Graham Henry on English rugby

First topic message reminder :

Apologies if this has been posted already, but i thought it was interesting, and spot on. Particularly regarding players stopping at the tackle rather than blasting them off the ball. Thoughts?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2012/jan/29/england-world-champions-graham-henry

Graham Henry, the former New Zealand and Wales coach, has described England as "the world champions of wasting talent" and has criticised them for playing "a game based on fear". Henry, whose All Black side lifted the Webb Ellis Cup last year, believes there will be no consistent improvement in England's results against the leading southern hemisphere teams without a widespread change in attitude.

According to Henry, England will also struggle to score tries against decent teams in the Six Nations and badly need to escape from the creative rut into which they have sunk. "England has top-drawer attacking players [but] they are seldom used," Henry said. "It sometimes seems that England are world champions at wasting talent.

"At national level and at club level English teams are far too worried about securing possession. They are obsessed with sealing off the ball carrier. They are paranoid that an opponent might steal the ball and so everyone jams on the brakes and seals off possession. It is fearful and often illegal. OK, so the opposition can't get at the ball, but there is no dynamic forward momentum and nobody is being shifted out of the defensive line. No wonder England had trouble scoring tries against the better teams at the World Cup."

In Henry's view, more trouble could well loom in the Calcutta Cup game against Scotland on Saturday if England's interim coach, Stuart Lancaster, fails to inject more positivity and dynamism into the squad. "England has a back line to get excited about but they will never fulfil their potential unless the team can win quick ball. This needs a total change of policy for the Six Nations. England must go to Murrayfield and stick it to the opposition. They have to smash the Scottish forwards past the ball instead of conservatively stopping at the tackled player in order to secure possession.

"A country with over a million players should be the best team in the world and England's potential in the backs is as good as it has ever been. Ben Foden's a good player, Chris Ashton is a handful and Delon Armitage has always impressed me. But how frustrated those players must get in a white shirt. England and the English clubs play a game based on fear and a generation of promising backs are dying on their feet. That has to change."

Henry's opinions are expressed on therugbysite.com, an online provider of rugby coaching videos dedicated to developing the skills of coaches and players . They will ruffle feathers in some quarters at Twickenham, Henry having previously questioned the Rugby Football Union's decision to dispense with Martin Johnson. "If a person is a quality coach I think they learn a lot from their experiences in the job and they get better at it. Too often unions sack people when they are going to get better at what they do."

He also expressed a desire to work with a leading English club but is now openly critical of the way most English sides play the game, not least Saracens who are set to supply the bulk of England's back line in Edinburgh. "Saracens are England's leading qualifiers in the Heineken Cup but few expect them to win the competition with a game that is as petrified as England's efforts at the World Cup. English conservatism around the tackle is an attitude that appears to be ingrained in most of the players."

Lancaster may well regard Henry's comments as helpfully timed. Having named a reshuffled squad he is determined to ensure England play with more ambition and has also confirmed he will apply to become the next permanent head coach. England are due to confirm their starting XV for Murrayfield on Thursday.

Henrys had a 15 within his run and could have had 23 if not for donald duck all other things being equal. Though duck has repaid henry in no small way with the 3 pointer late last year.
Henrys also handed a 7 start to sidekick hansen so we'll see how far he can take that with Ireland looking to burst that bubble.

Part of henrys comments are related to nzs favoured way of playing so imposing a successful and happy template from one culture straight onto another that has no real history of it is a bit much.

In the same way biltong mentioned SA being similar. Its a culture. Over the last 30 years the great names of english and SA backs just do not roll off the tongue in the same way as the french oz nz and to some extent wales and ireland do.

Yet mention forwards and all the great monsters and behemoths are rolled out. Changing that culture is somewhat of a rennaisance and a huge risk to all thats important to some.

One big forward dominated win on the weekend and Henrys comments will be kicked into touch quicker than the pdivvy resignation speech was!

mystiroakey wrote:who is your mental rambling directed at. I really have no idea what started you of, but you seem a little bit unhinged lad,

the only people that have whinge about bad decisions recently have been the french and welsh. not sure were you are are from or if your even sane, but i hope you feel better about that little outburst

Well, I just read the thread again and there are 6 or 7 posts suggesting that either England are more harshly refereed at the breakdown in their league leading to them being unable to compete at the breakdown, or , others sides - namely NZ - are refereed in a more favourable light.

