On Saturday the Sydney Morning Herald’s sports section ran a photo of Robbie Deans, the Crusaders coach who is now in line for the Wallaby job, seemingly pointing out something to a group of Super 14 coaches and referees.
The story behind the photo provides a compelling reason why the NZRU has made an outstanding mistake in virtually forcing Deans into the Wallaby coaching job, if he wants it.
I was standing only metres away from Deans when the photo was taken. One of the group was taking some Sydney Grammar boys through the new ELVs for the 2008 Super 14. Deans had pointed out a mistake about where the non-throwing hooker had to stand. Paddy O’Brien, the IRB’s referees boss, intervened in support of the co-ordinator. Deans continued making his point which O’Brien finally agreed was correct.
As the discussion went on, Deans made a point of turning to the coaches when something was settled and saying: ‘Are all the coaches agreed?’ Then he’d lead the discussion into the next point. After the coaching session finished Deans was interviewed about the All Blacks job. He was non-committal. But concluded his interviews by saying, ‘It’s the people’s game, the game belong to them not the officials or the coaches.’
This vignette says a lot about Deans as a coach. He is very well-informed about the laws, which gives him an edge when it comes to developing tactics. He is stubborn when he believes he is right which helps him in planning strategies about the development of his squad. He is a natural coach, in that he has a passion for imparting knowledge. And patience. He’s told me about the hours he spent with Brad Thorne teaching him the intracacies of lineout play using an old boot as a ball.
He admired Thorne for his Christian-based life style and his honesty in rejecting an All Blacks jersey when he was still undecided about returning to rugby league. Deans is very much a coach of players doing the right thing on and off the field (in the style of Wayne Bennett, who he resembles in manner).
Deans’ record with the Crusaders is virtually without parallel for coaches in similar competitions across all the major sports. With the All Blacks going out in the quarter-finals of the 2007 RWC for the first time ever under Graham Henry, why did the NZRU re-appoint a failed RWC coach and reject the Super 14’s most winning coach?
Three factors are involved, in my opinion. The aftermath of the John Mitchell era of 2001 to 2003 when Deans was the assistant coach: the traditional and often vicious Auckland-Canterbury divide in NZ rugby politics: and a split in the Canterbury group.
Mitchell’s team famously lost to the Wallabies in the semi-final at Sydney in the 2003 RWC. It went on to defeat France for third place. It is no secret that Mitchell-Deans believed that if they’d made the final the All Blacks would have won that match. In the semi-final they refused to play Tana Umaga, who was recovering from a knee injury, and played Leon McDonald, who had rarely played at centre. Stirling Mortlock’s interception of a pass to McDonald was the decisive play of the match.
In the fall-out to the RWC loss there were accusations against the Mitchell-Deans team that sponsors were unhappy with their treatment and resentment expressed by former senior All Blacks like Taine Randall, Anton Oliver and Christian Cullen that they’d been treated without respect. Umaga came out strongly last week against Robbie Deans getting the job.
The Auckland-Canterbury divide is the great fault line in NZ rugby, as bad as the old NSW-Queensland divide used to be in Australian rugby politics. In 1991 the All Blacks were beaten in the RWC semi-final at Dublin by the Wallabies, and by a split in the camp with the Auckland All Blacks listening only to Aucklander John Hart and the Canterbury All Blacks listening only to Alex Wyllie.
This divide remains with Henry representing the Auckland camp and Deans the Canterbury camp. So it was no surprise that Sean Fitzpatrick and Grant Fox, All Black and Auckland legends, and members of the 1991 side, supported the decision to re-appoint Graham Henry.
Finally, for reasons that have never been made public there has been a split in the Canterbury camp over Robbie Deans. The manager of the All Blacks David Shand and the incoming chief executive of the NZRU Steve Tew have both been described as being hostile to Deans.
Tew played a straight bat during the process of appointing a new coaching panel for the All Blacks for 2008 to 2010. But when questioned about the possibility of losing Deans to Australian rugby Tew remarked: ‘We have plenty of good coaches left in NZ.’ But great coaches like Robbie Deans? I think not.
The vote for re-appointing Henry was 7-1, with a board member from the King Country representing the minor unions voting for Deans. Significantly, the chairman of the Crusaders franchise and deputy-chairman of the NZRU, Mike Eagle, explained his vote for Henry (which was expected to be given to Deans) in this way: Henry had a much better team of coaches around him.
