In New Zealand’s loss to France, many things went wrong that were beyond Graham Henry’s control.
It was not his fault that New Zealand had easy pool matches against no credible opposition, with Italy and Scotland declining to play full-strength teams in order to save themselves for later matches that were deemed winnable.
He could not control that New Zealand unexpectedly had to face a tournament heavyweight in the quarter-final, as opposed to Argentina or Ireland, teams that have never beaten the All Blacks.
Henry could do nothing about the IRB’s surprising instruction for referees to blow their whistles less (anyone notice how low the penalty counts were last weekend?), thereby promoting the effectiveness of defences, because they are able to operate with relative impunity.
He could not influence that that the IRB seemingly made an experimental refereeing appointment for this vital match, presumably so as to give Wayne Barnes, a 28-year-old described as a “rising star of refereeing”, an early dose of big-match experience.
Nor was it Henry’s fault that he lost key players Dan Carter and Jerry Collins to injury in the second half, just as the French were gathering momentum and New Zealand really needed all its handful of world-class players on the field.
And of course Henry could only look on as 50-50 refereeing decisions – what he has politely referred to as “the rub of the green” – mostly went against New Zealand, not because of bias, but because that’s the way chance works. In particular, on many other days a referee would not have sin-binned Luke McAlister and would have picked up the blatant forward pass in France’s match-winning try, both of which were match-swaying decisions.
As Robbie Deans has said, one cannot prepare for all contingencies.
In terms of what Henry could prepare for, he seems to have made very few mistakes.
His major tasks in taking office were to address New Zealand’s three perceived shortcomings from the 2003 World Cup, these being (1) a forward pack deficient in set pieces and physicality, (2) a 10 lacking consistency, and (3) an inability to cover injuries.
Let’s look at these in turn.
1. The New Zealand pack currently contains two players who are unquestioned as being the best in the world, namely McCaw and Hayman. The captain was last year’s IRB Player of the Year, and this year he has again made the shortlist of 5. Mystifyingly, Carl Hayman did not make this list, even though many people would agree with Roar columnist Garth Hamilton when he recently wondered of the big man “Is it possible to accept that a prop could be the best player in the world?”
Two other New Zealand forwards, Tony Woodcock and Jerry Collins, are at least the equal of all in the world, perhaps even the best. Off the field Ali Williams fully deserves his nickname of “Comical Ali”, but on the field he has shown over the last two years – including at this World Cup – that he is one of the world’s premier second-rowers.
So in the forward pack that Henry built, there are 5 out of 8 who are unquestionably world class. Accordingly, no forward pack has bested this mob over the last few years, wherever it has had to play, including at Twickenham, in South Africa and against the French last weekend.
2. Andrew Mehrtens and Carlos Spencer were both brilliant players but both were defensively weak while Spencer, like so many mercurial players, was also prone to bad days. Therefore Henry purged them, and then he set about developing Carter into a player without weakness. That he achieved, as reflected in Carter being the 2005 winner of the IRB Player of the Year award, and sublime performances like that against the British and Irish Lions in Wellington.
So that’s 2 out of 2 for Henry.
3. This is the crucial one in that it is going to be remembered as the defining aspect of Henry’s reign. Equally crucial is where this perception came from: the inability to replace the injured Tana Umaga at the 2003 World Cup.
The interesting thing is that in dealing with these issues, Henry completely changed his approaches from his days as Auckland and Blues coach in the 1990s.
Firstly, a hallmark of the champion Blues side of 1996-8 – possibly the greatest provincial rugby side of all time – is just how stable it was from week to week. And yet for the last three years Henry has exercised his so-called rotation policy with the All Blacks, so that the side always changed from match to match.
On the basis of the record of the All Blacks over the last three years, it is completely unwarranted to criticize the rotation policy: the All Blacks could hardly have won more tests over this period, and nor could they have won more convincingly. For example, the average NZ-France result, up until last weekend, was 43-8 during Henry’s reign.
