Hey Cantabs, get off Ted's back

BY MARC HINTON

OPINION: It is time to jump to Graham Henry's defence. I simply cannot let the All Blacks coach be undone by the sort of self-interested malarkey that seems to be swirling around in Christchurch at the moment.

Now, I bet you didn't see that coming. This writer defending the All Blacks coach. From the way he's been portrayed in the media.

I'm actually on record suggesting Henry plays it pretty fast and loose when it comes to blaming the media for a public mandate that hasn't always been fairly and squarely in his favour over the last few years.

Henry strongly suggests that the nation's scribes heavily influence public opinion. Distort it even. And my view is that people by and large are big enough and ugly enough to make their own minds up.

But that's another subject.

What I'm referring to here is the fuss that has come about over Henry's comments in Auckland last week around the first five-eighths situation in Canterbury where three of the nation's top five exponents of the No 10 craft reside.

Predictably it's developed into somewhat of firestorm in the southern enclave.

And I have to say Henry's comments haven't exactly received just representation from all concerned. So in the interests of fairness today's column goes into bat for Ted. (And, no, it's not just because his All Blacks won on Saturday night, that old Ted is suddenly flavour of the month again. But good on him for getting another one up on Robbie Deans, who clearly wasn't happy about slipping behind 1-4 in their personal duel.)

To give the matter some context here's how it played out: Henry, at his briefing with print media following his team naming on Wednesday, was asked about the situation in Canterbury where Daniel Carter, Stephen Brett and Colin Slade all reside. Note, he was asked.

In particular he was asked if he thought "one of them" might be advised to relocate. Note, one of them.

Fair question on several fronts. New Zealand's depth at No 10 has become a hot topic of late with the struggles to fill the void left by Carter this season; and the Canterbury situation would appear to be one of those three-into-two scenarios that can crop up in the game (remember a similar debate a few years back when Carter supplanted Andrew Mehrtens?).

Henry, naturally, had a view and to his credit he was willing to share it.

"I think they have to for their own sake, for their own future in the game," he responded. Given that Carter had just re-upped for Canterbury through until the end of 2011, he clearly wasn't talking about the gifted one.

But Henry also covered himself, pointing out that it wasn't his job to promote or propose such moves and, really, all he could offer was a viewpoint and whether the players wanted to listen, it was up to them. He even emphasised that it was an individual responsibility.

"I think sometimes young guys when they're blocked have got to make good decisions about what they do... there have been players in New Zealand in the past who have had loyalty to a particular province and haven't moved and haven't fulfilled their potential. So I think they've got to make the right decisions about their rugby future."

Naturally enough these remarks were prominently reported in Christchurch, with their own southern spin applied.

"Graham Henry is urging Stephen Brett and Colin Slade to leave Canterbury to promote their All Blacks chances," trumpeted the Christchurch paper's writer, taking just a little bit of a liberty by suggesting Henry had "urged" both Carter's backups to flee.

Crusaders coach Todd Blackadder was asked his view on the situation, and good old Toddy kept it all fairly rational when he responded that the franchise's preference was for all three to remain. He believed Brett and Slade could learn a lot by playing alongside Carter.

Fair enough. And if you're working for the Crusaders you would take that view, wouldn't you. But it might not be the same view you would take if you were All Blacks coach and wanted to see all your contenders getting top rugby.

Anyway, the situation took a further twist on Monday when Canterbury's provincial coach weighed in with his tuppence worth on the debate.

Under the heading "All Blacks coach cops Canterbury salvo" a Press rugby writer introduced his story thus: Graham Henry was entitled to have a view on Canterbury's stable of first five-eighths, but it was wrong and so was the forum in which he expressed it, says Canterbury coach Rob Penney.

Penney told the paper "It would be really good to have those conversations face-to-face but that hasn't been done" and also said: "The boys [Brett and Slade] are Canterbury men and they want to play for red and black and forcing people to be in environments where they may not necessarily want to go, is not fair.

"If they want to go, that's different. But if they're forced to go, I don't think that does anybody any good."

Who said anything about anyone being "forced" to go anywhere?

You can see how these things do rather develop a life of their own.

Now fair's fair. Henry offered a viewpoint on a logjam that clearly exists in the Canterbury No 10 position. One that has national repercussions. He wasn't suggesting both Brett and Slade should move, and nor was he criticising Canterbury or the Crusaders for stockpiling them.

He merely pointed out the young men playing behind Carter might want to consider their career paths and make decisions based on what was best for them achieving what they wanted to in the game.

Fair enough all round I reckon. And coming from the most experienced coach in the history of New Zealand rugby, they're views worth heeding.

It's getting just a tad precious to jump on your high horse and suggest the All Blacks coach can't opine on something as important as whether his contenders are getting sufficient opportunities.

In this case I feel for Henry who has been portrayed as the bad guy in a city that, if it took its blinkers off, might just recognise some sound advice when it hears it.

Gee, guys, give the man a break.

 

 

- © Fairfax NZ News