The Roar
The Roar

Advertisement

More questions than answers in the McKenzie saga

Rugby fans will likely never know the full story behind Ewen McKenzie's resignation. (AAP Image/ Dave Hunt)
Roar Guru
20th October, 2014
2

I will keep this short and to the point. Ewen McKenzie’s shock resignation has muddied the waters even further and brought into sharper focus the myriad of unanswered questions still out there.

In no particular order, here are the burning issues that we need answers to.

Historical background
Can somebody at the ARU please clarify what the exact nature of Di Patston’s employment and responsibilities were?

It’s a simple enough question, and if the answers stacked up it would have taken a lot of heat out of the situation.

Are Patston and Link going to be involved in the Beale inquiry? If not, it will become a farce, because how can you reach a conclusion with two of the main protagonists not giving their side of the story?

If they’re not involved it would also raise the question (falsely or otherwise) of why not. In other words, what don’t they (and maybe the ARU) want said?

Bill Pulver more or less admitted that Link has lost the respect and support of the playing group. Why is that? And why has the ARU not acted on the matter earlier by either firing the manager or the ringleaders?

Instead they allowed the matter to fester until it resolved itself with Link’s resignation. Only it hasn’t actually been resolved, and any manager that takes on the task under the current setup would be concerned. Cart before the horse comes to mind, as well as toxic environment.

Advertisement

I might not be the world’s brightest, but where was the management of this issue that escalated from some childish, immature, offensive and silly texts and a spat on a plane, to a fully blown crisis? Why have highly remunerated people with access to legal and PR advise not taken ownership, put it out there, dished out appropriate punishment and put it to bed.

Saturday night
The whole thing seemed staged to me. I may be wrong and naïve but I don’t for a minute believe that the ARU was not already taking action to replace Link, that they haven’t already sounded out potential candidates and that they haven’t reached an agreement about how they were going to manage the whole process.

Think about it. According to Pulver, he receives an email at 10am, meets and discusses the matter with Link, doesn’t get him to change his mind and then contacts the rugby committee (five or six of them). They happen to be miraculously accessible and available, he has a long and fruitful meeting with them identifying potential candidates and then makes it to the game.

Yeah right, a bit too neat for me I am afraid.

That was the strangest resignation speech I have ever heard. No emotion, rehearsed to a tee and with a weird parting shot, “you can read the details in a chapter in my book”. What the hell is going on? I’ll admit though, that the film of Link disappearing down the corridor was very sad.

Michael Hooper, distinctly uncomfortable as the player’s representative, wouldn’t you think he should have stayed for Link’s announcement and at least offered a couple of comments and some thanks for Link’s hard work? After Link invested in him heavily, promoting him to captain and all that? Instead he scarpered out of the door not to be seen or heard afterwards.

Why did Link lose the support of his team? Who are the gang leaders in that group, and who is running this joint anyway, dictating terms and deciding who should be privileged enough to manage them. That is why any new manager will probably have to clean the stables and start again. Toxic and fractured group doesn’t even begin to describe it.

Advertisement

Pulver blamed the media, but conveniently ignored that the media frenzy was created by the complete failure of management to take ownership and control of the issue, and more importantly the internal leaks that fuelled and fanned the speculation.

Look inwards, not outwards, for some serious culprits Bill. The media are doing their job, and if you feel they have fabricated things and slandered your organisation and its personnel, sue them. But I suspect they were too close to home truths for that.

There are so many more questions, but these would do for starters. And anybody that thinks this is going to die any time soon, is dreaming. This is an almighty mess.

The game
Let’s finish with some rugby talk. Before the Link announcement and its dampening effect, there was a lot of euphoria tinged with disappointment about the one that got away.

Before expectations sky rocket again, only to be dashed at some future date, let’s consider the following.

I suspect the All Blacks experimented somewhat with their tactics and personnel for this game. It’s the only way I can explain their passive abstention from contesting the breakdown (their major strength), allowing the Wallabies a free reign and defending like crazy.

They were also determined to give everybody a game and see how they panned out in a hostile venue like Suncorp, where they notoriously struggle. Anybody that felt that they were outplayed by a rampant Wallabies side only has to look at the last 20 minutes when they reverted to type and chased the game.

Advertisement

And the most telling statistic of all was in the last 20 minutes (10 of them with 14 men), when they outscored the Wallabies 14-3.

Sorry, but the gap is still very much there, but then what do I know?

close