Whether or not the rotation policy was correct, it delivered the goods. If anything the problem last weekend was firstly that Henry discarded the policy at the last moment, by neglecting to choose players such as Doug Howlett and Nick Evans who were in red-hot form, and secondly that when it came to the crunch he lost faith in the effectiveness of the policy – how else to explain that he didn’t choose a specialist 13, when the whole point of the policy was that in every position it would give him multiple players with the experience to do the job at hand?
This brings me to the vexed 13 position. I sometimes remark that Australian rugby is a nostalgic search for a new Mark Ella (for example, this is the only explanation for the hype over Kurtley Beale). If this is the case, then New Zealand rugby is a nostalgic search for the perfect 13, another Doug Robertson or Joe Stanley or even Frank Bunce.
Just consider what this position is termed in New Zealand: “centre”. In Australia and most other places it is merely “outside centre”, while in some places teams play left and right centres rather than inside and outside. So by the very terminology one sees that in New Zealand the position is given an extra special, almost mythical significance: it is as if the no. 13 is the “centre” of everything. How the 13 played is one of the first issues that many Kiwis comment on after every All Blacks test.
Switch back to 1998. This author remembers an interview with Graham Henry at Auckland airport. He is relaxed and cocky as he waits to jet off to be “The Great Redeemer” in Wales. At the time the All Blacks are going through a horror streak, in which they lose all 5 tests to Australia and South Africa. What should be done about this?, Henry is asked. Smirkily he responds “Well you need a target man in mid-field, so you’d have to look at Eroni Clarke, wouldn’t you?”
Clarke was one of the cornerstones of Henry’s champion Auckland and Blues sides, and one of the few players in those sides who was not a regular All Black. Built like a brick outhouse, he was hard-hitting on defence, vigorous on attack, and able to get the ball out to his wingers. Sure, he was considered to lack pace, and sometimes his passing was inelegant, and at times he would come out of the line in defence. But what Henry was clearly enunciating is that in the 13 position a team needs a “rock” who is selected week in and week out.
Now switch to May 2007. The first All Black squad of the year has been announced. Graham Henry is asked if Mils Muliaina is considered a centre. The answer is unambiguous: he is first and foremost regarded as a 15 rather than a 13.
So if there is one mistake of Henry’s own making that can be said to have played a major role in his career unravelling as it did last weekend, it is surely that he forgot all his own principles and selected Mils Muliaina at 13 rather than at full-back.
Of course the mistake really began well before last weekend, because over the last two years Henry has played all of Conrad Smith, Isaia Toeava, Ma’a Nonu, Casey Laulala, Luke McAlister and Muliaina at 13, without ever settling on one man for this position. I contend that partly this is because of getting too carried away with the rotation policy, and partly it is because of unrelenting pressure from the demanding New Zealand public to find a “perfect” centre.
Why was this mistake fatal? Firstly because 13 is a critical and tricky position in defence, one that takes some time to become accustomed to. New Zealand played a makeshift 13 against Australia at the MCG this year, and the match was lost because Mortlock made critical breaks down this defensive channel. The same happened last weekend when Michalak set up the match-winning try. Nothing against Muliaina, who all things considered did a reasonable job, but can you see a pattern here?
Perhaps even more fatal is that the selection of Muliaina at 13 took an excellent player out of the 15 position and replaced him with an average one. It is rumoured that the Wallabies take delight whenever Leon MacDonald is named to face them, because he is regarded as a weakness. Against France he did nothing horribly wrong, but it is more what he could not do well: return French kicks, either by kicking the ball just as far, or by running demandingly. By selecting Beauxis at 10 and Traille at 15, it was well signalled that the French were going to kick long and deep, but Henry did not select a player at 15 who could deal with this.
