by GREGOR PAUL, Wednesday Aug. 1, 2012
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/
The saddest thing about Graham Henry's just published biography is
that it tells us precisely nothing.
His eight-year tenure as All Black head coach was enormously
successful in terms of results, cultural changes and high-performance
breakthroughs and yet none of this comes through.
What we have is one giant whinge and shameful claim from an event five
years ago: an event that was rendered irrelevant the instant the All
Blacks won the 2011 World Cup.
In beating France 8-7 last year, the All Blacks earned themselves and
Henry the redemption they craved. Wayne Barnes could be ignored - left
to wallow in his mediocrity ever nervous about when the IRB would get
round to giving him the chop.
Henry, one of the greatest rugby brains of this or any other time,
could have used his book to offer just a fraction of his insightful
and analytical mind. From the comfort of his new found place as the
nation's most loved pensioner, he could have been magnanimous, open,
honest and accountable for the failure of 2007. And why not? Because,
that, as far as everyone else can tell, is the truth.
From the reconditioning window, to the constant rotation, to the
bizarre selection of Mils Muliaina at centre and the failure to adapt
tactically during the quarter-final - the All Blacks, led by Henry,
were the architects of their own demise.
Henry, even if he insisted privately he wasn't culpable for the
failure of that campaign, could have taken the hit publicly because he
had earned forgiveness: he had proven he could recover from mistakes
he made, adapt, rebuild and get it right the second time.
His courage, tenacity and skill in rebuilding the All Blacks between
2008 and 2011 were always apparent and no one would have begrudged him
using his book to offer himself a pat on the back - but only after
he'd acknowledged the things he got wrong in 2007.
For those who say the match-fixing claims are in there just to sell
the book - get real.
No one, other than JK Rowling gets rich writing books. Certainly not
in New Zealand.
Nope, the claims are in there because five years on, Henry wants to
make a point that he still doesn't feel that campaign collapsed
because he and his coaching team got things wrong.
The match-fixing claims aren't even new either. Henry made them
casually two years ago while enjoying a bit if idle banter with a
group of journalists. He threw the idea out there - but he was clearly
not serious, or at least didn't appear to be. No one pressed him on it
because it was so obviously an outlandish and baseless notion and yet,
without a shred of evidence to support the accusation, it appears in
his book.
No doubt the publishers are loving the media attention. They shouldn't
be complacent, though. One grubby, nasty allegation about a referee
hardly makes it a good read and the question is why did Henry bother
committing to a biography that will do little for his bank account and
even less for his popularity and reputation?
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/
I received my copy of the book yesterday and look forward to reading
it, despite the negative press that it seems to have created. Looking
from the outside and from an uninformed position (not having read the
book yet), the reaction to one part of the book could be said to be
typical of New Zealanders. Some have not wasted any time to tear down
one of our revered NZers and many have taken the opportunity to
rekindle their dislike of the man which reared its ugly head after
that terrible day in October 2007.
This will die down in a couple of days, maybe when we win a couple of
golds and we can all back to waiting for our next icon to falter.
28 likesReplyLike Report
NETBALL FAN (New Zealand)
01:34 PM Wednesday, 1 Aug 2012
I have always had doubts about Henry's judgement and his book confirms
that.
Why the need to rake over old coals?
5 likesReplyLike Report
Boy from Dundee (New Zealand)
01:34 PM Wednesday, 1 Aug 2012
It wont be on my bucket list.
6 likesReplyLike Report
Bullrush
01:35 PM Wednesday, 1 Aug 2012
What was the penalty count in that game? What were the stats around
possesion and territory? How many penalties were awarded in the ABs
favour in the last 40min? None of that would form any base for
possible match-fixing allegations. And of course, rugby is completely
immune to that anyway!
20 likesReplyLike Report
YouKNOWItsTheTruth (New Zealand)
01:35 PM Wednesday, 1 Aug 2012
Nonsense. Your comments about book sales and J.R. Rowling are are akin
to me saying SBW isn't in it for the money because he will never earns
as much as Beckham, Federer or Woods. Obviously, the New Zealand
market is smaller, but Henry would still surely rather sell (and make
more money from) 100,000 copies than 10,000 copies.