This is tosh. The side attacking more, having real go forward ball will have the benefit of decisions - not because they are NZ or any other team or because they're playing England.
England do not compete as well at the breakdown because they are not as good as other sides in this area. England as GH said are more concerned with securing the ball than rucking past it and having quick ball. This is not the refs fault, it's in the mindset of English players to have slow ball and play a grinding game of attrition. This leads to penalties at the breakdown for lots of reasons - not because the referees in the Aviva are taught to referee the game differently as compared to all the other referees.

That's what I was talking about, it sounds like this blaming of the referee for Englands problems at the breakdown is an excuse.
I admit I may have been a little over the top with my post, but come on. It's not just blaming the ref now for an individual game, it's blaming the aviva referees on mass for England losing the breakdown battle.

its quite obvious to me that you have an issue with 'english' - you read some posts -added 2 and 2 ,came up with 5 and went nuts

Call me a cynic, but I can't help but notice that his "England must Invade The Enemy" seminar is one of the headline clips on Graham Henry's new website.

http://www.therugbysite.com/

The clever old tinker, it's almost like he seeded an article aimed at "helping" us poor old English (you know - the ones with the largest audience desperate for a fix to our breakdown issues) and in NO WAY just wanted traffic redirected to his site. I wonder if Lancaster will sign up for some tips.

Interesting. Looking at the mix of the 'team' I wonder if they actually have a consensus?

overlordofthewest wrote:

mystiroakey wrote:who is your mental rambling directed at. I really have no idea what started you of, but you seem a little bit unhinged lad,

the only people that have whinge about bad decisions recently have been the french and welsh. not sure were you are are from or if your even sane, but i hope you feel better about that little outburst

Well, I just read the thread again and there are 6 or 7 posts suggesting that either England are more harshly refereed at the breakdown in their league leading to them being unable to compete at the breakdown, or , others sides - namely NZ - are refereed in a more favourable light.

This is tosh. The side attacking more, having real go forward ball will have the benefit of decisions - not because they are NZ or any other team or because they're playing England.
England do not compete as well at the breakdown because they are not as good as other sides in this area. England as GH said are more concerned with securing the ball than rucking past it and having quick ball. This is not the refs fault, it's in the mindset of English players to have slow ball and play a grinding game of attrition. This leads to penalties at the breakdown for lots of reasons - not because the referees in the Aviva are taught to referee the game differently as compared to all the other referees.

That's what I was talking about, it sounds like this blaming of the referee for Englands problems at the breakdown is an excuse.
I admit I may have been a little over the top with my post, but come on. It's not just blaming the ref now for an individual game, it's blaming the aviva referees on mass for England losing the breakdown battle.

I think you're misunderstanding some of the points people are making, possibly wilfully. I agree that we are not as good at the breakdown, i'm not looking for excuses, just reasons. It could be that other nations players are born with an inate ability to compete at the breakdown, or more plausibly it could be a combination of factors such as coaching, reffing, playing culture. We are absolute poopie at the breakdown, but good at the scrum. I don't believe the latter is a result of English players being born with specifically developed muscles relevant to the scrummage or anything else - much more likely is the fact that we value it, have a strong scrummaging tradition and therefore have a decent (ish) coaching tradition.

Personally, I welcome Henry's comments, irrespective of his motives. For ages i've felt that foreign coaches have deliberately conspired to keep schtum and snigger as they watch as fail to see the blatant flaw in our national game.

I find it an extraordinary claim that AP refs are unanimously penalising good breakdown technique.

If you watch NZ executing a turn over, the players advance over the ball on their feet, pushing backwards or removing the tackled player and any arriving support, then then the acting scrum half clears the ball away from the area altogether, protected by the wall of advancing players. This is not the same activity that is being penalised in the AP where players leap off their feet into the opposition side of the ruck, jump on top of the ruck area or come charging in from the side.

What saves NZ from being penalised for obstruction I believe is that firstly, the ball is cleared so quickly, and so far away from the area that the players ahead of the ball are not impeding any one. Secondly they do this only when the contact area is susceptible to turn over and when they have sufficient numbers to move the ball or perform the clean out effectively. When the timing is right, they tend to commit very few numbers or no one at all, with players taking up defensive positions at the fringes and directly behind the ruck.

There was a bit of a set-to in the SH a few years ago as Australia tried to complain this clear out technique used by NZ and SA was illegal and I believe that the IRB confirmed that this behaviour was acceptable provided the clear out target area beyond the ball was approximately "dining table sized" and that players retreated to on-side positions and didn't loiter and impede the opposition.

Whether or not you think it should be allowed is irrelevant to the fact that it is, has been openly condoned and surely this means any side not doing this is just foolish.

