Is controversy always required to sell a good book- Graham Henry

Henry has his lates book out this week and I've already pre-ordered.

Tonight on 'Sunday' lord ted comes out with the 2007 debacle presumably the same as in this article:

http://www.worldcupweb.com/rugby/news/viewarticle.asp?id=36036

We've heard all this before- the forty unawarded penalties. I'm glad he didn't pursue it at the time as it would have got him nowhere and its credit to the man that he didnt.

Just wonder if rehashed controversy is always necessary to kickstart a book sale as it always seems to happen.

All i know about this story is what Murray Deaker was saying on radio sport this morning, I get the feeling its not going to help the book sales at all, in fact could have the opposite effect.

Yeah henrys got enough stories to share as he's done more coaching rugby in his life than just about everyone. Just can't help think its a publishers ploy because its very un-henry like to sulk.

It'll help it sell, no doubt. He doesn't usually throw many barbs so he obviously feels strongly about it. I think it's the last 60 minutes of the game France weren't penalized is the issue for him, the rest of it is context. He's has a point re: the IRB. They should have a strategy and this game looks like fish, smells like a fish and tastes like a fish more than any other I can think of. It's worth a look. I'm sure SA would have liked a review of their quarter final in 2011. So in terms of the process everyone would be better off.

Love the Kiwi arrogance, he considers it 'bizarre' that his team might have lost and in doing so effectively accuses Barnes, the barrister, of corruption. Clearly NZ did have an attitude problem reflected by their coach but its old news, although this will inevitably be the story

blackcanelion wrote:It'll help it sell, no doubt. He doesn't usually throw many barbs so he obviously feels strongly about it. I think it's the last 60 minutes of the game France weren't penalized is the issue for him, the rest of it is context. He's has a point re: the IRB. They should have a strategy and this game looks like fish, smells like a fish and tastes like a fish more than any other I can think of. It's worth a look. I'm sure SA would have liked a review of their quarter final in 2011. So in terms of the process everyone would be better off.

Mr Terwat Henry needs all the help he can to sell his book,lets face it only dorky Aucklanders and his close knit favourites will buy this crap

when Sir Ted got to a WC Final he won; when Merts got to a WC Final he choked when the game was there for the winning

Only Aucklanders may buy Ted's book, but at least it'll be about a winner

The facts are there for everyone to see. Look at the stats for possession, territory, etc. ABs had it all their way yet couldn't squeeze a penalty from Barnes. France effectively played the cleanest and most disciplined game in history (probably). That smells fishy alright.

Still, calling it match fixing is a bit of a stretch, probably more just Barnes incompetence and yellow-belly scaredness to change the outcome with a pen. Never mind, it's all in the past.

Mowgli, arrogance is thinking wales would have won the WC had warburton not been sent off. Heard that a few times.

I liked Merts, bit of a character and legend AB. But he did choke.

EBOP wrote:The facts are there for everyone to see. Look at the stats for possession, territory, etc. ABs had it all their way yet couldn't squeeze a penalty from Barnes. France effectively played the cleanest and most disciplined game in history (probably). That smells fishy alright.

Still, calling it match fixing is a bit of a stretch, probably more just Barnes incompetence and yellow-belly scaredness to change the outcome with a pen. Never mind, it's all in the past.

Mowgli, arrogance is thinking wales would have won the WC had warburton not been sent off. Heard that a few times.

I liked Merts, bit of a character and legend AB. But he did choke.

Not sure why it is vaguely relevant to this thread but some people always feel they have to make a pop based on national allegiance. I was commenting on the linked article which illustrated Henry's obvious arrogance. I am sure you have heard that said about Wales because it is true, of course Wales could have won, and they may well have beaten a struggling NZ side who were there for the taking without Carter. But you wouldn't have heard it form a coach. Not even Gatland or Howley are that arrogant (or stupid). Henry's arrogance in suggesting his side lost because of the ref says everything about the choker mindset....NZ seemed to think they had a right to the RWC until they actually won it!

