Battle over, now the retreat

By WYNNE GRAY

The irony will not be lost on rugby-mad historians.

After the World Cup debacle, the New Zealand Rugby Union board meets next Thursday, Anzac Day, the day which should commemorate the way the transtasman allies fought together 87 years ago.

Instead, it will herald the day when the NZRFU must examine why it lost out so badly to former comrades, how it can repair the busted alliance and whether any administrators have to be discarded.

Before the last board meeting, several councillors were concerned about sending chairman Murray McCaw and David Rutherford to support the union's delegates to the International Rugby Board voting in Dublin.

They reasoned that the pair had previously incensed both the IRB and their Australian opponents, and their appearance in Dublin would be a negative influence.

The worried few backed down about their concern once the World Cup travelling party explained their strategies and where they felt they would be most effective.

However, with the NZRFU well beaten in the IRB ballot - there is a feeling the vote may have been 15-6 against - there needs to be a huge debrief about the failure at the Thursday board meeting.

The major problem will be the relationship with Australia.

Australian Rugby Union chief executive John O'Neill will not leave his post until well after the World Cup in October and November next year.

When he does go, it may be that his job after that will be to succeed Pugh as IRB chairman when he leaves in 2004.

O'Neill has little respect for Rutherford or McCaw. He does not want to work with them, and Sanzar partner Rian Oberholzer from South Africa has similar views.

New Zealand has to give way. That is a consequence of the defeat.

Rutherford and McCaw must be at the greatest risk from an inquisition by the New Zealand board and collective questioning from the provinces.

McCaw, although disappointed at the World Cup rejection, remained unrepentant.

"You look for a scapegoat or for people to resign when they have been dishonest or acted without integrity," he said.

"Yes, there will be sadness and there might even be some bitterness, but at the end of the day I am absolutely confident that we and all our partners have done all we could."

Rutherford had his contract rolled over late last year and McCaw had his directors' fees raised but those decisions were made before the defeat in Dublin.

Do the administrators not have key performance indicators like they ask of All Black and Super 12 coaches?

Rob Fisher resigned as NZRFU boss when John Hart could not lead the All Blacks to victory in the last World Cup.

Wayne Smith was overlooked as coach last year when he showed diffidence about his coaching future.

The performances of Rutherford especially, as the man in charge of operations, and McCaw have not stacked up over the World Cup.

There should also be serious questioning of New Zealand's delegates to the IRB, Fisher and Tim Gresson, and the performance of the World Cup planning group.

Sources suggested the duo distanced themselves from the work of Rutherford and McCaw during the last week in Dublin.

The Herald also understands that Gresson was hauled up about some inaccuracies during his World Cup presentation and blamed staff at the NZRFU for the mistakes.

Strategies have to be examined.

Why did the NZRFU have an ambivalence about the World Cup until too late?

Why did it allow its obsession with O'Neill to eat away at it?

What was the purpose of threatening legal action at the IRB meeting?

How could it have a commercial division, led by former Warriors rugby league chief executive Trevor McKewen, which claimed no World Cup involvement?