Dont think its about ability as much as tactics. Seems the control freak nature of the scrums - posession, restart, solid platform etc are being recreated at the breakdown where possible.
Whereas GH sees the breakdown as part of the overall continuity of going forward. A back will run as far as he can get tackled and the rest will make sure they continue without stopping as if we are going forward, you guys must be going backward.

England see it as we have the ball here. Lets move it to there. Stop. Regain control. Start again. Move it to there. Thinking something must come from all that posession and knowing the opposition cant score without it.Simple really.
Just two different lines of thought. One of control. One of continuity. One of low risk versus one of opportunity.

Taylorman wrote:Dont think its about ability as much as tactics. Seems the control freak nature of the scrums - posession, restart, solid platform etc are being recreated at the breakdown where possible.
Whereas GH sees the breakdown as part of the overall continuity of going forward. A back will run as far as he can get tackled and the rest will make sure they continue without stopping as if we are going forward, you guys must be going backward.

England see it as we have the ball here. Lets move it to there. Stop. Regain control. Start again. Move it to there. Thinking something must come from all that posession and knowing the opposition cant score without it.Simple really.
Just two different lines of thought. One of control. One of continuity. One of low risk versus one of opportunity.

Sounds about tight to me!

maybe the situyation we are in at present is like what happened with football, when forign players came in we couldnt understand the play acting, we tackled harder- the game changed and we got penalised for things we didnt in the past,. forigners got away with diving- our football had to try and adapt to this new style of play(the reffing evolved with this new style of play).

overlordofthewest wrote:I can't believe it!
Not a ball has been kicked nor try scored. Only a WC winning coach giving his opinion and already ITS THE REFS FAULT !!!

They ref us differently in England than every other part of the world that's why we're rubbish at the breakdown.

Other sides always get the rub of the green.

Looks like you're getting the excuses in way early this year. Im looking out for the official who's reffing what game thread so we can see England will yet again be unfairly treated by (insert refs name) when the day comes.

Oh well, I wonder what would have happened if England's star player was red carded for an offence that occurred 20 or so times but until that point had only been a penalty or yellow card.
Maybe they could ask the ref if there was time for the lineout, get told yes and then the ref blows for full time.
Maybe a try awarded against them in a quick lineout that was clearly illegal (sorry Ireland).

If that were happen you'd have a point.



We're reffed differently and more harshly than the rest of world

I guess your 'rant' is directed at viewtothegym's comments. He's Welsh, like you. Sorry about that.

To be honest the standard of referring in the Pro12 is terrible, teams are regularly allowed to get away murder at the breakdown.
The Aviva refs seem to be a lot more professional and competent.
Don't get me wrong i think the teams and players are to blame as well but the officiating of the breakdown is a lot stricter and by the book.

gowales wrote:To be honest the standard of referring in the Pro12 is terrible, teams are regularly allowed to get away murder at the breakdown.
The Aviva refs seem to be a lot more professional and competent.
Don't get me wrong i think the teams and players are to blame as well but the officiating of the breakdown is a lot stricter and by the book.

Why should that concern England clubs or, more importantly, English Internationals?

So the standards are appalling at the breakdown in Pro12? Sides get away with all the bad stuff there, practice it to perfection and then also get away with it at International level? Because that's what Henry is talking about - International.

So what's the excuse for those standards or lack of them at International level? Pro12 philosophy spreading out from source?

Henry is talking about the disadvantage England puts itself at when playing International. It doesn't matter what Pro12 does, it's how referees interpret International matches... and if that happens to coincide with how Pro12 sides operate well - so be it. If they were getting pinged, they'd change focus.

A few points,firstlySir Freddie Allen[THE oldest surviviing AllBlack 93]record Lions 1966 4-0,Europe 1967 unbeaten on tour but did not play Ireland due to foot and mouth.
1968 France and Australia unbeaten,Sir Graham Henry was successful with Auckland,the Blues ,All Blacks[85%plus]record over 103 matches.
Coached Wales to a 53% win record including there ONLY win versus the Boks.
Lions tour COULD have been won but for a player revolt according to some media reports at the time.He is probably THE most successful Coach over such a long period.To THAT extent he knows what he is t.alking about.With respect Hansen Coaching Wales,and the All Blacks are two different teams .I doubt the All Blacks will fall apart.
When he says England are afraid to try things he is correct,BUT that applies right
down the line Clubs,age Group etc.
ALSO it applies to ALL Countries in the NH,the first inclination after winning the ball.Is to set up another drive and keep recycling rather than a quick feed to the
Backs.
The defensive mentality pervades right through the game,Wales v the Boks RWC
game was a Classic example.Constant recycling the ball instead of giving the backs a run with quick ball which may have breached the defence.
Kitch Christie may have had a 13-0 run 1994/5 BUT only one of them was versus the All Blacks.BUT it was the most important one the 1995 RWC.