So stupidity by the NZRU has allowed an Australian David Nucifora to be coach of one of NZ’s strongest franchise and tap into the intellectual property of NZ rugby. Warren Gatland, regarded as one of the best coaches in the world, was kept out of the Blues job and has gone to coach Wales. And now the intellectual property developed by the best rugby franchise in world rugby, the Crusaders, has been virtually handed over to Australian rugby.
And why has the NZRU board made this stupid sequence of mistakes? Partly to cover their own blunder in endorsing the failed re-conditioning program which took 22 All Blacks out of last season’s first seven rounds of the Super 14. But more, in my view, to protect the interests of one Henry’s team who is aligned to Steve Tew.
So here is another Fearless Prediction: In two years time, provided the All Blacks do well in their tests (which they should) Graham Henry will stand down as chief coach but will remain on the coaching staff and Steve Hansen, a coach under Deans at the Crusaders, will become the head coach.
You heard it first here.
Julian Evans
Guest
The article was interesting for its dissection of NZ Rugby politics - but still shows that NZ rugby public are deluding themselves about what went wrong in the last 4 RWCs. Yes the last 4. 1995 - Tried to blame food poisioning - when everyone watching could see that SA won because they wanted it more on the day. 1999 - NZ lost to France because they weren't good enough, not only on the day, but throughout the tournament. Australia whipped them in Sydney a month before the tournament and Larkham didn't play. 2003 - England comprehensively outplayed them in the driving wet in June before the RWC. NZ did not have the forwards that tournament to get within cooeee of England, no matter how good their backs were. For those wanting to talk about "but Australia, who were hopeless, took them to extra time." Yes, but Australia had a fair bit of experience in the midfield, and more importantly, England gave their worst performance on the night of the final. NZ would not have stopped the best rugby pack the world has ever seen, anymore than Andre Watson did. 2007 - Henry's overpreparation, over management, over indulgement of players and rotation, was always the thing that would stop the ABs. The constant rotation didn't allow the team to build the sort of die for each other attitude that you need to win crunch games. Yes, forward passes were missed by the Referee, but really that should not have affected the outcome. Shortly before halftime the ABs had the game in the bag, but loafed it, sending silly passes and overplaying their hand. In summary, until the ABs start understanding playing a tournament is about turning up each game as a life-or death struggle, they won't get anywhere. Robbie Dean's record in the Super 12/14 is outstanding. Realistically, the Crusaders have always backed up from one year to the next and could easily have won even more. Hey in the 2004 final they outscored the Brumbies easily over the last 60 minutes of the game and but for a disasterous series of mistakes at fullback and some Joe Roff farewell magic, would have won. That is what Australia have bought, someone who can be relied upon to motivate his players no matter how many times they go to the well. Even better, he knows how to bring on young players and that everyone knows what their role is, so there's always someone coming through. Spiro, that last point is something you could have picked and expanded on. I note that you could also have mentioned, that over the last 10 years the Brumbies were the Australian equivalent of Crusaders until the Western Force used third party cheque books to raid the cream of young talent. . Similarly, to the Crusaders, NSW antipathy for the administrative success of the Brumbies organisation, was almost constantly frozen out of the ARU top brass. The one area on ONeil's outstanding record was his poor handling of the brumbies management and players. The Brumbies have nothing but respect for the Crusaders organisation, and I believe Deans has a similar view of the Brumbies. Hopefully, he can now reduce some of the petty jealousy's between NSW and the other 3 Australian provinces
Jerry
Guest
Kenneth - What exactly does this "He never understood Umaga’s superior attributes the superior AB captain of all times" even mean? Are you saying Henry didn't understand Tana's attributes? Remind me who appointed Tana as captain? The only attribute that prevented Tana from captaining the squad in France was the one marked "D.O.B" on his passport.
Eric
Guest
Chas, see my posting from 13th Dec.
Chas
Guest
Kenneth Mortimer: Graham Henry was never an excellent Head Master at Auckland Grammar. He was not even Head Master at Auckland Grammar.
Kenneth Mortimer
Guest
Let us be very clear: 1. Graham Henry had an excellent All Black track record as AB coach up to the Rugby World Cup (RWC); 2. He has been re-apponted as he has major political support in Auckland from all those fathers of boys at Auckland Grammar where he was an excellent Head Master; 3. He made tragic mistakes in his selection of the AB team to face France in the WRC but made his most tragic mistake in appointing Richie McCaw as captain years earlier. A great player in his position but flawed like Reuben Thorne; and 4. He never understood Umaga's superior attributes the superior AB captain of all times.; and 5. That he has apointed McCaw as propable AB Captain for 2008 is astonishing. The NZRU and provincial politics will always sink AB achievement if it continues to subsume real administration talent to provincial factions particularly those in Auckland and Canterbury. It is propable that even in 2011 on their home ground that the ABs will not win the RWC given the politics of Auckland and Canterbury that see their issues more important then the cause of the All Blacks; Will the NZRU ever get it?