Even worse for Henry is that his predecessors at the last two World Cups made the exact same mistake of panicking at the last moment and trying to turn a full-back into a centre. Did Henry believe, like Napoleon, that he was somehow exempt from the errors of the mortals who went before him?
Mart
Guest
Guys - as Hugh picked up above and Spiro has commented in before, my view is that too much emphasis is put on the RWC to the detriment of other Tests. The North (esp England) send down substandard squads to the South simply because they can't agree with the clubs of the top players over access / rest etc etc. That may have changed in a recent agreement (although not in time for the upcoming NZ tour by England) so we may see better squads sent hopefully. But the point is that the RWC is seen to be the Holy Grail - witness the OTT emphasis put on it by NZ with regard to preparation that has been fully documented elsewhere on the Roar site. But, as Spiro notes, the RWC is a knockout comp and one hiccup at the wrong time and you're home. Eng played the tournament well from this respect - bad hiccups in the pool when it didn't matter but then corrected themselves to probably overachieve (if boringly) ? Obviously the likes of Ireland, France, Australia, and NZ stumbled when it mattered most. I'd generally agree that the first 3 played poorly in the games that mattered for them and probably deserved to get dumped if viewed objectively from a knockout tournament viewpoint. However NZ I'm not so sure. I'd agree with the 'factors beyond control' argument but I think that can be negated by the stat the NZ had an incredible 80%+ possession against France. Normally NZ with anywhere near 50% possession will win comfortably so whatever the factors out of their control they should have won this QF surely ? My view is that they didn't through two reasons - one, sheer dumb bad luck (e.g contentious sin bin, forward pass try etc) which will always be a factor in knockout sport (who'd watch if we knew the winners in advance all the time ?). And two, "deer in headlights" syndrome that always seems to affect NZ in crunch RWC games when the tide starts turning. The 2nd half display by the French (esp in defence) was phenominal but where was the wise NZ head to call for Plan B, i.e trying a few box kicks / kicks for territory / sensible drop goal attempts to try and get some points buffer / use the backs more effectively in that 2nd half ? All other RWC winners have had good generals who have marshalled their troops when things looked rocky (e.g Smit for the Boks against Fiji). You can bet NZ will now relax and look like world beaters every game for the next 4 years (yep, even under Henry !) but until they get point 2 sorted they will always be hostage to point 1 in RWCs....you make your own luck after all
Lindsay FREEMAN
Guest
In the quarter finals there were 5 teams from the Southern Hemisphere & 3 from the North. All four referees were from the North? Appointments were made in later games to even up & cover this blatent bias. I believe the appointment of Deans will at last have the 15 best players on the paddock & I do not care if they all come from Tasmania. Robbie please do not listen to the other selectors because for too long its been an old mates club.
matty p
Guest
Peter L - McCaw is a brilliant phenom, no doubt, but he was overshadowed by his opposite and so NZ lost. That's the point. McCaw's achievements last year didn't help NZ win the quarter final. You have to show up and play the side your are facing on the day or you don't go on. So saying "hey, we got some world class players in our pack" doesn't help you if they don't play like it. As to captaincy - is it really a "burden" to a natural leader?
Peter L
Guest
"A soufflé cannot rise twice" - love it. The question was asked had France played their final last weekend and it seems they had. Who else thinks watching the English team is a bit like watching one of those road-making machines? Nothing happens real fast, it just sort of grinds forward inc by inch, and at the end of the day you have the anticipated result. Not pretty, not overly entertaining (I found myself staring at our recently painted loungeroom wall looking for patches that may still be drying) but effective, and damned hard to stop provided everything is doing what is expected. And yes, Kahui needs to be on contract. Matty P, Dusattoir may have outplayed McCaw the other day but that was a rarity and doesn't lessen McCaws brilliance. McCaw was carrying the burnden of captaining a team that was once again seeing a winning margin erode against the same foe. Dusattoir smelled blood (along with his fellow Bleus), and was able to leverage that and his passion on the day. Doesn't make him a better overall player. He didn't seem to show up at all this weekend, for instance.