I still don't rate Henry at international level. Winning the world
cup, at home, by one point, against the third-best side in Europe
doesn't make him some sort of demi-God in my eyes.
He failed with the British Lions, failed with the All Blacks in 2007,
won the world cup by one point in 2011, and was OK with Wales (but
only in the Six Nations, not in any other forum).
And as for his results with the All Blacks in between world cup years,
he was simply matching the 85% winning record that the All Blacks have
always had, and against weak opposition (Deans' record with the
Wallabies is more a reflection of their players than Deans' coaching
ability).
Plus maintaining such a good record is easy when you play the same
easy-beats over and over again. 45% of test matches against Ireland,
for example, happened since 2002.
37 likesReplyLike Report
Forty2 (New Zealand)
01:35 PM Wednesday, 1 Aug 2012
Is there absolutely no chance of curruption in rugby? Is there
absolutely no cheating in rugby? In that game NZ totally dominated is
every area but 2 - referee interpretation and scoreboard (related?)
When one team, in rugby, has over 70% possession and over 70% teritory
and is not being awarded penalties for clear infringements AND THEY
LOSE, surely you have to wonder why.
All Graham Henry has indicated is he did wonder, out load. And you
seem to think that because it is rugby there can be no possibility of
corruption.
How long did it take NZ to win in South Africa? How often were there
thoughts of corrupting with refereeing?
I believe that in that game the officials were plainly incompetent. At
that level you expect more but they were so incompetent I too wonder
if there may have been more to it.
39 likesReplyLike Report
Sleepyash
01:35 PM Wednesday, 1 Aug 2012
The accusation of match fixing can be proven very easily. If the UK or
Aussie bookies reveal their data/patterns of betting prior to the
match, that is proof enough. Abnormal large amounts on an underdog
before kick off is the red flag.
14 likesReplyLike Report
andy ruzun
01:36 PM Wednesday, 1 Aug 2012
Wynne, I too was suprized and slightly disappointed to see Henry
taking this stance. But lets look at it from a different perspective
for a minute. What if with all ego aside Henry sincerely believes this
to be true and feels its an issue that must be raised.
Should he not do so because he won a world cup last year? Should he
not do so because it will be unpopular or perceived as sour grapes?
Ultimately neither of those things have anything to do with it. I
suspect Henry knows he'll loose some hard earned respect and
credibility from this and so the fact that he still did so is what
interests me.
He's either a (suprisingly) confused man, or is someone with the guts
to raise an issue even if it wont be seen as graceful by guys like
you. Having recently lived in France, ironically the French think the
referee in last years RWC final was bias towards the AB's. Whilst I
dont agree, there sure were a lot (!) of calls that went our way.
12 likesReplyLike Report
CorporateRefugee (Albany)
01:36 PM Wednesday, 1 Aug 2012
Henry's insinuation that some kind of illegal conspiracy was behind
the AB's loss to France in 2007 brings not only shame and ridicule on
himelf but it reflects badly on NZ generally. We had just begun to
shake off the "sore losers" tag, but in the eyes of the world this
will look like yet another unsporting attempt to blame someone else
for our failures.
11 likesReplyLike Report
DS (Kiwi in Canada) (Canada)
01:36 PM Wednesday, 1 Aug 2012
Gregor you and Gray are missing the point: it's not the Kiwi way to
moan and complain! Henry has not let this Barnes-gate issue go because
it's a real issue.
Regardless of how the team played (your points are noted and we all
saw the game), there is no excuse for the poor referee displayed by
Wayne Barnes. The missed try, the pathetic yellow card offense, the
complete inability to award a penalty and so forth.
Having not read the book yet, I can't comment on Henry's view but from
my perspective Barnes was either completely incompetent or paid off
that day. Take your pick!
In either case, it's not good enough. Worse still, he is still an
international ref and continues to under-perform!
Ref competency and integrity badly need addressing. Perhaps the best
we can currently hope for is some rudimentary annual financial
analysis into the net worth of refs.
Lastly, let's address that English hack Jones. His comments are
irrelevant and spiteful. He loves his home team (fair enough) and
derides all others as cheats and frauds (bad form). Here's hoping he
ends up in jail with the rest of Murdoch's lot.
42 likesReplyLike Report
show 10 more
No comments:
Post a Comment