So you took the time out to test henrys findings did you mowgli. Or is that just an opinion? He has laid out his reasons using fact based analysis and statistics. And you dismiss it as arrogance? Well thought out mowgli.
How many tests have you seen recently where so much possession gained through relentless phases has resulted in not one penalty in the last 50 minutes of the match.

I'll bet if you scoured every match above your local ten year old league that you wouldn't find one.

In the same way you wouldn't find a side that is laid half out the day before a test with food poisoning.

That arrogance too? Perhaps. But it sure does explain why our world cup stats are out of kilter with our usual percentages.

Arrogance? Or preferred thinking depending which side you support?

At least one side of each argument is supported with facts, analysis and logic. The other perhaps with a tinge of lemon?

Good stuff TM. GH on Sunday TV1, prob on OnDemand if you miss it.

Taylorman wrote:So you took the time out to test henrys findings did you mowgli. Or is that just an opinion? He has laid out his reasons using fact based analysis and statistics. And you dismiss it as arrogance? Well thought out mowgli.
How many tests have you seen recently where so much possession gained through relentless phases has resulted in not one penalty in the last 50 minutes of the match.

I'll bet if you scoured every match above your local ten year old league that you wouldn't find one.

In the same way you wouldn't find a side that is laid half out the day before a test with food poisoning.

That arrogance too? Perhaps. But it sure does explain why our world cup stats are out of kilter with our usual percentages.

Arrogance? Or preferred thinking depending which side you support?

At least one side of each argument is supported with facts, analysis and logic. The other perhaps with a tinge of lemon?

Gotta love highly strung Kiwis, the moment you suggest a hint of arrogance they throw their toys...arrogance personified. now that's factual, analytical and logical!!

Ignorance is bliss huh, what's it like?

Rubbish Mowgli. It's opinion and unsubstantiated (that's not to deny we have strong feelings on the matter). The statements are in the media to sell a book, it's about what he thought at the time and maybe now (we are reading a journalists take on the book).

The stats stand out by a country mile. I'm pretty sure you wont find a similar stat in an international game (I get them the week following a test, I don't recall seeing anything similar). Most of the time we all complain because the ref missed a forward pass, foul etc, or seems to let the opposition get away with something consistently. In this instance Barnes and France where in sync for the last 3/4 of the match (I thought it was slightly less). This in a game that blew away the record for the most time ball was actually in play and where the AB's had a significant possession advantage throughout the game, and were on top at the set piece. It's very unusual and possibly unique. I don't even see it for a half at my kids games and each side provides a ref for a half.

I'm pretty sure the issue has been raised in L'Equipe as well.

Just have to wonder if there will be repercussions for ted. He had a few swipes at the local establishment- losing his car park and seats at eden park for one, even though in jest.

Was an interesting programme. Another aucklander on the depression wagon like so many others added this year. Adds weight to jk being there, perhaps he can mix the specialties together and cure the whole city!

Taylorman, I dont know if youve noticed but us Aucklanders have got a lot to be depressed about. and in firness it was petty to take his carpark off him.

Interesting where he agreed with the interviewer that the silliest thing he did in his career was to accept the assignment to coach the Lions.

In terms of repurcussions from the IRB, what can they do? nothing, if he has slandered Barnes that a different issue. but I cant help but think that hes too smart for that ol' accorn.

Well he did slander Barnes tonight I thought. Interesting the commentary snip they showed..."refs only reffing one team in this match"

He suggested match fixing under the sports beting guise and perhaps likened it to what happened in cricket. (Snooker had it as we'll with j higgins- still can't understand how he got away with a wet bus ticket slap).

I wonder if PDV will be able to analyse our QF of last year, somehow doubt that.

