KEY POINTS:
If anyone needed another strong reason why the Graham Henry era should end, it was in the basis of the coaching panel's submission to the New Zealand Rugby Union in their review of the World Cup.
It has been said - and not denied - that the panel
of Henry, Steve Hansen and Wayne Smith focused on the quarter-final refereeing faults as part of their presentation ahead of the NZRU decision to throw the All Black job open as a contest, rather than re-appointing the previous panel who had offered themselves en bloc.
That is the most curious element of the whole, excruciating NZRU trawl through the aftermath of the World Cup. Why base your continued employment on the fact the ref got it wrong?
No one in their right mind could deny that Wayne Barnes had an impact on the winning and losing of that match. But to focus on it as the major plank of your review denotes a strategic weakness that manages only to underline that it's time for a change.
Without going back in detail over that horribly fascinating match, it was plain for any student of rugby to see that the quarter-final against France was the denouement of the strategies on which this panel staked their reputations - rotation, reconditioning and all that.
The lack of on-field cohesion, leadership, ability to think on their feet and to cope with the suddenly-applied pressure, not to mention the injuries and the confusion they caused, all showed the chinks in the armour into which the French inserted their rugby stilettos.
Barnes made a difference - of course he did - but top-level professional sport is all about having the overall strategy, game plan and ability to adjust tactically to overcome such obstacles.
To face your employers with the rugby equivalent of "the butler did it" reeks of a tactical naivete which makes one think of the strategic naivete unmasked on the field at Cardiff and that it might not be long before it re-appeared.
Most people with any knowledge of the game are quite prepared to believe that there is merit in rotation and reconditioning. As long as they are not overdone and over-employed.
Surely that had to be the thrust of the Henry-Hansen-Smith submission; that the basis of their approach was sound but that they had made a mistake in this, that and the other way.
That's the magic word - mistake. People generally have more respect for you and the weight of your opinion if you are seen to be confronting issues and dealing with them openly (if openly is a word that can be affixed to the way the NZRU are running out this saga).
Instead, it seems that the only mistakes being attached to anyone were those of Barnes, to Barnes.
It doesn't fill the casual observer with any hope that the lessons of 2007 will be carried forward into the future. Especially as Henry has said that he felt the strategies he carried into the World Cup were the right ones.
We all know what he means. But unfortunately the way it is expressed suggests a lingering sense of arrogance; that their way was the right way but Mr Barnes threw up an unexpected road block.
It was like the day when Henry set a cat among the media pigeons in that famous press conference where he steadily upbraided the New Zealand media corps for, he said, unsettling the folk at home about the strategy after some less-than-glorious All Black performances. He then went on to mention the word 'strategy' about 57 times, emphasising the point that the media had been along for the ride and knew the plan.
The implication was that the media should be writing it that way and calming the fears at home, rather than raising questions.
This was the stance of a man certain that his way was the right way; the only way.
When it was shown that it wasn't, it is surely not too much to expect that the man in question - if he is seeking to retain his job - make certain allowances re his past actions and outline how he'd fix it this time.
Maybe he did. We'll probably never know as this kind of thing is not made public. The intriguing matter now is how the contest for All Black coach will affect Henry and Hansen, in particular.
If Henry decides not to pursue the contest, as is popularly supposed, that would clear the way for Hansen to step up as an alternative to Robbie Deans. However, the one-in, all-in, we-blame-the-ref focus of the current panel surely did Hansen no favours either.
He will likely be tarred with the same brush as Henry. Some think he could be the way the NZRU salvage some dignity by electing him - and thus preserve some elements of the status quo. But Deans, as is made clear on other pages of this issue, seems to be occupying centre stage in the selection stakes right now.
