(L-R) Coaching staff, Greg Feek, Brad Moar, John Plumtree, Scott McLeod and Ian Foster of the All Blacks. Photo / Photosport.co.nz
(L-R) Coaching staff, Greg Feek, Brad Moar, John Plumtree, Scott McLeod and Ian Foster of the All Blacks. Photo / Photosport.co.nz
OPINION:
It might be time to have a review into the excessive culture of reviews that has manifested within New Zealand Rugby.
Or, at least, it is time to start asking harder, more pertinent questions about who conducts these reviews and who then evaluates their findings.
The most pressing casein point is the review into the All Blacks' 2021 season which took 13 weeks to be put in front of the NZR board and has, for the moment, produced just one finding which was to confirm that head coach Ian Foster will be at the helm until 2023.
There's been no update on the fate of the assistant coaches as NZR chief executive Mark Robinson has said Foster will himself reveal that this week.
Stay ahead of the game
Get the day's sports headlines straight to your inbox.
To still not know, 13 weeks after the All Blacks played their last test, whether there are going to be changes to the wider coaching team, feels like a decidedly poor return for the rugby public.
It can't be that hard surely to determine whether these blokes are up to it or not, given that results and performances are easily the biggest indication and herein lies the real source of concern about these reviews – the process is shrouded in secrecy and reliant on everyone accepting that they take so long because they are so thorough.
But duration shouldn't automatically be equated with efficiency: working long isn't always working smart and perhaps more should be done to challenge Robinson's assurance to reporters on Thursday that the review had been "rigorous and robust".
Maybe it had, but how would we know when it has never been explicitly stated who was conducting the review and who had been empowered to act upon its findings?
If we assume that NZR's high-performance unit were leading the review then that lifts the veil of secrecy on who conducted it at least but creates another problem which is that it would appear to be a department without anywhere near the same coaching experience as Foster and his team.
There are good, hard working people in NZR's high-performance team but none who have coached at international level: none who have known the uniquely intense pressures that exist in that rarefied world.
Faced with such an imbalance of test rugby knowledge between reviewers and reviewees it's fair to wonder whether the questions asked were deep, probing and insightful or whether the players literally went through a box ticking exercise, starting with: "When it comes to the coaching you have received, would you say you are highly satisfied, mostly satisfied, satisfied, not satisfied or not sure?".
To be blunt, the high-performance team may be equipped to do many things exceptionally well, but reviewing the All Blacks coaching group is not one of them.
If NZR enlisted independent help to conduct the coaching review, it would be appropriate for them to reveal that now to restore credibility and reassure the public that the decisions which have been made, have been done so on the best intelligence and best advice.
Rieko Ioane, Samuel Whitelock and Codie Taylor of the All Blacks perform the haka. Photo / Getty Images.
Equally, it is necessary to ask who on the current NZR board brings experience and real-world knowledge of high-performance sports cultures?
As much as the people conducting the review need to possess the requisite credibility, so too do those empowered to sign off on an action plan.
And so here is another issue: none of the nine-person NZR board have been immersed in high-performance cultures. None could lay claim to being expert or even moderately equipped to evaluate a report into the current coaching team.
Again, there may well have been robust and rigorous debate around the board table about what direction the coaching team should take, but was it informed discussion based on strong and accurate interpretation of the facts thrown up by the review?
Just as the reviewers need to know the right questions to ask of the All Blacks, so too do the board need to know the right questions to ask of the reviewers.
Also, in this specific case, they need to clarify whether it is true that Foster's assistants – John Plumtree, Scott McLeod, Greg Feek and Brad Mooar – were in August last year, all re-contracted for another two years.
If that is indeed the case then it also erodes some of the integrity of the review as any recommendation to terminate their contracts would require significant pay-outs that NZR would, understandably given the financial climate, be reluctant to do.
NZR is right to take coaching appointments seriously and devote significant time and resources to the process.
But if the union is going to put such inordinate faith in these protracted and apparently exhaustive investigations to guide their decision-making, then they have to be prepared to be more transparent about the details of the process and personnel involved.
Ultimately, they also have to be prepared to ask whether they have the in-house capability to determine the fate of their international coaching group and be prepared to change things up so as they have access to the requisite high-performance horsepower.
The public need to be able to trust the process if they are to trust the outcome.