A lot depends on why you buy a book on Rugby,back in the days when i did they
fell into 3 categories.Tour books [remember them],Coaching Manuals and Biographies usually Ghost written.I have a dated but nice library of about 100 books[not counting the hundreds of Almanacks].A Graham Henry Coaching Manual I would go out and buy.His biography probably not.It depends on your perpective,most of the biographies I bought I read once or not at all.The tour books I still read from time to time.As an example Sir Freddie Allen was a great adminstrator,Coach [in his time as good as GH]and in his day player.George Nepia was an all time great at Union and League playing provincial NZ rugby into his 40`s and played for Olympians at 50!!!.His Biog was less than rivetting.
THE Two Greatest coaches of there Eras never Coached there Countries Vic Cavanagh/Carwyn James.I have a copy of Carwyn James manual which was pretty revolutenary in its day.A Vic Cavanagh Coaching manual i`d kill for tho Bob Scott on Rugby is probably close.IzakVan heerdens was excellent too.
Most Biogs have some mud slinging in them Peter Hilton -Jones made a rep for swearing on Radio after one test.Andy Haden THAT Test match against Wales
so TED having a pop at Wayne Barnes is par for the course.Probably publisher inspired any way.No I won`t be buying it I don`t but books these days IF it turns up in the Local Library I will.

Im buying it as it has so many links with my own days growing up in the good old days with auckland rugby. I knew of henry as early as his being Grant Fox/ Martin Crowes coach at auckland grammar. Fox was making headlines with his prodigious kicking even at 15.

Then Auckland, Wales, Lions, Blues and both a winning and losing world cup.

The most successful test coach ever with I think over 120 winning tests all up. Not many have done that much. He'll have a few stories to tell and I like the guy. A real kiwi who looked after our sport for most of his life. Happy to contribute my forty bucks as part of his pension plan- he's deserved it.

Having just seen the Planet rugby review of the Book ghosted as usual by Bob Howitt.Then I can see it being banned and Libel writs flying everywhere.A Ref
as Wayne Barnes was inexperienced yes ,but Biased?Not since Bok vNz days of tours in the amateur era THEY were biased.BUT match Fixing?
IF you have procedures for that thats a whole new can of worms last test 1976 Nz v SA.Nz V wales 1978,Nz V Sa 1995,Sa v France 1995.France v Tonga 2011,SA v Aus 2011,Nz vFrance 2011.ALL of those were controversial for various reasons but FIXED ?Sorry no way just don`t want to go down that road.In amateur days refs had there own National chacteristics SA were very strict on set piece penalties at least to visitors.Lineout infringements as well as Scrum were expertly practised line out lifting and front row mafia tactics especially but they were treated as the norm because they were practised in there domestic game to.NZ what was considered standard rucking procedures was deliberate kicking of fallen player in other countries and so on.
TMOs need a trip tp SPECSAVERS on there recent decisions etc.i`d far rather put it down to oversights or incomptence than go that way.With respect it diminshes in many peoples eyes a great Coach.

As a post script when the officials handling of the 2007 by the Refs bosses was reviewed."Officials DID make mistakes BUT it did NOT effect the result !!!!" THAT was the official line.Bottom line 4 players injured or benched,including both 10`s,Macalister yellow carded maybe unluckily when the match was won and lost.Then inexperieced Captain not having the nous to set up a Drop goal attempt with in a reasonable range.Also the DG was not part of the Nz armoury post 2003 surprising when 2 had been won by one.

If he has accused a professional referee of match fixing he either needs to prove it or else thats goign to be slander.

From what I have seen of this the media and fans have spun this out of proportion.

I thought that at the time he considered the possibility of match fixing but has since made his peace with it. Maybe Im wrong.

I think it's been blown out of proportion.

I'm sure Henry doesn't agree with the minority of NZ supporters who claim bias, match fixing and foul play.

Most sensible NZ fans agree they were beaten by a better side.

I wonder what greyghost thinks about this (having said that, it might open up another world of pain for him).

You need to be more subtle with you hints sugarNspikes.

I'm sure I have no idea what you mean, bil

Uhuh.

This guy is a tool and i rarely say that about any sportsman!

Btw I hope Barnes sues him for every pretty penny he makes from this awfull book

blackcanelion wrote:Rubbish Mowgli. It's opinion and unsubstantiated (that's not to deny we have strong feelings on the matter). The statements are in the media to sell a book, it's about what he thought at the time and maybe now (we are reading a journalists take on the book).