Terry Kidd
Guest
Lol, Sam at least this is a nice change for me .... I'd rather gaze into the crystal ball looking at possible AB selections than Wallaby selections .... have done far too much of that this year. Yes, I agree with Kahui too. He looked good this year and could quite possibly be the long term 13 for the ABs, someone they so desperately need since Umaga retired.
Sam Taulelei
Guest
I'll join in the spirit of armchair selection and gaze into my crystal ball which is certainly showing the signs of wear and tear with cracks and blurred vision : 10 - Evans 12 - Carter 13 - Richard Kahui (I liked his form in the NPC last year) 15 - Muliaina
Terry Kidd
Guest
G'day Sam .... yes, I totally agree with your observation about playing the backs out of the game. I wondered what I was seeing in the second half when I watched the game. I was thinking "Don't do this guys, you are playing into France's hands and letting them back into the game". I'll re-phrase my question .... who should play in 10, 12, 13 & 15 for the All Blacks in future, considering all players are fit and judging by this year's form (2007)? I'll open the batting and say that Evans should have been 10 ahead of Carter. I reckon I'll get some debate on this point.
chas
Guest
Henry's coaching talents are marginally better than his cricketing prowess which was slightly better than below average.
Sam Taulelei
Guest
Terry In my opinion whoever played in those jerseys didn't matter as much in the end as NZ in the second half played their backs out of the game. That was a tactical decision that only the players can answer why and I'm not even sure that they will be able to either. I personally would have preferred Evans ahead of Carter for that match and certainly as goalkicker ahead of McAlister.
chas
Guest
Henry is the most over-rated coach NZ has produced. His ambition has never been achieved in any of the positions he has held. He is finished.
Terry Kidd
Guest
So .... who should have been playing 10, 12, 13 & 15 in the QF against France .... from the players in the squad?
matty p
Guest
Re McCaw being unqestionably the best in the world - I though Thierry Dusattoir played him off the park (along with collecting a try) and this was a big factor in the game.
matta
Guest
Say what ever you like in his defence but the fact is henry has shown again that he can't manage a top team to win crunch games... His coaching career must be over.
Greg
Guest
Why don't Australia look at hiring Henry if NZ sack him? He looks like the best candidate short of Deans who is almost no chance if Henry goes.
Sam Taulelei
Guest
Greg I submitted a post earlier this year “All good or all black?” listing 6 reasons why NZ won’t win the world cup based upon factors as you say were beyond Graham Henry’s control. The same reasons can be applied to any team at this world cup but I focused on NZ as they were such strong favourites. I believe that 5 of those factors were realised during the course of the quarterfinal against France: Weight of expectation, injuries, tactically outsmarted, being outplayed on the day and refereeing decisions. The only factor that didn’t count in the end was hometown advantage for the French as it was played in Cardiff. Taking an objective look at NZ’s campaign this year it’s unsurprising that so much focus and blame has been laid at the feet of the more unpopular aspects of Henry’s time in charge; rotational policy and rest and reconditioning program. They were always going to be the main scapegoats if the team failed in its mission but we will never know if Henry’s faith in his strategies was misguided or not as NZ couldn’t get past its first hurdle at the world cup. It’s ironic that if NZ had won their quarterfinal they would have received just the type of game they needed to test them mentally and physically to launch an assault on the cup that was missing from their pool matches. If they succeeded in the final Henry would have been hailed as a genius. That’s the fine line every coach treads, “success has many fathers and failure is an orphan”. Henry was meticulous in his planning and left no stone unturned in preparing his players for this world cup. If he was at fault for anything it was probably that when he needed to believe in his own philosophy the most, he stored too much faith in some players and not enough in others, but every coach is guilty of that. They are closer to the players, know what they are capable of, see what is going on at training and in close selection decisions they will often plump for the known quantity than necessarily reward the form player. Rangi’s point about the All Blacks being potential unfulfilled this year sums it up succinctly and accurately in my opinion. It’s conceivable that if Henry had played his strongest team more frequently this year and they still lost the quarterfinal that everyone would have criticised him for not rotating the players like he did the previous two years resting key players to give