Hey Emack, I hope your right about Hansen, I thought about it a bit and even went back and watched a few reruns. I then got so angry I had to stop.

I hope that having served his time under GH he has learnt a few things about man management, the lineout, the press, and the public because for Wales he was an abject failure in all of those areas. His lineout with the all blacks was also poor so he was moved by GH. For all his gruffness he has an ego that refused to accept when he was wrong even though it was obvious to everybody. He managed to insult some great former players despite them being correct about the state of the team, He continued to disrupt the welsh team after he had left and was partly responsible for the toxic relations in the welsh camp in 05-06.

The one thing I can give him credit for was making the welsh team as fit as proffessional sportsman should be but that was it. Failures in tactics and selection compounded his time with us.

Whilst GH is welcomed back to Wales with open arms and smiles as is his wife after her time with the netball team. Hansen is disliked considerably.

If in 12 months the All Blacks have performed badly in the tri nations and lost to Ireland at home and he starts trotting out the performance not results mantra, Im sure there are a few ex pat welsh who will join the lynch mob.

Lions would have won under GH if Austin Healey hadnt been in the camp.

Don't know Emack
I reckon Hansen could stuff it up for us. I'm not talking about NZ falling to 5th in the world but we could easily lose a game to Ireland and 2/3 matches in the 4 nations and then a game during the AIs.
Lose 4/5 games in one year is bad enough

I agree with Graham Henry about the manner in which England kills the ball at the breakdown.

They want to seal it of before they do anything with it. South Africa is similar in the time it takes to do something with the ball, and on the odd occasion where we do get the ball out quickly any thoughts of playing wide is immediately stifled by fourie du Preez and Morne Steyn.

Their instinct is to get the ball to a forward who is littering our backline, and they want to keep on doing this until hopefully a line break is made, their other instinct is to kick the ball. Very seldom do our back get the opportunity to run with ball in hand, and due to the fact that they are starved of opportunity, their first instinct is to also just run a straight line into opposition defences. They don't want to play expansively or have much interplay amongst one another becuase they see that as a potential to lose possession, and also limiting their time to run with ball in hand.

England has more talent in their backs, and actually want to be more adventurous than SA, but what their forwards are doing is to slow the ball down to such an extent that their backline gets the ball too late.

I want to liken this to my son when I try to teach him about the momentum when bowling.

The reason a bowler has a run up is to gether momentum and rythm, if he stops at the crease before delivering the ball, he halts the momentum and the rythm.

That is exatly what England does, they halt any momentum they gain by closing up the rucks.

Take New Zealand as an example, becuase they secure ball and immediately get it out again, they maintain the momentum and rythm and can there for have backs with well timed runs carrying on that rythm, change angles, pace or what ever is necessary.

Dan Carter of course also has the ability to think quickly and has great vision.

But think about it this way. Dan carter gets to practice his skill from fast ball most of the time, so he has no issue with the momentum or rythm of the game.

Morne Steyn can't get into a rythm, he is standing on the back foot most of the time and doesn't get oportunity to practice rythm and momentum during a match due to slow ball.

England are in the same boat.

Two points,the All Blacks Lineout was Isaac Ross,a rookie ,Brad Thorn a non-jumper,plus a tail gunner.Ali Williams THE key All Black lineout forward was out for two seasons with an Achilles injury.
2009 was the worst year for losses in recent memory[1998 being the previous best].They lost 4 Games France,without Williams,McCaw,Carter,and Conrad Smith.
3 to the Boks 2 without Williams,Carter and McCaw half fit,ALL the coaching staff were under pressure then.
Donnelly THE best line out Tactician in NZ Rugby fixed the Lineout no bother,HE is now at the Crusaders.
The All Black lineout has 4 options now,a genuine jumper at 3[4]? as well as 5 plus Kaino and Read,McCaw is even an option.
With respect a fit Carter and McCaw,the AllBlacks are the strongest since2010,a loss in the 4Ns always possible,3rd Bledisloe ditto,Ireland maybe.
Europe possibly but don`t hold your breath they have arguably the strongest
4Ns squad.
IF you think the All Blacks could`nt have won the 3Ns last year if they had chosen to.
I think you would be mistaken,full strength against the Boks,they would probably have won that one.
Second string versus OZ that is what Should have happened,it did`nt the RWC was too important too them.
Good on Deans and Oz for fielding full strength sides every match they deserved there title.

