Looming review signals players’ concerns
New Zealand’s rugby players were so concerned about the direction of New Zealand Rugby that they were prepared to halt talks over the Silver Lake investment deal on the single issue of a review into the governing body’s fitness for purpose.
That governance review is coming. Under the terms of the NZ Rugby-NZRPA agreement on Silver Lake, signed in early June, it had to be undertaken within 60 days of the deal being signed.
That review, therefore, shapes as the mechanism for change within NZ Rugby that many within the game view as necessary, and overdue.
If it is done with sincerity – or, to borrow a Steve Hansen-ism, if it is ‘‘bone deep’’ – NZ Rugby will be a different body in 12 months.
That review is also the context to
Hansen’s scathing criticism of NZ Rugby on Thursday, and in particular his comment that the ‘‘relationship between the board and the exec and players at the moment is probably the worst it’s ever been’’.
That’s a subjective view, of course, and you can bet the All Blacks players will steer clear of it – they have the sizeable challenge of the Springboks in the front of their minds.
NZ Rugby could also argue that the relationship is perfectly functional, noting that the feedback link between players and the union was operating as normal when they took on board the reviews of recently deposed assistants John Plumtree and Brad Mooar.
But Stuff understands the player feedback on Plumtree and Mooar had been consistent for a couple of years, without action from the NZ Rugby board.
If NZ Rugby’s intent was to support and protect them, they failed. In axing them after the
Ireland series loss, NZ Rugby instead put an enormous amount of blame on their shoulders. Being strong enough to thank them for their services at the start of the year would have spared them that.
The board, therefore, must be accountable, particularly as All Blacks supporters view the current issues as part of a pattern that stretches back four or five years.
Would the All Blacks be in such strife had the original process to replace Hansen been handled better?
Given the extraordinary depth of New Zealand coaching resources around the world, it was an underwhelming outcome to end up with Ian Foster, Plumtree, Mooar, Scott McLeod and Greg Feek as the coaching setup, particularly when the nature of the World Cup loss to England screamed out for only the best and brightest to step in.
None of this is an attack on the individuals named above, nor it is a hatchet job on NZ Rugby, which continues to do some things well.
For example, when Stuff spoke to Chris Boyd on Thursday, the incoming Highlanders coaching mentor spoke glowingly of NZ Rugby’s coach development programme under Bruce Blair. Boyd pointed out that England’s RFU had no such programme.
Yet, the question must still be asked if the NZ Rugby board has the requisite skillsets to make the right decisions for high-performance sport. That’s what this comes down to.
The coming review into NZ Rugby should address that question and many more, particularly if it has the rigour of the Black Ferns’ culture review released in April. It was utterly scathing and unearthed a failure of governance across another team in black.
It feels like change is coming. Until now, Foster, Sam Cane, Mooar, Plumtree or the scapegoat of the day have taken the flak. But, kicked along by Hansen’s hand grenade, this conversation is getting closer to the boardroom door.