Chas
Guest
Eric: With respect ,why are the names I have mentioned "dubious" role models?
Eric
Guest
Chas, Is anyone who disagrees with you an arrogant elitist? One of the strong cultural things about rugby, for me, is that it does attract intelligent, educated people, in Australia, at least. Generally, the behaviour of our leading players has been good, but the game needs to protect this image. Get over your umbrage. I won't ask you to list the "myriads" of awards won by your dubious role models. I'll certainly concede that League has some good role models, like Steve Menzies. Now, he would have been a great open side b'away!
Chas
Guest
Greg Crowley: You have reported these anti-social behaviours as being the preserve of RL players...only. This is exactly how such events are reported by the popular media. Can you tell me that football (soccer), NFL, do not have problems. Can you honestly state that RL playersin The UK have greater problems than any other professional sportmen? IAre RU players sacrosanct? you are talking from an arrogant, elitest viewpoint if you think our game (RU ) is innocent. Do you believe everything that is writtren in the paper? Or maybe you believe all that is not written in the paper?
Greg Crowley
Guest
Chas Perhaps the rot in Australian RL hasn't reached NZ. I think you know what I mean about RL personalities - those who intimidate fellow human beings in drinking establishments for no reason, those who sexually assault young girls (and as Folkes demonstrated, there's no leadership condemning it), those who believe it is completely ok to cheaply swing arm other players in the face (called 'tough play'), those who can't state a complete intelligent sentence... Chas I'll admit that this is trend affecting many professional sports (at least in terms of removing their need for further education), but RL demonstrates characteristics that many mums out there find repulsive. No parent wants their children forming opinions about the world in the 'lowest-common-denominator' social environment of RL. And RL faces the same problems in the UK. The administration in league has been extraordinarily lazy in identifying racism, sexism, oh let's be honest xenophobia generally. Yes, it can happen in union, but there does tend to be leaders who stamp it out very assertively. Greg.
Sam Taulelei
Guest
Gentlemen it has been confirmed that Deans is the new Wallaby coach, a press conference will be held at 3pm today to make the formal announcement. Don't know the length of his coaching term but I suspect it is four years to 2011. Congratulations Robbie and to the ARU, this will add further spice to the biggest annual event on our rugby calendar beginning with Bledisloe 1 in Sydney on July 26. John O'Neill is slowly putting his pieces together to get rugby back on track in Australia, ELV's for Super 14, the best man for the job as Wallaby coach and some exciting talent to be blooded. A strong Wallaby team can only be good for the All Blacks and world rugby in general. We need strong competition amongst the heavyweights. Can't bloody wait.
Chas
Guest
Eric: Your elitist arrogance has no place in this forum. Steve Price and Ruben Wiki are, arguably, two of the best loved, respected sportsmen in NZ. They have attained a myriad of community awards and do an enormous amount of good. So do many RU players.
Eric
Guest
Chas, My my, don't we have issues. Let's get back to the point about John Hart suggesting professional footballers have life coaches/mentors/guidance, call it what you like. I support that idea. I support rugby and I like to see our professionals being good role models. I also admire role models in League, but you really struggled by naming a gambling addict and a serial judicial visitor. Tim Sheens...no argument, fine human being, would have made a good breakaway!
Chas
Guest
Eric: 'Tis not mock indignation. It's just that some of our RU supporters, supported by a sychophantic media, scorn all people who do not toe the party line. I can gaurantee that for every RL person who you judge as being a lesser mortal ( i.e. has a RL personality) I could name a RU player who has similar tendencies. Naturally, I would not do this but that reality exists. It might be best if we don't persue this can of worms. I would not enjoy revealing your elitist stance.
Eric
Guest
Chas, save the mock indignation. You know exactly what Greg means, and it is a valid point.
Chas
Guest
Greg Crowley: What is a Rugby League personality? Is it different from a Rugby Union personality? Do Steve Price , Ruben Wiki, Tim Sheens and David Gallop have lesser personalities............or are we arguing the difference between white collar and blue collar crime? ................or are you transmitting the myth of "real men play rugger"?