IF you think the All Blacks could`nt have won the 3Ns last year if they had chosen to I think you would be mistaken

Oh come on, that's really starting to push the cart a bit isn't it? You think NZ chose to lose? I thought you said NZ was all about winning every game? Give me a break.

New Zealand's contribution to gutter sports "journalism" Chris Rattue has weighed in on Henry's comments here. You'll probably enjoy reading it if you're Australian, Welsh, or Irish

miteyironpaw wrote:

IF you think the All Blacks could`nt have won the 3Ns last year if they had chosen to I think you would be mistaken

Oh come on, that's really starting to push the cart a bit isn't it? You think NZ chose to lose? I thought you said NZ was all about winning every game? Give me a break.

Whether they would have won it or not is moot, what is clear is that they targetted the RWC last year and used the trinations as preperation for that. YOu cant blame the NZ coaching team for that, they got it right and won the cup. HOwever, you now have to think about defending that title in four years time, McCaw, Carter, Nonu, Meealamu, Ali Williams, Thorn, Weepu, Muliana, Hore, arent going to be there, You also have a number of other players who may make it but are going to be the wrong side of thirty so may not.

Hansen has to bring in a new clutch of players and see how they fare in the environment. Thats not always an easy job espescially for a RWC winning coach who may be too close to the players who won the cup last time. Andy Robinson failed precisely because of that. PDV failed to develop Jake Whites side and hoped that the team would produce again ignoring players like Bismark for tried and trusted. Australia suffered in the same way after 99. So following a RWC winning coach has been a bit of a poisened chalice.

Hansen as a Head coach was stubborn and blinkered. His outright refusal to change despite results saw senior players walk away from internatinal rugby a year before the world cup in 03 (Howley, Quinnell). We went into 03 RWC without a gameplan, without clear structures, low on confidence and with a pack of forwards who had seen the setpiece become utterly devalued. He sent out a bunch of guys he percieved as second rate against NZ who proceeded to ignore his instructions and give the all blacks a fright. His 34% winning average is down there amongst the worst in Welsh Rugby, GH had 58% before him Ruddock got 65% after him. Why? becaue both Henry and Ruddock recognised the need for a setpiece that functioned. Hansen saw it as an irrelevance to restart the game and nothing more. To trot out cliches like performance over results as you dismantle a setpiece and attack that had proven potent under Henry was an insult to a rugby population who may be a tad hysterical but they tend to understand the game was stupidity. Crowds went down as a consequence which cost the WRU a hell of a lot of cash.

Insulting former players and coaches who were spot on in their criticism and who were far more knowledgable about the game than he proved to be. That included people like Jiffy, Barry and Bennet and Edwards. It included John Dawes our most successful coach. Yes former players as pundits can be a pain espescially Jiffy but you dont become a dual code lion unless you know a thing or two about the game and insulting legends of the welsh game was ignorant arrogant and actually pretty dumb. He Alienated the public.

His subsequent involvement in the welsh team after he left the job, listening in to arguments between coaches on speakerphones and stirring it up with some of the welsh players was not only unproffessional for a coach but an apalling indictment of him as an individual. Gatland when he came in to the welsh squad said right away any of the same and people wouldnt play for him. Popham and Peel should have listened. He had favorites in his squad that were based not on who did the job for him on the pitch but on who his sycophants were(The same sycophants that were so disruptive under ruddock and Jenkins). Its notable that Gatland steered well away from those players when he took over. His mismanagement of players like Shane Williams, Henson, Charvis, Quinnel, Howley even Adam Jones (good players not also rans) was legendary.

Has he learned from that experience or has he consigned it to the dustbin dissmissing it as only the welsh so it doesnt matter? I have a feeling its probably the latter. If he hasnt learned then I fear the All Blacks could be in for a very tough couple of years. Thats not somthing that pleases me quite the opposite, I like NZ rugby as do most welsh fans.

Kiwireddevil wrote:New Zealand's contribution to gutter sports "journalism" Chris Rattue has weighed in on Henry's comments here. You'll probably enjoy reading it if you're Australian, Welsh, or Irish

I wonder if this guy is getting trouble at home. His vitriol spurting articles are supposedly full of satire and intellectual debate.

All I see is a bitter man being pummeled at home by his spouse and children.

I note he doesnt mention Guscott, Wilkinson, Healey, who in anybodys book(even mine for a welshman) were top quality international backs. At least its not the welsh gettig bashed by the village idiot of rugby journalism.

