>> during that time if you look at the selection committee for the Coach and
>> fact look at the NZRFU Committee / Board you will find that in fact for
>> years there was not a single Canterbury representative as the South
>> was represented by people such as Tim Gresson from Timaru and John Spicer
>> from Otago also Mark Peters from Buller.
>You had the coach you foolish oaf! Not to mention Canterbury were so
>they were regarded by many as lucky to be in the first division.
Who do you think appointed the coach? A committee made up of
representatives elected by the 27 provincial unions. Unfortunately there
was not a Canterbury representative as the other unions did not vote for
one. Therefore if a Canterbury bias was present it was a pretty big
*** including the majority of rugby unions in the country. Yet if
Canterbury was that popular you would have expected their representative to
have been selected. A bias requires a fair amount of affiliation to the
province that the bias is for you OAF. Sometimes I even wonder where you
dream these things up.
>> Now i know you are very informed but a bit of homework on this one would
>> show that the bias is a load of bollocks.
>> You will also find that John Hart (Auckland) two main choices as his
>> assistant in 1998-99 (because he believed they were the best coaches
>> available) were Wayne Smith and Robbie Deans.
>That's because the corrupt NZRFU made sure Henry was out of the picture.
I think any educated rugby follower knows the chances of Hart wanting Henry
or Henry working with Hart were realistically as likely as Hart choosing
Grizz Wyllie as an assistant. Nothing to do with whether he was available
or not. There is not a lot of love lost there.
>> Your "point" requires little further comment because it is ridiculous.
>> instance should Graham Henry not be the next All Black coach in 2 years
>> because Auckland are not performing well then - no you look at HIS
>> record not the current team. Bollocks bollocks bollocks to you.
>That's the difference oaf. You one eyed little sheep shaggers would never
>an Auckland coach unless we were the best. Even then, you would moan and
>about it until the pressure on the coach would be terrible. Just like John
>in 1992. Funny how Mr Mains got to be coach. It must have been something to
>with Otago winning the NPC in 1991. Stuff the fact that Auckland had won
>previous four and had 14 starting AB's.
>Pathetic. Back to 'milking' the goats for you, farmer boy.
My personal view is that at the time John Hart was the best choice. He had
done so well at provincial level that we had to see if he could foot it. At
the time there was no-one else with their hand up except Henry who would
have done well enough in the job. Henry would have been alright with me
This last selection I would have taken Smith, Gilbert or Boe. And I think
that the NZRFU of the candidates available to them this time had no choice
but to pick the coach that had won the Super 12 three times in a row. Not a
case of Canty bias - Henry was not in the frame - who else are you
suggesting? For there to be bias there has to be a better alternative.
Now correct me if I am wrong but Grizz was from Canty and so is Smith who
are the others? Grizz was a choice in a straight out slug fest with Hart
and I think you will find it had a lot more to do with Hart's personality
and politicking than any Auckland bias.
And finally for the record I predict that Grant Fox will make a damn fine
All Black coach in the future and that Sean Fitzpatrick will be one of the
best managers we have ever seen.