them a break as the belief would have been they were too tired. That’s the problem when you become an innovator and break convention, you’re damned if you do and damned if you don’t. We will never know if Henry’s strategies were correct and the players will always look back at that quarterfinal as a golden opportunity missed and still struggle to understand why they were unable to win a match that was there for the taking. There are obvious parallels between the selection of Muliaina at centre to the previous two failed campaigns where players were selected out of position, but these are different circumstances and players. Muliaina didn’t play poorly and Jauzion’s try cannot be attributed to a missed tackle by him. This is very different to 2003 when MacDonald was selected at centre and Mortlock dominated the midfield exchanges. Would the selection of Smith or Toeava made any difference to the result even though they are specialist centres? We will never know and can only guess but since the retirement of Umaga this has been the one position that Henry has never settled on and there have been mitigating factors in that as well with the unfortunate run of injuries suffered by Smith and Richard Kahui this year as well as the general lack of compelling form by other contenders. A lot of criticism has been directed at Luke McAlister and for all his undoubted talents he is often prone to brain explosions like Carlos Spencer, in that he can’t underplay his hand to create play for other players, he needs to impose himself on the game and take risks. When they come off he’s lauded as a genius and when it doesn’t he’s hounded. But he didn’t in my opinion play a shocker either. It could be argued that a different player like Aaron Mauger may not have scored the try that McAlister did. Should Evans have started ahead of Carter? Evans has certainly been playing better than Carter all year but then the criticisms would have been that Carter is a proven matchwinner and should have started even amid doubts about whether his recovered calf injury would last the match and so the All Black autopsy continues NZ lost because of factors that were largely beyond their control. They earned the title of favourites but have been a team out of sorts this year and never quite hit their straps to match their performances over the past two years, and that was certainly within Henry’s control. The reasons why will be debated far and wide for many months to come and will have a large bearing on the decision for the All Black coaching position. However just in the case of his predecessor John Mitchell, one loss doesn’t automatically make one a bad coach and Henry’s record (like Mitchell before him) will stand up to the rigour of any close scrutiny and examination. I believe that he still has much to offer NZ, particularly with the experience gained over the past four years. England retained Clive Woodward after their quarterfinal loss to SA (and the freakish achievement of Jannie de Beer) in 1999 and he delivered them the next world cup. Does the NZRFU have the maturity, clarity of thought and courage to do the same? As I write this England has just won their semi-final against France. I favoured England in this match as they have been steadily building with each game after their loss to South Africa. They haven’t set the world on fire but I’ve admired the way they’ve gone about their business. They are a fine example of a team that has maximized their resources and taken most if not all of their scoring opportunities regardless of the manner. It is not beyond this team to be the first back to back world champions in either a final to redeem themselves against South Africa or against first timers Argentina. France despite their heroic spirit and resilience under pressure last week are an unremarkable team compared to the marvelous side of 2003 and the brilliant yet unpredictable team of 1999. They, like the All Blacks, promised so much this year but ultimately have failed to deliver. An old adage still applies to French rugby, “a soufflé cannot rise twice”.
Jaffa
Guest
No doubt about it- the All Blacks were very poorly served by the policy of wholesale player rotation. What possessed the ABs brains trust when they rated McAlister in front of Aaron Mauger at 12/ 2nd five/inside centre? He (Mauger) was the perfect foil to Carter -strong ball carrier, reliable defender, cool head - a real pro. A big mistake to leave him out, in my view. The biggest mistake of all was the continual tinkering with the selection at outside centre. They had four years to sort out a successor for Tana Umaga, and still ended up with a fullback playing out of position in the most important game since SF v Australia in RWC 2003. How does the quotation go: "those who fail to learn the lassons of history are doomed to repeat them" ? 2003 - match winning try - intercept at 13 2007 - match -winning try - missed tackle, then midfield break at - you guessed it- 13!
