simply France was better that day.

• If you can separate fair opinions from gossip, maybe you could try to get some decent opinions at NZ Herald.
  
• Graham Henry blaming on to referee Wayn Barnes can be found at Scoop

But none of this has really convinced me. What is missing? What needs to be filled?

It is hard to tell. Players tried their best, the coach tried his best, but so did the french, and I think there were some key points that should be merged to have a decent answer to the question WHY?

1. France had been studying New Zealand for the last two years, trying different game displays in every previous loss to see how to tame the All Blacks. They used this experience to their benefit.
2. The gameplan that France proposed was queer enough for All Blacks not to be familiar with. True that french players were not familiar with it either, but the fight of the french was against the All Blacks, not against the gameplan. The top favourites were drawn to something they did not expect.
3. The french defense was superb. Much has been said of the number of rucks that the All Blacks provoked. But of course they would have preferred line breaks as they usually did during the previous tests against France! The high number of rucks created show the hability of french players to successfully defend. Don't forget that Laporte claimed that discipline had been the key.
4. Fear. Once again, New Zealand team seem to have put their sights a bit further and they did not expect this game to be particularly difficult. When things went really ill and France scored their 20th point, fear was on All Blacks faces. I recall the previously uttered words by Jonah Lomu: "Silently everybody knows what they have to do, they live by the fear of losing." I am afraid that fear was too present for players and that did not allow them to manage a close contested game as they have previously (without any fear) in a number of times, namely this very season at Durban or at the winner-takes-all match at Auckland.
5. Strategy. The drop goal should not be once and again overlooked as a resource. And I think it is a weakness that ought not to belong to the All Blacks. It is true we all like seeing tries. It is true that we don't like too much kicking, but when a clear chance is in front of you as it was on October the 6th, is it wise to overlook it? I don't question the brave decision of not taking a drop goal then, I question the decision of not taking any drop goals.
6. It happens. It is part of the sport. Wayne Barnes could made a wrong call. It happens. Luke McAlister ought not to have missed the kick, it happens.

And to finish this long post I would like to remind you what happened during the first 28 years of Football World Cup. Arch-favourites Brazil were once and again eliminated including the unforgetable Maracanazo in 1950. It was not until 1958 that Pelé took his team to the highest place. We don't remember the suffering of Brazil, though. We remember that they have been champions 5 times and that they are the best team of the world.

Thus, I only ask for patience.

GRAHAM HENRY

I don't live in New Zealand (I could not live anywhere farther)

I am a huge All Blacks supporter as I discovered rugby when I saw their clear 29-9 defeat of France in 1987. I have followed them ever since.

It is hard to get "in touch" with what is going on there 20.000 Km away from Spain.

But I kind of feel happy for Graham Henry. I think the NZRU has been wise to reappoint him. World Cup isn't everything in rugby or it shouldn't be and he's a great coach and he has proved it.

I think that Robbie Deans deserved equally the chance to get the job (as many others) and it would be sad if he left the Crusaders.

But at some point you have to stop this four-year cycle of hiring a coach, believe you are invincible and come down to earth four years later thinking it was all the coach's fault. I don't know who will coach the All Blacks in 2011 (it could be Deans, you know) but at the moment, NZRU has sent a message of wisdom and we public ought to hear to it.

It's hurting New Zealand's rugby

I find complete nonsense this everlasting gossip about who's in the pole position to become the next All Blacks coach. I think it does not do any good. Today we have an apparently contradiction in different news by RugbyHeaven and New Zealand Herald.

This has even gone so far in the case of RugbyHeaven that it even dares critizising the board composition.

I would like this week to pass, it is Friday 7th and the board will have made its decission on who's the next All Blacks coach. I would also love not hearing anything else from now on about this matter until it's over.

I bet it won't be easy.

