Yesterday's big news in Rugby was the reappointment of Graham Henry as coach of the All Blacks, for two years interestingly not four. Now Henry was originally forced to resign by Wales after presiding over the worst loss in Welsh history to the Irish. I remember it well, as I was there and it was my young son's first attendance at a six nations game which made it worse. After an initial period of success, including a first defeat of the Springboks, a famous defeat of the English (that try from Scott Gibbs) and ten games without a defeat things started to go wrong. My view is that when Henry is coaching you don't get picked unless you play his way. That approach (in particular pods) was making Wales very predictable, and he was also ignoring, and stifling natural talent. Wales is not a "big" nation so we cannot play in the same way as the English who aim to bore people to death through possession, or the crash ball penetration of much All Blacks play. In other words Henry did not adapt, he had a model, in worked initially, then it failed.
I think you can see the same thing with the All Blacks. After returning from Wales he works in regional rugby, absorbs the northern hemisphere lessons and moves on the manage the All Blacks. He creates a much better standard of forward play, wins 42 out of 48 matches, destroys the Lions and wins a triple crown of tri-nations championships. Towards the end, in the build up to the world cup he starts the rotating squad policy, and also seeks to remove his better players from the Super 14 to ensure optimum fitness. Then everything blows up one evening in Cardiff when the French (thanks it must be said to a missed forward pass) knock the All Blacks out of the World Cup in the quarter final, their worst ever result.
Why am I saying it is the same thing? Well to make a system work where you in effect run multiple teams and swap people in and out, then the system of play has to be understood by all, people have to play to the expectations of their roles rather than on the intuitive understanding of people who play together on a regular basis. In other words you become predictable, people are more focused on doing what they are told than they are on playing the game. These days in Rugby the routine can be coached, but its intuition that makes the difference between just making a line break and scoring.
So I am surprised he was reappointed. OK the record was good, but then look at it in more detail. Australia and South Africa were going through rebuilding periods. The Lions were coached by Woodward who expected to take a team mostly English following the world cup but discovered that the form players were from Wales (Grand Slam) and Ireland (near runners up), but he stuck to his old lags. I was there in Christchurch for the first test and having seen the team selection I wore a black not a red shirt (I always support the team playing against England). Its more than OK to learn from failure, but not when you repeat the same pattern of failure the next time round.
Either way it sets up a very interesting four years. We face a world cup in 2011 when Australia and Wales look likely to be managed by New Zealand coaches with something to prove. England will finally rebuild, the Argentines and the Fijians are coming forward and the French, well they will always take someone out en route to a final. South Africa, it depends on politics, Ireland's best chance was 2007 and they blew it. The pressure on Henry will be immense. Despite form the All Blacks only won the first tournament (Wales best ever performance there as well by the way coming third), now its in New Zealand. My gut feel is that the pressure, the coach and wider context will prove too much. That said I have changed by order of preference and now place the All Blacks above South Africa in my pecking order of support, this follows one of the most disgraceful examples of deliberate dangerous play I have ever seen in World Rugby a few weeks ago. For rugby to survive parents have to want their children to play, not expect that their jaws will be broken and spines snapped in some macho display of toughness.
Comments (1)
Hi Dave
Sorry to lose your support. I take it that the incident you refer to must have happened in the Wales-SA game. I missed it. Who was involved?
The Springboks were in the past at times known for dirty play. At times this reputation was deserved, at times I suspected it to be based on Boer bashing (no evidence - just gut feel!).
I thought, however, that the situation with player aggression had improved under coach Jake White - the Boks conceded few penalties in the World Cup. After all, he made extensive use of sport psychologists, brain profilers, mentors, team builders, agony aunts and who knows what other kind of quack!
I have in the past spoken to the "victims" of various "mental issue" consultants, both in the sporting and corporate environments. Many have complained of the indignity of being subjected to silly games and activities, i.e. being required "get into contact with their inner selves and share it with others". They could not opt out, because they feared being labelled "not team players", a death sentence these days in sport and business.
One has to be careful not to rationalise the issue of dirty play, it is inherent in many sports codes . The Springboks are, however, under continual pressures that few teams have to cope with, especially of a political nature. One wonders whether this, with the added indignities of Camp Staaldraad and Jake White's consultants' games, may lead to player frustration that results in dirty play?
Leon
Posted by Leon Stander | December 8, 2007 4:26 PM
Posted on December 8, 2007 16:26