Hugh Dillon
Guest
I should, of course, when referring to Carlos Spencer, have mentioned Lote's big wink to the TV when he trotted onto the field against England. Pay him off. That sort of attitude is for losers.
Hugh Dillon
Guest
Two things -- last week I was listening to the BBC's podcast of the RWC just prior to the QFs. A NZ guest called Jed (a journo or perhaps a coach in the UK) said, "English have only got to do one thing right this World Cup -- beat the Aussies tomorrow." Not a murmur about the ABs having to beat France before they could pocket the Webb Ellis trophy. Of course, every Kiwi in the world had the right to think that they would with an average score against France over the last few years being over 40 but that cockiness that Carlos Spencer showed in 2003 has come back to bite them. I thought Henry & Co coached and prepared the ABs superbly for 3 years. BUT the rotation of players, the switching of one complete side to another in successive Tests as they did on European tours (each side running up cricket scores) may be regarded in NZ merely as preparation but elsewhere is regarded as a form of ostentation and arrogance. Humble All Blacks is, of course, an oxymoron and that is part of their mystique but it does making beating them the rugby Everest and everyone (except the Scots) wants to beat them or die trying. In another string Mart raised the question whether the significance of the RWC has fundamentally undermined international rugby between Cups. It has. Henry and all those jokers in the Northern hemisphere who send B teams south for the southern winter are to blame. There should be some sort of incentives to pick the No1 team and penalties for sending B teams (even if the ABs B team is better than most people's First XV. Perhaps seedings for the next RWC could be decided in the year of the Cup based on world rankings. World rankings ought then be adjusted for the quality of teams sent on tour. Foxtel and other TV producers ought impose penalty clauses in all contracts upon any country that does not put up its best players in competitions funded by TV.
rangi
Guest
Greg, You failed to mention the most important thing Henry needed to address after the debacle of 2003. Number 4 - The inability to think clearly and adjust their game to counter the tactics and pressure applied by their opponents in the white-hot atmosphere of knockout games. John Mitchell was roundly and rightly criticised for sending out teams without a 'plan B'. What is the point of having the fittest, fastest, strongest players hell bent on playing attractive rugby if they don't know what to do when confronted with an opposition equally hell bent on depriving them of the time and space they need to play their ' A game'. We can't even say that our 'A game' failed because it was hardly seen in the match and especially in the second half when i thought i was watching a Rod McQueen coached Brumbies team wearing grey shirts. Wayne Barnes, despite an appalling performance, cannot be held responsible because with the talent and preparation we had there should have been daylight between the ABs and France before the fateful call. The French played rope-a-dope and the ABs fell for it. But hey, despite things not working for us we still had twelve minutes to score three points and this is where mental toughness and more importantly clear headedness are vital. Forget everything else, the only thing that matters now is those three points. My main impression of this year is this - potential unfulfilled. As for your comments on the rotation policy i disagree with you as i believe we rotated too much. Henry promised the policy was over at the beginning of the year and it should have been. We could have run out in Cardiff as a team who knew one another well and who were battle hardened. Character is formed in battle the old saying goes.. Henry said he and the selectors knew their top team a long time ago. If this is the case why was Mils Muliaina not playing centre all year ? Your last paragraph i feel sums it all up unfortunately. Henry did panic and did so after 3 years and 11 months of the most intense and immaculate planning and when this happens with the boss you know the rest of the story. What i find disturbing is Henry's comments since returning home which apparently have him saying he wouldn't change a thing. How bloody sad because that is the kind of thinking that has fifteen of our very best playing a game totally inappropriate to the conditions at hand. Our boys deserve better than that. Good luck Robbie Deans, i for one believe you can do it.