The New Zealand Herald on All Blacks coach election

«With Henry and his cohorts having thrown their hats firmly back into the ring, the NZRU board must now decide if it wants to risk losing Deans to Australia in order to persevere with the regime that failed in France.»

The New Zealand Herald, Tuesday 27 November 2007

I have usually considered that newspapers here in Spain spread bullshit. "Selling news" is a business that in this country means feeding lies to people. The most absurd thing in this nonsense is that people are eager to buy these lies. Lies usually look like this: "We who vote for X are right, others are wrong". Ok, it's normal. This is Spain and we are quite stupid... people don't even know about rugby, here :-P

But I thought this was some kind of spanish folklore, and I can't really believe that on the opposite side of the world The New Zealand Herald is so biased in favour of Robbie Deans' as the next All Blacks coach.

There are, I think, two different things that should never be mixed; news and opinions. News are the plain facts; opinion is what we think about it. A newspaper should never mix them.

In this blog, you will find a clear support of Graham Henry in his goal of being re-appointed as All Blacks coach. I think that four more years would be a rare continuity which New Zealand's rugby needs. Besides, I trust Henry. But this is just the opinion of one person - the author of this blog - and it does not by any means replace in any way any newspaper whose main goal should be Information.

Carter's burden and Henry's re-applying

It is a pretty chance what we've got here: On one hand, there's Daniel Carter saying that although he loves the All Blacks it could be better for him to spend some time abroad. On the other hand, Henry's re-applying.

What's the connection between these two issues? Well, let's see: The whole New Zealand blaming at coaches and players. How many times have you heard how big was the amount of money spent in this RWC campaign just to immediately point out that this time we did it worse than ever? Lots of All Blacks leaving and... what is next? The NZRU appointing a brand new All Black coach? Is this some kind of the old "let's start over again, we can't afford failing again!"?

As I see things:
1.- Graham Henry should be considered as our best coach for the way the team has been playing for four years. Sacking him for one game lost against France (it's a game after all) is like stating: "We will not tolerate any loss".
2.- If the problem for New Zealand players is the "burden", it will certainly not be diminish in four years time. Firing Henry will only make it heavier.
3.- You can't buy success (assuming fair play). That's the beauty about sports.

Not linked? You should not fool yourself.

If players are leaving and they say "Hey, it's too much of a burden", is it of any help saying: "We don't care for the Tri-Nations victories, we don't care for the Bledisloe Cup, we don't care the 87,5%, you lost at the World Cup, you are out"?

Lo han vuelto a conseguir: Tri Nations y Bledisloe Cup!

El 15 de Graham Henry se ha alzado victorioso finalmente del decisivo partido que les enfrentaba a los Wallabies. El resultado, lo de menos: 26-12. En unas condiciones de lluvia intensa (¿Alguien se cree que en Francia en septiembre se encontrarán algo diferente?) los delanteros de los All Blacks han acabado imponiendo su fuerza ante los "tantas-veces-criticados" delanteros australianos que entrada la segunda parte han acabado claudicando.

Ganan así los All Blacks su 34ª (trigésimo cuarta) Bledisloe Cup y su 8º Tri Nations Tournament y algo no menos importante: se perfilan como los grandes favoritos para ganar la Copa del Mundo de Rugby este año.

Respirará Henry tranquilo, pues su política de rotaciones y de reservar a los jugadores para conseguir el mejor punto de forma en septiembre levanta controversias en Nueva Zelanda no sólo las escasas veces que los All Blacks no ganan, sino también cuando su victoria no ha sido aplastante.

De cualquier forma, Henry puede estar satisfecho. En una edición tremendamente competida del Tri Nations, sus hombres han demostrado que saben hacer precisamente lo que desde el otro lado del Mar de Tasmania dudan que sepan hacer: competir. Tiene además desde hoy 48 días para conseguir el mejor momento de forma de sus jugadores tal y como estaba en sus planes.

Hasta el momento, sólo puede decirse chapeau para Graham Henry y felicidades a los campeones.