The stats stand out by a country mile. I'm pretty sure you wont find a similar stat in an international game (I get them the week following a test, I don't recall seeing anything similar). Most of the time we all complain because the ref missed a forward pass, foul etc, or seems to let the opposition get away with something consistently. In this instance Barnes and France where in sync for the last 3/4 of the match (I thought it was slightly less). This in a game that blew away the record for the most time ball was actually in play and where the AB's had a significant possession advantage throughout the game, and were on top at the set piece. It's very unusual and possibly unique. I don't even see it for a half at my kids games and each side provides a ref for a half.

I'm pretty sure the issue has been raised in L'Equipe as well.

Jesus you lost, get over it and stop looking for conspiracies everywhere. You are all slandering a ref with no evidence other than your own superior attitudes and a self righteous arrogance based on Kiwi belief that you were unbeatable, you weren't , you choked (surprise) so just accept it. Just cos you lose doesn't make it bizarre! Heaven forbid NZ lose a game of rugby because the ref decisions didn't go their way, as if the ref is expected to be sympathetic to them just because they are the All Blacks...how many times do you hear Northern Hemisphere sides complain about different ref interpretations against NZ? It happens all the time. The ABs lost that game for many reasons including their rotation system, their attitude, their inability to handle pressure and because they scored fewer points
I hate this righteous attitude that comes from Kiwi fans if it doesn't go their way. You have won the RWC at long last after whining about it being yours for so long but being unable to get it, so now you have it, have some dignity, stop carping and leave the past where it belongs.

mystiroakey wrote:Btw I hope Barnes sues him for every pretty penny he makes from this awfull book

Have you read the whole book? Didn't know it was out yet.



Same thing happened with Aus vs SA in 11 and NZ vs France in the final. Basically a team happened to be favoured by the ref-the other team played better than them but not well enough to take the ref out of the equation. It happens, especially in rugby where the goings on at every ruck can have multiple interpretations. Sad but true and the default choice is to complain about the ref. Sure Barnes' effort was worse than Joubert's and Lawrence's but it happens.

We'll never get over it. Was the lowest moment I've ever had as an All Black fan-mind you it was also due to me having final tickets and a pass to the official aftermatch. You guys are dead right in that Barnes was nowhere near culpable for the whole thing. Again let's commend France (and Dusautoir in particular-the defensive equivalent of Lomu vs England in 95) for an astounding defensive effort. NZ's selection was flawed. No Aaron Mauger to steady the ship. Muliaina at 13. An unfit Keith Robinson.

Bad decision making under pressure. Noone setting up for a drop goal. Although McAlister's attempt was when Barnes was playing advantage and he somehow ruled advantage was over when the kick happened. Being obsessed with driving over the line.

Luck also had something to do with it-was one of those games where everything seemed to go wrong. Not just the ref. Carter was forced off (NZ were 13-3 up when he left the field) and then Evans got hurt. Both NZ's best exponents of the drop goal-see Harlequins vs Stade for Evans' handling of that pressure.

They're the reasons why we lost anyway. Too many of them were our own fault to pin the blame on one person no matter how inept the performance was. We'll continue to analyse the game as it was the worst loss any of us have ever experienced. But don't generalise about how self-righteous NZers are-you're tarring us all with the same brush. We all probably had irrational thoughts but most of us suppressed them (Henry certainly did he went into the French dressing room to congratulate them). Just ignore the idiots who cry conspiracy no matter where they're from. Man you sound pretty vitriolic though Mowgli.

The evidence is on YouTube though so I don't get where you say there is none. Again however it is all down to interpretation. And on that night Barnes' interpretations were the only one that mattered. Hope he does well in the future and I don't mind if he refs us again.

Who knows we may have lost to SA in the final so jeepers if that happened it would have been a few hundred quid for nothing. Yes no offence English fans I believe we would have won the semi. Kudos on beating France though-you did what we failed to.

disney anyone promoting a book with this tosh doesnt deserve any credit- with that sort of ethics the book can only be based on untruths anyway. so Everybody- do not buy and do not read- you will only be less wise at the end of it. Its just clearly just propaganda.

