Henry returns to Argentina coaching role

The coaches either side of Henry haven't coached for half as long even if you combine their tenures. If Hansen can keep up that % for 8 years then we can compare him favourably.

It's a bit rich of you to accuse people of ignoring inconvenient stats when you say things like "they lost less" but ignore the fact they also won less. Mitchell's AB's were flat track bullies (incidentally your stats about winning by more and scoring more tries are helping make my point) because if they got on a roll they'd beat a team by 40 points but couldn't turn things around if they couldn't play their preferred game. They were a very good side, but could really only play one way.

My point is that, given the palpable difference in the Blues play in 03, there is evidence Henry can be a huge positive influence on a team even if not head coach.

Perhaps if you actually said what you meant rather than vague non sequiturs about 'what really happened'? Which players from within their catchment area were the Chiefs denied?

Whatever Jerry. It's fruitless talking to you. You have no recollection and I don't feel like talking to someone without any reference. Footie is on, just watch it and enjoy. If you think you have it right then good luck.

That should read divided not divisive... Mains had his strengths and weaknesses as a coach, but he left it to late to develop a winning squad and failed to listen to criticism.

"Jerry just read the history of the franchises and how the make up of Waikato changed. For starters there was a time when Counties and Waikato were joined and they were stripped of Joeli and Jonah." So I just imagined that season Jonah played for the Chiefs before he moved to Wellington? Vidiri did stay with the Blues, but Jonah played for the Blues when Counties was part of the Blues and the Chiefs when they switched. "There was a time when Waikato was associated with NOrth Harbour and North Auckland. Do you research on who was given to Waikato then too" Uh....Frank Bunce, Walter Little, Ian Jones, Glen Osborne, Blair Larsen etc, plus all the other non All Blacks from North Harbour? Plus Glen Taylor from Northland as a bonus. Yeah, the Chiefs really got screwed on that one.

Jerry just read the history of the franchises and how the make up of Waikato changed. For starters there was a time when Counties and Waikato were joined and they were stripped of Joeli and Jonah. There was a time when Waikato was associated with NOrth Harbour and North Auckland. Do you research on who was given to Waikato then too... It's just history. I don't know if that was the first time GH knew about Spencer or not or whether it was the first time he saw him. My point was simply he was known beyond the borders of Horowhenua. FFS I had heard of him and I was just playing in the Waikato at the time not in Horowhenua. If I had heard of him be pretty damn sure every provincial coach also knew who he was. And he didn't pop out of nowhere on a day the Auckland team was carting the log down to Horowhenua on a freakin road trip.

Thanks guys.I was led to believe Parisse was an Argentinian playing for Italy.Atlas,they will beat the AB's at some stage,and if Hansen is stupid enough to keep some of the old guard,it may be a lot sooner than expected. On the pay issue,in reference to the Pumas,it would be good for the IRB to show some leadership here.Seems to me the tail wags the dog over there with the clubs holding the real power.So.I don't know how the Argies work their way around that.

"If that were the case they wouldn’t have been stripped if their top players and the remains handed to the chiefs" Well, if you're talking 'facts' that's not what happened. Counties was part of the Blues so their players went to the Blues. As for Spencer, Henry wasn't traversing the country, he was coaching Auckland in a Ranfurly Shield defence against Horowhenua in which Carlos scored a length of the field try.

I'm not really disagreeing with you OJ. He is a very good coach and I would never say otherwise. That would be silly and churlish. I guess my point is I am unsure if his super amazing coach tag that some label him with. I also rate Mains very highly and above GH too. You don't get to Coach the AB's if you are weak. Hansen is more of an unknown compared to Henry and as you say will have his work cut out to leave a bigger mark. But in saying that the next 5 years are going to be interesting. My point about Spencer, is while he wasn't a household name in some circles he was well talked about. I was hoping Waikato was going to steal him a year earlier, but for whatever reason they got left high n dry. But as I say out pointing Auckland at the time was nigh impossible. Poaching was rife and it certainly didn't stop when Henry rocked up. Does that make him a bad coach. Definitely not, he was ruthless in respect to his own goals and focused. Two good qualities in a coach.

