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

First topic message reminder :

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.

Taylorman wrote:

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.

Taylor I think the probelm is because i am such a close follower to football where investigations just do not happen and there have been games way worse than the one we are talking about i am almost blunt to it all

I can't help but think this is Henry just trying to sell books, i really hope it isn't as i wouldn't want to see someone try and drag the game through the mud to benefit there own pocket..

Having though about this more, I go back to my initial question in the post. Every time I've seen a book come out theres always been a pre-release item thats intended to invite controversy.

Theres absolutely nothing new in this story and I think its just the reality of todays marketing. Like it or not controversy gets exposure and exposure sells books.

It happened recently here but I cant recall the book or sportsman but thats what I thought Ithen as well- smart way to sell a book.

So far this has been on our main current affairs weekly programme, across the news this morning on tv and morning papers and from quotes in this post around the rugby world.

The fire will last to sell a few books then go away. Is it a reason not to buy the book as Mysti says? Possibly. Will die hard fans of GH still buy the book (provided they buy books anyway)- probably.

Storm in a teacup- designed to make money...

nathan wrote:I can't help but think this is Henry just trying to sell books, i really hope it isn't as i wouldn't want to see someone try and drag the game through the mud to benefit there own pocket..

Yep...agree. Crossed my message with yours- seem to do that a lot lately with that warning thing gone...

Taylorman wrote:Having though about this more, I go back to my initial question in the post. Every time I've seen a book come out theres always been a pre-release item thats intended to invite controversy.

Theres absolutely nothing new in this story and I think its just the reality of todays marketing. Like it or not controversy gets exposure and exposure sells books.

It happened recently here but I cant recall the book or sportsman but thats what I thought Ithen as well- smart way to sell a book.

So far this has been on our main current affairs weekly programme, across the news this morning on tv and morning papers and from quotes in this post around the rugby world.

The fire will last to sell a few books then go away. Is it a reason not to buy the book as Mysti says? Possibly. Will die hard fans of GH still buy the book (provided they buy books anyway)- probably.

Storm in a teacup- designed to make money...

Think it might have been Lewis Moody's book.

As long as it stays in the teacup though.

Just listened to a live interview with him. I think it's more cathartic than a straight book sale. We ask coaches and players to say what they think. That's what he's doing.

Yes its the timing bc- all in the timing...

of course it is. He's just finished a book the media's read it and the most controversial, saleable point is his feelings on the WC loss to France. He pretty much hasn't spoken about it before. Which is not surprising given he was looking to get, or was under contract to the NZRFU as the coach of the AB's since then. he can say what he feels. Isn't that what we as fans ultimately want to know? Good or bad?

Henry and fans are going to get slammed over the next few days. I think it's sad that people aren't actually concerned with the underlying issue here. people don't have to agree with fans like me. I'm ok with most losses to my teams. This is one that does stick in my craw. Yes, I'm biased and yes I feel passionately about this game.

In my defence, I don't think younger fans from other nations can necessarily understand the situation here. Has your team gone for the last 50-60 minutes of a game without being awarded any penalties anywhere on the field. Sure the team could have done other things to win, and the reasons for the defeat have been analyzed to death, but that shouldn't distract from what a possibly unique refereeing pattern.

But putting that aside. Where would you draw the line with refereeing and wanting to review the game with a robust process (The IRB did review the game the next day, but not with a quality process in my opinion and not with one that could have addressed the issue one way or the other). Are you happy for a referee to be reviewed if he allows a player to not release the player in the tackle and slow the ball down or get turnover in a big game, do you want a review if the referee allows a throw in that doesn't is short and leads to a try. Would you want a review if the penalty count is, or about, the lowest in modern history. Or do you think it's never necessary to review games.

Refereeing is a difficult profession that the sport needs. I'm not seeking Barnes head or to overturn the result. But I do believe that rugby would be better for a transparent robust quality control process. Part of the problem is it's just been brushed under the table.

I'm not certain that Barnes or the IRB will sue for slander. I think Henry possibly overstepped the mark. But I doubt they want their dirty laundry washed in public. You can be sure that a slander trial of Henry will also turn into a trial of Barnes and of the IRB. I think it's more likely henry may be punished by the IRB via the NZRFU. In which case he'll just step down from any coaching role.

sugarNspikes wrote: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 ledge!

Morgannwg wrote:

sugarNspikes wrote: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 ledge!

