Robbie Deans, Rugby Brain and Leader of Men.

[Burgs]

I may have issue at times with some of the other scribes at The Roar but I think Spiro is generally right on the money in whatever sphere he is writing.

The case of Robbie Deans, Steve Hansen and the NZRU

10/12/07, Spiro Zarvos.
A Roar Exclusive

http://www.theroar.com.au/2007/12/10...zru/#more-2385

On Saturday the Sydney Morning Herald’s sports section ran a photo of Robbie Deans, the Crusaders coach who is now in line for the Wallaby job, seemingly pointing out something to a group of Super 14 coaches and referees.

The story behind the photo provides a compelling reason why the NZRU has made an outstanding mistake in virtually forcing Deans into the Wallaby coaching job, if he wants it.

I was standing only metres away from Deans when the photo was taken. One of the group was taking some Sydney Grammar boys through the new ELVs for the 2008 Super 14. Deans had pointed out a mistake about where the non-throwing hooker had to stand. Paddy O’Brien, the IRB’s referees boss, intervened in support of the co-ordinator. Deans continued making his point which O’Brien finally agreed was correct.

As the discussion went on, Deans made a point of turning to the coaches when something was settled and saying: ‘Are all the coaches agreed?’ Then he’d lead the discussion into the next point. After the coaching session finished Deans was interviewed about the All Blacks job. He was non-committal. But concluded his interviews by saying, ‘It’s the people’s game, the game belong to them not the officials or the coaches.’

This vignette says a lot about Deans as a coach. He is very well-informed about the laws, which gives him an edge when it comes to developing tactics. He is stubborn when he believes he is right which helps him in planning strategies about the development of his squad. He is a natural coach, in that he has a passion for imparting knowledge. And patience. He’s told me about the hours he spent with Brad Thorne teaching him the intracacies of lineout play using an old boot as a ball.

He admired Thorne for his Christian-based life style and his honesty in rejecting an All Blacks jersey when he was still undecided about returning to rugby league. Deans is very much a coach of players doing the right thing on and off the field (in the style of Wayne Bennett, who he resembles in manner).

Deans’ record with the Crusaders is virtually without parallel for coaches in similar competitions across all the major sports. With the All Blacks going out in the quarter-finals of the 2007 RWC for the first time ever under Graham Henry, why did the NZRU re-appoint a failed RWC coach and reject the Super 14’s most winning coach?

Three factors are involved, in my opinion. The aftermath of the John Mitchell era of 2001 to 2003 when Deans was the assistant coach: the traditional and often vicious Auckland-Canterbury divide in NZ rugby politics: and a split in the Canterbury group.

Mitchell’s team famously lost to the Wallabies in the semi-final at Sydney in the 2003 RWC. It went on to defeat France for third place. It is no secret that Mitchell-Deans believed that if they’d made the final the All Blacks would have won that match. In the semi-final they refused to play Tana Umaga, who was recovering from a knee injury, and played Leon McDonald, who had rarely played at centre. Stirling Mortlock’s interception of a pass to McDonald was the decisive play of the match.

In the fall-out to the RWC loss there were accusations against the Mitchell-Deans team that sponsors were unhappy with their treatment and resentment expressed by former senior All Blacks like Taine Randall, Anton Oliver and Christian Cullen that they’d been treated without respect. Umaga came out strongly last week against Robbie Deans getting the job.

The Auckland-Canterbury divide is the great fault line in NZ rugby, as bad as the old NSW-Queensland divide used to be in Australian rugby politics. In 1991 the All Blacks were beaten in the RWC semi-final at Dublin by the Wallabies, and by a split in the camp with the Auckland All Blacks listening only to Aucklander John Hart and the Canterbury All Blacks listening only to Alex Wyllie.

This divide remains with Henry representing the Auckland camp and Deans the Canterbury camp. So it was no surprise that Sean Fitzpatrick and Grant Fox, All Black and Auckland legends, and members of the 1991 side, supported the decision to re-appoint Graham Henry.

Finally, for reasons that have never been made public there has been a split in the Canterbury camp over Robbie Deans. The manager of the All Blacks David Shand and the incoming chief executive of the NZRU Steve Tew have both been described as being hostile to Deans.

Tew played a straight bat during the process of appointing a new coaching panel for the All Blacks for 2008 to 2010. But when questioned about the possibility of losing Deans to Australian rugby Tew remarked: ‘We have plenty of good coaches left in NZ.’ But great coaches like Robbie Deans? I think not.

The vote for re-appointing Henry was 7-1, with a board member from the King Country representing the minor unions voting for Deans. Significantly, the chairman of the Crusaders franchise and deputy-chairman of the NZRU, Mike Eagle, explained his vote for Henry (which was expected to be given to Deans) in this way: Henry had a much better team of coaches around him.