The Deans/ Mitchell win-loss ratio,so what.An Aussie team on the slide( their WC masked just how poor they were),a SA side coached by a nutcase ( Straeuli's Camp Staalraad),and an England team there for the taking,but still with the nous to roll an AB side with 13 men and hobble over the line for a WC victory.Nothing particularly special.England were the best of a bad bunch. Henry got his win ratio up to around 86%,and pretty much maintained that over 8 years,including having to rebuild the side after the normal post-WC exodus in 2007.It's easy to have a good year and boost your stats,it's a lot harder to maintain that year after year.Regardless of talent,that takes planning,a skill I have never seen from Deans or Mitchell at international level. But then,it's got nothing to do with the coach,right.It's all about the team,( at least in your eyes).

Have you even bothered to check who the All Blacks played under Smith and then Mitchell and Deans? Eliminate the teams that New Zealand has never lost to and Mitchell and Deans were 11-1-4 against our top opponents. That's a winning percentage of 69%. That's not very good.

Sorry Jerry, I'm not here to do your research for you. I am sure you can look up Carlos's achievements. If you were living in a cave at the time that also does not qualify as a reason. If you think Henry was traversing the country scouting all the backwaters and picked up Carlos from obscurity, that is a nice bedtime story to pass on. As for your comments regarding Waikato, Counties and North Harbour perhaps you could do your research there. Your opinion is fine. But these particular aspects are facts not an opinion on how they joined provinces to franchises. If that were the case they wouldn't have been stripped if their top players and the remains handed to the chiefs. Once you have scrubbed up a bit on the facts, your opinion will carry a little more weight.

I'm pretty sure Spencer made the Colts in '94 not when he was playing for Horowhenua. Of course there are devisive opinions over Henry. There are devisive opinions over every All Blacks coach, especially one from a province as hated as Auckland was. Meads meddled in New Zealand rugby politics and was as responsible as anyone for the awful '91-94 period, which brings me to another point about Henry. Henry's success with Auckland was at a time when the national side wasn't doing particularly well and the public were very much against Mains. It was a down period for NZ rugby, but it was a period where the NPC teams played their full strength teams and the crowds were bigger for the new playoff system than for the home tests. Auckland had some tough finals in those years against Harbour and Otago. By the end of Henry's NPC run, he was well and truly a proven coach.

Hi - can only agree with you not so much re Parisse though. I get to see Top 14 rugby and believe they could make a strong eg Argentina Exiles team if they were all together in one club/team. Of course so could Aust, NZ, SA - but the difference is that the Argentina players are most of their #1 test side whereas the other three countries are generally ex-test players. Access to their best players - money of course comes into it - and think that's why we're not seeing any Argentina test players in Super rugby - a pity, but the pay can't compete. When Henry first went to Argentina last year I thought it was more of the 'coach the coaches' concept rather than direct involvement with their test side - well I was wrong with that one, though must all be done with NZRU consent ( I presume) in terms of their commitment to developing rugby. Hope they win a match or two, or three this year, allow myself a little chuckle if they were to beat the ABs.

I dont get that becuz its wrong. Take McKenzie, sacked twice then succeeds with QLD. Take Hansen, 35% with Wales, 85% with NZ. Take Mallett, 71% with SA, 19% with Italy. Take Henry 61% with Wales, 85% with NZ. Take Mitchell, Wins Curry Cup, come dead last in Super rugby. How do you not understand? Its not semantics its just wrong, completely and utterly wrong.

No hes not head coach of Arg Jerry and your point is?

Parisse is a bit of a special case in that his parents are Italian and he spoke Italian at home and had travelled there a number of times outside of rugby.

I agree that the winning % was better but do you seriously attribute that to Henry? The only reason its higher is becuz NZ drew with France. If NZ had won that 1 game instead of drawing would you say Mitchell was better becuz every single stat was better than Henry? Its a joke and quite silly, its not the coaches win % anyway, its the teams. If Henry coaches any other team to 85% I will start to think its him but I see no evidence at all, AT ALL, yhat suggests that Henry is the reason for that win % and ALL of the evidence that I can find suggests that the team is what matters in 90% of the cases and it is only sick teams that get majorly impacted by coaches. For example, the coaches either side of Henry have roughly the same stats.