Wonder if squirrel will have a warning for that slip on the keyboard

I'm surprised V2 poster Graham Henry hasn't mentioned how corrupt the MODs are for illegally letting a run around on here in this new book of his. He could have put it in the Wayne Barnes chapter...

bought the book this morning. we keep hearing in the media about how barnesy didn't award 40 penalties - in the book Sir Ted actually lists those penalties!!

looks a great read but am saving it for later, although i did read a few pages on the chapter about the 2011 final

I love the way Mowgli keeps calling Henry and New Zealanders arrogant.gotta love it.

aucklandlaurie wrote:
I love the way Mowgli keeps calling Henry and New Zealanders arrogant.gotta love it.

Yes, it must be a surprise, I mean i am sure no one has ever accused NZ fans of arrogance before!

Nah, not a surprise, I love they way you keep repeating yourself.

aucklandlaurie wrote:
Nah, not a surprise, I love they way you keep repeating yourself.

Oh I am sorry, tell you what, won't say another word and then I'll pop up in 5 years and write a book about it

Apology accepted. have you got any ideas as to what you will call the book?

Yes but those who prefer that the penalties werent awarded even if warranted won't give a toss. Instead they prefer to revel in the fact that the abs lost and became a bunch of whinging losers. Why?

Because it makes their little bellies feel fuller, their apetite quenched due the fact that we don't deserve to have any justice in this game because we win too much anyway.

So its not about correctness. It just depends what side you're on.

The ABs

....bet you can guess what the A stands for!!

taylorman
I think you mean arrogant whinging choking losers. Got more titles than idi Amin us lot.

Awesome?

I think its a bit rough that Henry writes something and I get called arrogant as a result.

I wasn't in either Europe or Australasia, didn't/haven't seen the game and have never commented on it other than to say that I was disappointed when I heard the result.

How does that make me arrogant Mowgli?

I spend most games complaining about penalties not given. I could give you a list of 40 unawarded penalties for any game (I could be bothered to do it for). Because it's against the All Blacks (for what seems like a change) there are suggests that Barnes took a bride ("Probably not" Taylor? Really? More like highly unlikely).

HammerofThunor wrote:I spend most games complaining about penalties not given. I could give you a list of 40 unawarded penalties for any game (I could be bothered to do it for). Because it's against the All Blacks (for what seems like a change) there are suggests that Barnes took a bride ("Probably not" Taylor? Really? More like highly unlikely).

of course you could go through any game and find 40 unawarded penalties, but how many games can you go through finding a team that conceeds over 40 penalties, but only have two of them awarded?

Before the book was published you can bet your bottom dollar the lawyers went thru it with a tooth comb.THE Match has been analysed to death by every one and his dog.There was a review of sorts the following day the result no case to answer.Wayne Barnes was rubbished by some people over that game BUT not attacked as virulently as Bryce Lawrence was.In Cricket there has been a match fixing scandal,in Soccer in south America there was.Boxing was very badly tainted by fixing bouts.I t is naive to believe it has`nt happened in Rugby Union or League.Arrogance the England fans had plenty of that during SCW`s reign.
As to taking match fixing what do you look for,and who is involved IF you look at the pattern of ALL the RWCs.Then 2007 stands out like a beacon it was bizarre 2 tier 1 NH sides not getting out of there group.Two of the top 3 sides in the World not getting past the quarter finals.France having one good result in the Tournament at home.England making the Final after having 4 years in the doldrums.If it had been a horse race there would have been a Stewards inquiry the bitching and handbags on here on this is pathetic.I am as big a All Black fan as any here.BUT I don`t think it was fixed.It was a comedy of errors or tragedy whatever.Graham Henry as a Coach his record at every level is impeccable he even laid the ground work for a strong Wales team[that was acknowledged by his successor].But the All Black selections 2006-7 was like a conveyor belt more 1or 2 capped players than anytime before or since.It has been stated in the NZ Press that the Coaches were`nt sure of there best side prior to the RWC.
As to fixing and refereeing IF you told me an International match involving England and Australia .Would only have 3 Scrums the whole match and NONE of them completed I would have laughed at you but I saw it with my own eyes.
Every match there are MANY incidents you could cite as being penelizable by BOTH sides the Ref did`nt give.IF your team loses you will come up with the I wuz robbed bit by the officials i`m as fallible as every one else in this.
BUT i`m not making a split second decision,the officials do without benefit of Tv screens ,biased pundits,endless replays to prove the point.
IF there is evidence of match fixing in ANY Match prove it or leave it alone 5 years after the event leaves a bad taste in the mouth.