"you now have to think about defending that title in four years time, McCaw, Carter, Nonu, Meealamu, Ali Williams, Thorn, Weepu, Muliana, Hore, arent going to be there, You also have a number of other players who may make it but are going to be the wrong side of thirty so may not. "

Unfortunately for us they have Todd, Anscombe, Fruean, Elliot, a seemingly endless procession of Whitelocks, Hoeata , Beauden Barrett, Israel Dagg or Corey Jane to take their places.

They now have the services of one of the most respect forwards coaches in the world, continuity from the RWC winning team (something England lacked when SCW resigned), SGH hovering in a supporting role across the next level down and a fantastic 7's programme regularly churning out exciting new world class backs and honing them to the peak of fitness, awareness and skill.

In short, I don't think you can compare the situation in Wales almost a decade ago with the situation in NZ now.

well i hope to mite but only time will tell. the evidece of history is not on his side but i hope he breaks the record and NZ become the first team to retain the cup. If Wales dont do it for the first time of course

I think I understand it now. If you have a dodgy moustache and look weedy, you write bilge and spread controversy to see other people fighting. Hence Chris Rat Spew and Stephen Engerland Jones.

As for not winning the 3N, this is of course true. Henry rightly recognsied that no team had ever won the 3N and the World Cup in the same year and as the 3N is no more that will forever be true.

Kia, you new zealander you!

kiakahaaotearoa wrote:I think I understand it now. If you have a dodgy moustache and look weedy, you write bilge and spread controversy to see other people fighting. Hence Chris Rat Spew and Stephen Engerland Jones.

As for not winning the 3N, this is of course true. Henry rightly recognsied that no team had ever won the 3N and the World Cup in the same year and as the 3N is no more that will forever be true.

Andy Howell doesnt have a moustache but does all of the rest of teh above. Truly he is the pubic hair on the toilet of humanity, that keeps coming back like a turd that wont flush. Even Rattue isnt as bad as him

Maybe he wears his moustache on the inside. Or on his bottom as it sounds like. A lovely combination of metaphor and simile there TycroesOsprey, but I must say a very cynical view of humanity.

Ah its not humanity but after thinking a lot about Hansen and wales maybe I was in a negative mindset. Besides I couldnt think of another word to use. I did think the toilet of rugby but stopped myself.

When you think about it Hansen is an emotive word.

The Fanta Menace, MM Bop and Captain Gruff all make you reach for a loaded gun...

kiakahaaotearoa wrote:When you think about it Hansen is an emotive word.

The Fanta Menace, MM Bop and Captain Gruff all make you reach for a loaded gun...

Let me show you how journalism works in the modern world. I will illustrate this not with words but with emoticons that tell a thousand words.

The Circle of Rugby Bilge
by the Sunday Times and the NZ Herald

Geez tycroes now you've really got me worried. I was apprehensive about hansen before this but I didnt know he was that bad at Wales.

The ego thing is what causes this and im only assuming and hoping his working so closely with Henry has rubbed off on him.
I know we're spoilt but when youre used to the best its just not the same.

When I think back over the past 20-30 years our coaches have all had their issues and in one way or another were generally divisive in some way. Harty grizz and mains all had their detractors. We have to go back to Lochore and Jack Gleeson to find coaches that were generally respected by most.

You mention the need to find more players within 4 years. That is the least of my worries. We've had 4-5 years of under 20s never having lost a match and many have already or are beginning to filter through.

We get our main college matches live on sky rugby channel here and if you saw the matches from last year you'd be blown away by the talent out there.

At that age to have almost mastered the same level of technical ability, pace and strength of the ab game its a sight to see. In both forwards and backs there is some frightening talent I can assure you.