"We'll continue to analyse the game as it was the worst loss any of us have ever experienced"

it just wasnt- infact no different from the final in 2011, and nothing like as inept as chelsea v barcelona semi final(erm 2009 maybe or before) and no different from countless english football games- however we just dont bring them up anymore, what the heck is the point. It doesnt change anything. Kiwis really are trying to shout at the moment- its becoming sickening- just get over it and dont buy the sados book

Sorry Oakey I wrote from the perspective of an ABs fan there.

I feel it was every bit as inept at Orebro's performance if not more. Don't need to go over it again. Though Ballack should have been carded for his outburst-noone should show the ref that much disrespect no matter how bad the stuff up was.

It's one or two pages of a book. I'd quite like to read it actually-I remember when he coached Auckland-think he succeeded Maurice Trapp. So he's been at the forefront of NZ rugby for a long time. There's a lot more interesting stuff in there than just that game. An 85% win ratio is pretty awesome-noone was within 10% of that in the pro era I think. The Blues were amazing in 96-97, you also read about how there was an enforced drinking culture in Mitchell's team and how shocked he was to come across it. Of course the most interesting bit would be "What did he REALLY think of that game?" but there's a lot more to it than that. But unfortunately those marketing it would go straight to that excerpt and ignore the rest.

The media brought it up, and someone posted the article on here as it is rugby news rehashing it or not. It's most of the detail we've found on the book so far though-hope to see more of it when it comes out. Should have called it Winning too-he did more of it than that arrogant sourpuss Woodward.

Too late mysti...already have. For like it or not this is the book of THE most successful winning coach of all time. Bar none. That's enough for me.

Your comments are like saying SCW has nothing to contribute folllowing his 76 zip lost to oz and dismal 2005 lions tour.

He too, from memory had better days.

yeah the guys successfull I will give him that- what annoys me is the way he is so admament that foul play was involved- problem is i this happens all the time in all sports and I really didnt like the way he said investigations would happen elsewhere when they just dont(maybe i mildly respect him for speaking out but he is being very one eyed)- What i find so hypoctritical is that the ref helped the kiwis out in the recent final- swings in roundabouts ya know!

i shouldnt have called him a saddo- because he clearly isnt- but he is either way to focused on this issue or creating a stir for the financial benefit

I think he's treading dangerous ground here, he's effectively saying Barnes is a match fixer.

If i was Barnes i'd be thinking about lawyering up.

I see GH doesn't mention anything about the 2011 WC Final....

How can you deduce that though? He shut up about it for five years. He wrote that he did let those thoughts enter his mind then thought better of it. Maybe if there was an investigation it may have brought to light certain issues that may have prevented the uproar of those games in 2011.

I actually read another analysis of the 2011 final which showed how every call that people were saying NZ benefited from could be interpreted in NZ's favour. Even Kaino coming through in the 76th minute. Mind you Rougerie deserved to come second after his filth (to negate the obvious retort there's no way I could run at full tilt and ram my knee into someone's head with that accuracy). Again it's all down to interpretation.

He's not the one creating the stir remember. There are others profiting from it a lot more than he.

barnes should still seak legal advice on this either way for defamation of character

Henry's already had his lawyers pore over it. He said they took 400 words out of it which would have really made a case out of it.

"Howitt has since revealed that he, Henry and the publishers are prepared for any legal action resulting from the book, as it "has been scrutinised by lawyers".

"I can tell you that there were probably 300 or 400 words that were taken out, which I'd love to tell you now what they were because they would be even more damning," he said"

Full article here

http://www.espnscrum.com/newzealand/rugby/story/167769.html

disneychilly wrote:Henry's already had his lawyers pore over it. He said they took 400 words out of it which would have really made a case out of it.

"Howitt has since revealed that he, Henry and the publishers are prepared for any legal action resulting from the book, as it "has been scrutinised by lawyers".