Maybe Mowgli's trying to be the NH AWOP.

We think we're the best side in the world and have the best record Mowgli. Is it wrong to say that if it's not misplaced? We did in 07 too as we'd won 19 of the last 20 before the cup. I don't think that's arrogant as the stats back it up. We've already discussed the reasons other than Barnes why we weren't good enough to win on here so I'm wondering how you come to that conclusion yourself. Have you seen any gloating on these boards from a NZ supporter? Even about the 2011 cup?

It's annoying other countries with a chip on their shoulder stoop to calling NZ arrogant just because they have the best record. We're humble enough to know that test rugby is a game of inches and that we can be caught up any time-it's why our coaches are so good as they have to keep innovating. It's a hell of an effort to stay on top of the tree as much as we have for those 120 years-same with South Africa.

emack2 wrote:Before the book was published you can bet your bottom dollar the lawyers went thru it with a tooth comb.THE Match has been analysed to death by every one and his dog.There was a review of sorts the following day the result no case to answer.Wayne Barnes was rubbished by some people over that game BUT not attacked as virulently as Bryce Lawrence was..

Oh, how the memory plays tricks on us...

Yeah I don't think Lawrence had as much. SA weren't overwhelming favourites too which may have been a factor. Not that Biltong doesn't have every right to be as bitter as he is. I know it's kind of comforting to know our greatest rival now knows how it feels but that still doesn't make it right.

mowgli wrote: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

Oh so "The Barrister" save him because there's never any incompetent or corrupt barristers are there?

The mask really is slipping!

"The All Blacks had an overwhelming 73 percent territorial advantage, won 166 rucks to 42 and made only 73 tackles in comparison to France's 331. Yet, New Zealand did not receive a single penalty in the last 50 minutes of the match. "

That was some true disciplined defense by the French! Well done to them!!

Which defensive performance you think was better? France v NZ 2007RWC, or Australia v South Africa 2011RWC?

It's hard to go past the 38 tackles from Dusautoir.

Australia's, they made more "legal" turnovers on their try line than the French did in the whole game.

Shame Joubert wasn't the ref, i heard he awards a penalty at over 70% of rucks, apparently. Top ref, best in the business. So the mind boggles that so few happened in all of those 166 rucks. Also, heard today the lawyers took out 300 words from the book.

Biltong I admit to not having total recall on Wayne Barnes 2007,BUT He did`nt make a public statement as Bryce Lawrence did that he would never officiate in South Africa again because he feared for his personal safety.

EBOP wrote:Shame Joubert wasn't the ref, i heard he awards a penalty at over 70% of rucks, apparently. Top ref, best in the business. So the mind boggles that so few happened in all of those 166 rucks. Also, heard today the lawyers took out 300 words from the book.

reliable sources told me it was 317 words, 13 comma's, 3 question marks and 1 fullstop.

emack2 wrote:Biltong I admit to not having total recall on Wayne Barnes 2007,BUT He did`nt make a public statement as Bryce Lawrence did that he would never officiate in South Africa again because he feared for his personal safety.

Well my dear friend Bruce over reacted, I doubt he doesn't want to come here for his personal safety, it is more likely his conscience.

aucklandlaurie wrote:
I love the way Mowgli keeps calling Henry and New Zealanders arrogant.gotta love it.

Auckland you are really not helping the cause..

Actually emack, I think there were threats against Barnes in NZ. But you know the type, anonymous web based talk. When Barnes did ref the ABs again (or was it linesman?), the media tried to hype it up, but it was a non-event.

I think Graham Henry make these comments at the right time.

And he has the point! That unless rugby has some formal way of review and determine if some courruption or severe incompetence take place then all we can do is speculate and arguing about it.

There should be a process to have enquiry into very unusual results. There is some limited number of them in history so is not such a big thing. Otherwise will always be Holly Wilaboobie-for-tat calling "arrogant" and "sore loser" and then some outrage and anger.

It will be safer for the referee too and officials and everyone if there can be a review and deciding once and for all.

For all those saying he just making a storm by complaining now - well, think about it! How can he write a book about his career without obviously include this most important anecdotes! And all he says is that "how he feeling at the time" so is true to write about it and people need to read in the context and not just get on their horses about "arrogant" and beating their drums and causing a fuss.