This thread is getting a little of thread,BUT 2009 NZ`s worst year since 1998.
Started as IRB number one side,crippled by injuries to key Players lost 4 matches out of 14.Lost the Hillary Shield to France despite being holders and drawing series 1-1.
MOST teams holders keep it in a Drawn series,Lost 3 Matches to the Boks.
Beat Australia 4 times.and toured Europe undefeated[in tests],without conceding a try.
Except to OZ in Japan.[that one was`nt clearly grounded short,Jap TMO took so long the ref gave it in disgust].Then regained IRB number one title.
By comparison the Boks World Champs,Lions winners,3Ns Champions.IRB number 1 side halfway thru the year.PDV was GOD. By the end of it the Boks record was worst than the All Blacks and PDV was a Clown.dropped to IRB number 2.
NZ Rugby builds from the bottom up 5 year olds upwards,each carefuly graded,
until they reach Test level.
England have a very good record of developing players,at least below test level
one of Squeaky`s few achievements.
England have had roughly 4 outstanding periods under Wavell-Wakefield,Geoff Cooke,Jack Rowell,and Sir Clive Woodward.
Club competions and fear of failure,pervades thru ALL Rugby,AllBlacks and Oz resorting to Formula for success or relative failure.
Cup Rugby[knockout]and League being different,and in NH the large influx of imports means homegrown talent suffers.
As to the next RWC,that is 4 years away,sports medicine is such many of those mentioned by you COULD still be there.
Justin Marshall,a man whose thoughts I thoroughly agree with states you play one Tournament at a time.HE agrees with my opinion,the Shielding of players v the Boks from injury`s did`nt work did it?
Neither SA or NZ bothered about this years 3Nsgiving the RWC priority to there shame,Australia did`nt and for that alone they deserve the kudos.
As to back to back RWC`s I doubt any side will do that,and can`t say I really care if they do.
As to All Black/Bok sides not playing to win inthe 3Ns THAT of course is ludicrous BUT the teams picked.Were`nt STRONG enough to do it.
Read Chris Rattues rantings in NZ Herald,he is incorrect England have over the years.Many exciting players Cipriani,Robinson,Richard Sharpe, Duckham,Jackson,Risman and on.BUT like New Zealand players like Fox over Botica,Merthens over Spencer the steady eddie was preferred to the Flash unpredictable.
Most sides incidentally would have been happy with the AllBlacks 2009 record 10 wins out of 14.
What is successful to some sides,is disastrous for an AllBlack or Bok side.

Be worried Taylor be very worried.

All coaches have their detractors in Wales we have had a few who have been very unpopular, Ron Waldron and Gareth Jenkins spring to mind. However, I would say Hansen was the only one who was universally unpopular. Even Jenkins has his supporters but I think you would find it hard to find a welshman who could say anything positive other than our fitness levels and that was down to Hore really not Hansen.

Im sure you do have the players, but you still need to bring them into the environment and manage them as individuals to get the best out of them. Will he do that? Certainly some of the players really liked him and he was cheered when he left after our 2003 performance in teh RWC albeit ironically by many in the crowd.

But in a year if hes told Fitzy to keep his mouth shut because he knows nothing about rugby. If you see your lineout become a liability, if you see your backs looking disjointed and confused and your forwards simply look depressed on the pitch, If you lose to Ireland at home and end up third in the four nations. If players walk away from the All Blacks because of him and at least one senior player threatens to rip his head off; alledgedly he ran and hid in his office. If he sends a third string to the bledisloe cup saying local rivalries are unimportant. I will be cheering the All black lynch mob on.

I wouldnt say I hate him, I would happily urinate on him if he was on fire, but I would be putting in a few kicks as well. And yes it was all down to his ego, His record speaks for itself, first championship whitewash, longest losing streak, one of the worst win loss rates in charge of wales and he was only there for two years. We only ended the losing streak because ruddock was put in charge of the game against Romania(yes romania thats how bad it got) and picked the players who Hansen had ignored. He saw his team humiliated by the England thirds in cardiff. God he was awful as a head coach. He told Shane that he would never be a top winger and took him to the RWC as third choice scrum half, He picked mark jones over then young world player of the year Henson who was at his best. Even in the RWC if you look back at our matches and results we were poor until the All Blacks game and its well known that after the first try was scored against us the players went under the posts and said screw him lets do it our way. At that point things changed.

I wouldn't waste your time worrying about NZ TO, I'm sure Hansen has moved on a lot since then, the environment in NZ is different and presumably one he's more familiar with. He also seems to have staff around him and he seemed to go ok in various roles with NZ.

Wales on the other hand have suffered under a variety of coaches - perhaps it was half Hansen and half the Welsh players? I find it hard to argue with dropping Henson, the guy is a waste of space. How can you be sure Wales wouldn't have done better with SW at 9?

just started a thread on it rather than derailing this one on GH who I do respect mite. but SW was always a better winger than 9 and yes Henson is a waste of space but at that point he was the most exciting player in the NH and was on top form.

Obviously i have to consider that with a grain of salt in that any coach is going to be disliked if they lose terribly.

Here the knives were out for Henry in 07 and if not given the second chance his legacy will ultimately have been one of failure. Dont see a lot pf henry haters here now.

So one thing is for sure. Hansen deserves a second chance. I dont think he'll directly cause many losses as we dont suffer many whoever the coach is such is our player power.