Greg Crowley
Guest
Sam Thanks again mate - Hart's article is a breath of fresh air. Hart's point about developing players' lifeskills is absolutely, categorically spot on. Professional rugby union is in real danger of developing rugby league personalities. Contrary to the blathering of the Footy Show, it is these meat heads that are repelling mothers and fathers out there from bringing their sons into league. Rugby Union, with players such as Joe Roff, John Eales, Mark Ella and Nick Farr-Jones, gave parents confidence that once their sons finished with rugby they would turn out intelligent and well rounded human beings. Something needs to be done urgently to make sure RU doesn't go the same way as league. Greg.
Scuub
Guest
I'm glad, after reading Hart's very insightful article, that more mainstream media attention is being paid to some of the larger issues surrounding Australasian rugby. For fear of adding opinion to a thread of the wrong title, I'll keep it brief. Private ownership is something SH Rugby should definitely be looking into as a way of moving forward in the future. However, I think introducing private funding into provincial rugby rather than S14 would alleviate more burden on the Unions. S14 teams already have strong media exposure and are profitable. It's the professional provincial teams that could do with the added income that would free up more Union money for grass roots rugby. I don't agree with amalgamating Kiwi and Aussie provincial rugby. These sides should only come together in the form of a revised S14 format. If amalgamation occured we'll end up losing the novelty factor of international domestic rugby, if these sides were to play each other every second weekend. The Pacific Rugby cup (involving 2 teams from each of the 3 islands) is already the 6 team domesctic comp you speak of. These teams are currently subsidised by the IRB. Whether these teams could realistically compete in and SH domestic comp is doubtful in the short-medium term. The best pacific players are still all based overseas (a lot in Europe) and despite the claims they play for love not money, I don't think they would return home and lose that large european income. For any feasible Pacific competition to exist the main revenue sources would need to be evenly divided (TV, gate). If this was to occur then pro pacific island teams could be possible. But 6 teams is unlikely. It is interesting to read that Argentina has been confirmed to be entering 2 sides into SA currie cup in 2008. This suggests that pro domestic rugby is set to be introduced into South American and that South Africa is still firmly committed to SH rugby competitions. As I've said before, NZ can sustain 14 pro teams and Australia 8 pro teams if the S14 is replaced with a SH Heineken Cup structure. Japan and Argentina are two large potential markets for SH domestic rugby to grow. As is the massive amount of wealthy individuals who are passionate about the game. Sometime soon, something in SH rugby has to give.
Mike
Guest
Well Brad I fear you may be romantisicing the the dollar a bit too much. The islanders are very much the heart of international rugby because they don't play for the cash, and they don't play for the TV ratings. They play for the love of the game, and this is what makes rugby such a great game. At this stage the islanders could not afford the infrastracture and organisation involved in their own 6 team comp. The IRB and independent unions have denied them many opportunities to host matches that they do not get any gate takings, merchandise sales etc. to make up for that. As wealthy neighbours, we should help them out for the sake of the game, not for the sake of TV ratings or money earned. I think the opportunity may present itself as a revised S14. The jaapies are looking to play with europe instead, and this will help the pacific nations ad also Argentina, as it eliminates one leg of the world tour a southern hemisphere comp would be. So the result could work nicely as a Pacific comp. The existing 4 teams from Oz, the 5 from NZ, one each from Tonga, Samoa and Fiji, one from the Argies and one from Japan - the new super duper 14, super charged! (pisstake that bit)
kenikenipat
Guest
The people of the The Roar are such decent people. I was preparing for a series of sniping returns. I've gladly put the safety catch back on. The Island Nations might get beaten by the Bulls for the first couple of years but as technique is improved, the forwards would hold, and then watch those backs sing. Of course, they'd have to get the elite players back from Europe, a population explosion and Fox to own all the subscription TV in the island nations, but other than that it'd be a romanticised doddle.
Brad
Guest
kenikenipat Sorry no offence intended, but in a sense you have vindicated what I was trying to say. Island rugby should not try and intergrate with SANZAR as I feel that if they were to stand alone they may be more exciting. All that will happen if they play against the likes of the Bulls is that the bulls will use extra forward power and maul for eighty minutes as they will get beaten otherwise. If we had a 6 team island league playing smash bang runing rugby I think that it very well be a hit on the pay TV channels (especially now with the boring Super rugby) they can make more money buy selling THEIR brand of rugby to the world and benefiting directly from overseas money (think about it 1 AUS$ could probably pay the wages of all six teams!) Sorry no offence intended.