Either way Stephen Jones just got ammo for a few more articles I'm sure LOL.

biltongbek wrote:

EBOP wrote:Shame Joubert wasn't the ref, i heard he awards a penalty at over 70% of rucks, apparently. Top ref, best in the business. So the mind boggles that so few happened in all of those 166 rucks. Also, heard today the lawyers took out 300 words from the book.

reliable sources told me it was 317 words, 13 comma's, 3 question marks and 1 fullstop.

Wonder how many were 'f'ing ref'?

Disney, don't know about you, but I used to enjoy reading Stephen Jones' column for my weekly dose of high blood pressure. Unfortunately I think the paper he wrote for started charging.

Its perfectly true that Barnes didnt penalise French infringing.

However I bet that I could watch ANY rugby match and spot a penalty offense at every ruck.

EBOP wrote:

biltongbek wrote:

EBOP wrote:Shame Joubert wasn't the ref, i heard he awards a penalty at over 70% of rucks, apparently. Top ref, best in the business. So the mind boggles that so few happened in all of those 166 rucks. Also, heard today the lawyers took out 300 words from the book.

reliable sources told me it was 317 words, 13 comma's, 3 question marks and 1 fullstop.

Wonder how many were 'f'ing ref'?

Disney, don't know about you, but I used to enjoy reading Stephen Jones' column for my weekly dose of high blood pressure. Unfortunately I think the paper he wrote for started charging.

Sorry forget to mention there were 37 of those, but without the apostrophe.

red_stag wrote:Its perfectly true that Barnes didnt penalise French infringing.

However I bet that I could watch ANY rugby match and spot a penalty offense at every ruck.

This is some worry, do you think? If this is the case then we might accept the game outcome is mostly controlled by referee who must just award a roughly similar amount of penalties to each team even though they always break the law at every ruck? That would mean the game is entirely broken. And leaving open the door for performances like Barnes 2007 and Bryce Lawrence 2011 and we have to live with it because always the referee can justify every decision and every not decision.

EBOP I read him, I read the English, French, Welsh, Irish, SA and Aussie papers as well as the Kiwi ones. Means I get all sorts of different viewpoints-even if they write what you don't want to read it gets you thinking and usually if you have a cold hearted analysis of those articles you get where they're coming from. They create debate and that's their job so good on them. Just like us. Unfortunately Jones gets a massive audience and if we believed what he wrote we may as well stop playing and go home because we cheat poach and can't play rugby. We know better than to care about his drivel and that of others but I hope those who read the Times look at a few more articles than just his to get a more balanced viewpoint.

Stag you are dead right mate. Everything is down to interpretation. It could be a fatal flaw in the game. Blaming the ref is almost a default option for teams now should the result be close. Sadly we had a ridiculous amount of bad luck with Carter and Evans getting injured that day, and those on the field didn't play well enough to take the ref out of the equation.

anotherworldofpain wrote:I think Graham Henry make these comments at the right time.

And he has the point! That unless rugby has some formal way of review and determine if some courruption or severe incompetence take place then all we can do is speculate and arguing about it.

There should be a process to have enquiry into very unusual results. There is some limited number of them in history so is not such a big thing. Otherwise will always be Holly Wilaboobie-for-tat calling "arrogant" and "sore loser" and then some outrage and anger

blah blah blah

Enquiry on what exactly? the referee life? bank account? mystery call girl paid by some spook? get real for a second and ask yourself who will conduct such investigation (the police, the new zealand secret service, inspector clouzeau?) , basis on which juridiction/law ?

am pretty sure any pro refs gets debriefed after such type of game and that should be enough.

Too much is down to referee "interpretation". So any woeful one sided display can be justifies by "oh my interpretation". And that is what has happen - referee get defending by their boss time and time again despite making so many bias and mistakes.

Barnes 2007 and Lawrence 2011 and infact O'Brien in 1995 all had terrible impact on their RWC by making the awful mistakes and apparently the "debriefs" don't stop it happening again and again.

disneychilly wrote:EBOP I read him, I read the English, French, Welsh, Irish, SA and Aussie papers as well as the Kiwi ones. Means I get all sorts of different viewpoints-even if they write what you don't want to read it gets you thinking and usually if you have a cold hearted analysis of those articles you get where they're coming from.

That's why I prefer overseas forums and news, it isn't clouded by SA posters with one eyed views ( well you get other posters with one eyed views too) or SA journo's with biased views.

It certainly makes you think more about the validity of their opinions, that's why I always watch Re Union, even though they can be equally as biased toward their teams, when they compliment a South African player you can take note of that.