"I can tell you that there were probably 300 or 400 words that were taken out, which I'd love to tell you now what they were because they would be even more damning," he said"

Full article here

http://www.espnscrum.com/newzealand/rugby/story/167769.html

That doesn't mean if it went to court they couldn't lose. Lawyer's do lose.

Unless you're Johnny Cochran. Bring out the famous Chewbacca theory!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Xywqv1cDH8

He needs to take him to court- a decent lawyer has a chance. this is defamation pure and simple and in a profitering way not a helpfull way

"As far as Graham was concerned, the major reason the All Blacks had lost was not because of conditioning or rotation policies or decisions by his captain, but purely and simply because the officials had refereed only one team, to a degree unprecedented in the history of the sport."

That is why they lost. Attitude of invincibility, arrogance and failure to look at their own performance. Cherry pick the stats and a missed forward pass to compound it. OK the yellow is debatable but that is sport and Macallister dropped the guy. And lets not forget the blame was also levelled at the linesmen, so no tonly was Barnes corrupt they must have all been on the take

Fact is France tackled like demons and did not miss 1/3 of their tackles and took their chances. NZ kicked like mules and played for the pen time and again including the whole last period of play when they just picked and drove and hoped then took a drop goal attempt from the 10m!!! They tried to defend a 7 point lead, went lateral, missed more kicks and also lost their 2 fly halves. Michalak does what he can do to anyone and while i get NZ are still sore losers about this because the french did them twice in this way, they need to look at their own performance, not that of the ref because in spite o fall that it was Barnes fault they lost!!

mystiroakey wrote:and I really didnt like the way he said investigations would happen elsewhere when they just dont

Are you serious here?

Cricket is littered with proven match fixing claims. The tour de France throws up proven investigations all the time. John Higgins was thoroughly investigated a couple of years ago and many other sports, those of which it wouldnt take long to come up with others. Match fixing is part and parcel of todays sport and an French upset against NZ must be one of THE best matches to make money off such was the heavy odds on France- money laid down on the AB's.

And Henry has concluded his results from his analysis of the game versus the unlikelihood of the events happening- ie never before in history.

How can you dismiss that with a whim without reviewing the analysis itself?

By merely concluding that its unlikely that Barnes fell to a bribe?

Which is more unlikely?

Match stats that have never occurred remotely in the sports history, or a sports official being bribed?

gee, well go figure?

Taylorman, do you believe Barnes took a bribe?

I did write that earlier you know Mowgli!

The stats weren't cherry picked mate. Not when they're that one-sided. We just stuffed up turning those stats into three measly points.

Dude I wrote before-that drop goal attempt was when Barnes was playing advantage. He ruled advantage was over when McAlister had that crack at it which was odd to me.

I think the extent to which NZers analysed it contradicts your "failure to look at their own performance" criticism. If you were in NZ at all then you'd have known trust me. I arrived back in NZ in November 07 and it was still going.

If there was a fix at a WC game it wouldn't have been that one. But we've been told to suck up 95 too so...

sugarNspikes wrote:Taylorman, do you believe Barnes took a bribe?

Probably not. At least I'd like to think not. But I'd also like to have seen the analysis go further to see if there was anything in it. In other sports, particularly cricket, when results are outside the norm that has been the case.

Do I think theres enough to warrant an inquiry? Yes. Does this happen in other sports? Yes.

Is there potential in a sport like rugby where the game is so open to misinterpretations and poor decision making that its possible that the sport could be targeted for overturning otherwise unlikely results to make money?

ABSOLUTELY

Are we naive enough in this day and age to think our sport is free from the cheating and back room dealing of other sports?

Probably.

There is no doubt that there is corruption in all sports, rugby has probably the most glaring example of cheating that I have ever seen.

Do I think Barnes was on the take? Nope

Is there corruption in rugby and by implication refereeing - most likely

did he make some howlers - the forward pass, yes, the yellow no

Do I think Henry was desperate to find someone/anyone/anything to blame for the failure of his own policy and his team- definitely

Is he slandering Barnes - I think so and i think a court may well decide