So stupidity by the NZRU has allowed an Australian David Nucifora to be coach of one of NZ’s strongest franchise and tap into the intellectual property of NZ rugby. Warren Gatland, regarded as one of the best coaches in the world, was kept out of the Blues job and has gone to coach Wales. And now the intellectual property developed by the best rugby franchise in world rugby, the Crusaders, has been virtually handed over to Australian rugby.

And why has the NZRU board made this stupid sequence of mistakes? Partly to cover their own blunder in endorsing the failed re-conditioning program which took 22 All Blacks out of last season’s first seven rounds of the Super 14. But more, in my view, to protect the interests of one Henry’s team who is aligned to Steve Tew.

So here is another Fearless Prediction: In two years time, provided the All Blacks do well in their tests (which they should) Graham Henry will stand down as chief coach but will remain on the coaching staff and Steve Hansen, a coach under Deans at the Crusaders, will become the head coach.

You heard it first here.

[Burgs]

O'Neill wants the best

By Bret Harris
December 10, 2007

JOHN O'NEILL is doing the right thing by pursuing New Zealander Robbie Deans as the next Wallabies coach.

There has been criticism of the ARU's process to select a successor to John Connolly. Some observers have suggested the selection process is a sham and that Deans was the only genuine contender all along.

Even if that were the case, so what?

The only responsibility chief executive O'Neill and the ARU board have in relation to the Wallabies coaching position is to ensure the best man is appointed.

None of the other candidates - David Nucifora, Alan Jones, Ewen McKenzie, Laurie Fisher and John Muggleton - boasts a record in the professional era that comes anywhere near Deans' four Super rugby titles with the Crusaders.

By going after Deans, O'Neill is fulfilling his obligation to Australian rugby. If he was not chasing Deans, he would, quite simply, not be doing his job.

It is abundantly clear that Deans was O'Neill's preferred choice as Wallabies coach from the start.

O'Neill sounded out Deans about the job in Paris during the World Cup. O'Neill expressed interest in Deans as Australia coach and Deans expressed interest in the role.

While O'Neill may have been in a position to offer Deans the job, he was not in a position to appoint him. Deans informed O'Neill that his first option was to coach the All Blacks, which was entirely understandable given he is a proud Kiwi who wore the black jersey in five Tests as a fullback.

When New Zealand was knocked out of the World Cup by France, it appeared almost certain Deans would replace Graham Henry as its national coach.

With the uncertainty about Deans' candidacy, the ARU went ahead with a selection process that involved a six-man panel interviewing the candidates.

Nucifora, the only other contender personally sounded out by O'Neill, went into the interview process as the front-runner among the Australian candidates, although the late entry of Jones, the 1984 grand slam-winning coach, created a stir.

The interview process, while seen as a waste of time by some, gave the other contenders an opportunity to put forward their cases, particularly as it seemed likely that Deans would get the All Blacks job.

The selection panel was due to make a recommendation, believed to be Nucifora, to the ARU board at a meeting in mid-November, but the meeting was delayed to this Thursday/Friday because O'Neill was recovering from neck surgery. O'Neill is still recuperating, but he will participate in this week's meeting by phone.

There has been a suggestion the ARU board meeting was pushed back to await the outcome of the New Zealand position.

This may or may not have been the case, but does it matter? All that matters is that the ARU gets the best man for the job.

If the ARU deliberately waited for the outcome of the New Zealand decision, then O'Neill made the right call. In fact, he and the ARU board would have been derelict in their duty if they had not waited for the New Zealand post to be resolved.

Despite his favouritism for the All Blacks job, Deans was overlooked with the NZRU sticking with Henry for two years, with his assistant Steve Hansen expected to take over for the 2011 World Cup in New Zealand.

It was the ties between the NZRU and Henry that resulted in his re-appointment, which has divided New Zealand.

The NZRU's decision to re-appoint Henry was the greatest Christmas present the Kiwis could have given Australian rugby. Instead of being criticised, O'Neill should be congratulated for doing what he believed was in the best interests of Australian rugby.

O'Neill was never going to bow to pressure to make a quick decision on the coach, because he knew Deans would be a late contender for the Wallabies if he did not secure the All Blacks job.

If O'Neill genuinely believed Deans was the best man for the job, how could he possibly appoint someone else when there was still a chance, however remote, that his man would become available?

How ridiculous would O'Neill have felt last Friday if he had appointed someone else, and then watched as the NZRU overlooked Deans?

There has been talk that Australia should not accept Deans because the Wallabies were his second choice behind the All Blacks.

This argument misses the point completely. What is important is not whether Deans gets his first choice, but whether the ARU gets its first choice.

[The Lone Hydrangea]

Im happy, Deans looks like the man. Nucifora has credentials though. There is trouble at mill for NZ rugby just a head, id suggest.