Although you've definitely put me on edge! One thing he will know is he has impossibly high standards to match and he'll know this (he will wont he?)

Alan...tut tut. Same tape again
Two facts: Oz played their top team cos they had too. They showed they havnt any other against Samoa. So they chose to win the 3N matches. Cant see why kudos is being given when they chose the only acceptable option.

SA doesnt have seconds either. They chose to lose 3N matches to concentrate totally on the world cup.

NZ were a hybrid of both.

Case in point were returning players. Using your preferrnce Dagg- one of the stars of the world cup- would not have gone. Henry specifically said his return match in SA after months of injury put him in the squad.

NZ still had a good chance to win the 3N but were beaten by a better oz side on the day.

In the end SA, who did focus on the cup, and oz, who didnt, got nowhere near the final such was the AB preparation.

In the end NZ won by one point. The team were stuffed. Id say GH played the year perfectly in the end.

The game is too complex to sit back and say "always play your best team" when these days no one does it by choice.

The only 'embarrassed' one seems to be you Alan as i didnt see a lot of embarrassment on the 70000 faces down queen street that day.

Taylorman, no need to panick mate, firstly Hansen has had 8 years with Henry and will be a much more experienced coach, secondly Coaching Welsh talent compared to the depth of New Zealand talent is unrealistic.

Alan, PDV was never God. Even at his hight on 2009 he was criticised for his substitutions that were not only bizarre, but almost cost us both the Lions series as well as a few Trination matches

Perhaps... In assuming NZ could probably attract the best of coaches other than those already contracted not so sure we have ended up with the best. Be good to know what Henrys real thoughts are and whether hes just being loyal. It will have been typical of him not to throw a curve ball at the end of his career. One which could be interpreted harshly...
Hmmm...
Tyroes has put it out to the valleys so will see what the warts and all views are...

lol my countrymen are either asleep or dont want to remember so you may have to wait a bit.

Well Taylorman, sometimes the best way to underline your greatness, and the final act of many a savvy manager is to ensure you are replaced by a buffoon, ensuring your achievements look all the more impressive by comparison.

Ok. Im off to play snooker for a while. My opponent has amassed 7 maximum 147 breaks in practice matches in case you play (of course i assume all welshmen do) so im not fancying my chances.

Will check in later...cheers...

Taylorman,as you well know my ethos is well known I am glad the All Blacks won the RWC.My Support is as strong for the All Blacks as any here my opinion
is as valid as any here.I am many things but a fool or hypocrite I am not!!!,the All Blacks.Given the momentum could have played the full side versus the Boks,won it.Then Played a weakened team including Isreal Dagg vresus is Oz,in my opinion they should have.
THAT does`nt detract from the AllBlack coaching team,the side,or any other.
Maybe they would`nt have sustained injuries to Read or Thomson either,as for
Dagg not making it.
Cory Jane could have gone to full back,and Gear to the wing without weakening the side.
It is all in the Realms of hypothesis anyway,BUT I know what I think and am too old in my ways to change now.

Taylorman wrote:Perhaps... In assuming NZ could probably attract the best of coaches other than those already contracted not so sure we have ended up with the best. Be good to know what Henrys real thoughts are and whether hes just being loyal. It will have been typical of him not to throw a curve ball at the end of his career. One which could be interpreted harshly...
Hmmm...
Tyroes has put it out to the valleys so will see what the warts and all views are...

I'm not sure we do. Like most countries the NZRFU is a hotbed of polical intrigue and the best coaches aren't always appointed, or aren't appointed when they could have the biggest impact. I think the current appointment is dominated by two themes:
1: Henry and co were in the job for a long and were successful, and many coaches have gone overseas as the didn't see themselves having a chance (e.g. Deans. Gatland and a range of provincial coaches),
2: The policy is to hire from NZ super teams if possible. I can see why they are ding this, it creates a pathway that keeps competitant coaches in NZ, and may bring back coaches from overseas. But it means it is difficult for people like Cotter or Smidt to get in.

The end result is we have a coach with questions about his ability as a head coach, with assistants who may not be up to it. This is not a doom and gloom post because they may be fine. I'm just pointing out that only 1 out of the 5 or 6 NZ coachs coaching major international sides, or top club/provincial sides outside NZ applied for the job, and our local super rugby coaches are still relatively inexperienced.

Kiwireddevil wrote:New Zealand's contribution to gutter sports "journalism" Chris Rattue has weighed in on Henry's comments here. You'll probably enjoy reading it if you're Australian, Welsh, or Irish

Knows what he's talking about that guy