Graham Henry on English rugby

Apologies if this has been posted already, but i thought it was interesting, and spot on. Particularly regarding players stopping at the tackle rather than blasting them off the ball. Thoughts?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2012/jan/29/england-world-champions-graham-henry

Graham Henry, the former New Zealand and Wales coach, has described England as "the world champions of wasting talent" and has criticised them for playing "a game based on fear". Henry, whose All Black side lifted the Webb Ellis Cup last year, believes there will be no consistent improvement in England's results against the leading southern hemisphere teams without a widespread change in attitude.

According to Henry, England will also struggle to score tries against decent teams in the Six Nations and badly need to escape from the creative rut into which they have sunk. "England has top-drawer attacking players [but] they are seldom used," Henry said. "It sometimes seems that England are world champions at wasting talent.

"At national level and at club level English teams are far too worried about securing possession. They are obsessed with sealing off the ball carrier. They are paranoid that an opponent might steal the ball and so everyone jams on the brakes and seals off possession. It is fearful and often illegal. OK, so the opposition can't get at the ball, but there is no dynamic forward momentum and nobody is being shifted out of the defensive line. No wonder England had trouble scoring tries against the better teams at the World Cup."

In Henry's view, more trouble could well loom in the Calcutta Cup game against Scotland on Saturday if England's interim coach, Stuart Lancaster, fails to inject more positivity and dynamism into the squad. "England has a back line to get excited about but they will never fulfil their potential unless the team can win quick ball. This needs a total change of policy for the Six Nations. England must go to Murrayfield and stick it to the opposition. They have to smash the Scottish forwards past the ball instead of conservatively stopping at the tackled player in order to secure possession.

"A country with over a million players should be the best team in the world and England's potential in the backs is as good as it has ever been. Ben Foden's a good player, Chris Ashton is a handful and Delon Armitage has always impressed me. But how frustrated those players must get in a white shirt. England and the English clubs play a game based on fear and a generation of promising backs are dying on their feet. That has to change."

Henry's opinions are expressed on therugbysite.com, an online provider of rugby coaching videos dedicated to developing the skills of coaches and players . They will ruffle feathers in some quarters at Twickenham, Henry having previously questioned the Rugby Football Union's decision to dispense with Martin Johnson. "If a person is a quality coach I think they learn a lot from their experiences in the job and they get better at it. Too often unions sack people when they are going to get better at what they do."

He also expressed a desire to work with a leading English club but is now openly critical of the way most English sides play the game, not least Saracens who are set to supply the bulk of England's back line in Edinburgh. "Saracens are England's leading qualifiers in the Heineken Cup but few expect them to win the competition with a game that is as petrified as England's efforts at the World Cup. English conservatism around the tackle is an attitude that appears to be ingrained in most of the players."

Lancaster may well regard Henry's comments as helpfully timed. Having named a reshuffled squad he is determined to ensure England play with more ambition and has also confirmed he will apply to become the next permanent head coach. England are due to confirm their starting XV for Murrayfield on Thursday.

He is a real thinker about the game and knows as much as anyone. If I were in charge of England I would pay a great deal of attention to what he has to say. Actually I think he has a point. Interesting to hear Dean Ryan commentating on the Saxons game and stating pretty much the same views, namely that England's main problem is that of getting quick ball.

I would love to see Henry involved in English Rugby. I suspect he would drag standards up across the board however he was involved.

South Africa has that same problem with their back line, players having a fear to risk something.

I've been thinking the same since before 2003 - England have great attacking options in the backs yet never seem to use them, going for big centres and never giving the ball to their creative players. Instead relying on the power of the forwards or Wilko's boot - but now both have gone.

biltongbek wrote:South Africa has that same problem with their back line, players having a fear to risk something.

But at least you know the importance of quick ball and effective rucking. Not a fan of Henry but he's bang on the money i think. I'm staggered that not a single English team appears to be coached to ruck a metre or two past the ball like all successful international teams. Perhaps Quins are closest, but it's a long way from what the Irish teams are doing. You have to question the quality of coaching in England.

When I was playing rugby for school 20 years ago we were told to clear past the contact area to generate quick ball. Surely the England coaches know this. The Irish teams do it. Wales did it in 2005 but seem to have stopped. Also the regions have stopped doing it too. Not sure why?

People talk for years and the crickets are heard through the silence. Graham Henry opens his mouth and "Cripes, this man has a point"

You only have to gaze on rugby as it is played at its best to get the facts thrown into your face time and time again. So why do England ignore it time and time again?

I think it's because Graham Henry doesn't realise who he is talking to. He's talking to a proud and resolute nation that feels it created most things people like to do or watch today and they won't be told the basics by the students.

I think downright stubborness has played a major part in England's determination to play an antiquated game (overall). I don't think they would see it as that much fun beating the brazen SHs with a version of a SH game. England want to beat the SH with their own coaches and their own brand of rugby - and to say 'stuff the SH way' when they do so.

I think England are stubborn. The more people tell them they are wrong, the more they want to prove they are right. Mind you, maybe the wily old coot Henry already knows that.

I agree with is views on the breakdown, although I don't think it is just the players who are to blame. The English referee's in the prem have virtually stopped any competition there by how they control that area and the players (who are not always the brightest anyway ) have adopted their game accordingly. We then come up against teams like NZ and Ireland who are very strong at the breakdown and get blown away.

I don't mind Henry too much and as others have said he is very knowledgeable about the game at the very top level.

Ted certainly rubbed people the wrong way, particularly early in his career when his people skills involved telling you how bad a person you were. Like good wine though, he mellowed with age and learnt to take on a more human side, particularly with the Polynesian players who typically don´t respond well to authoritarian barking of orders.

Smug was a word oft used to describe him. When your team wins more than 80 per cent of your matches though, it's very easy to pull out that word.

What cannot be questioned with Henry is his knowledge of the game. What can be questioned is the motivation for these public statements. Is he paving the way for a shake up of the system or has he been rung to get his comments and simply given them in his typically honest way.

Personally I think great advances have been made with selection and performance in the English backs compared with the days of Noon, Balshaw and other crimes against backplay. That is why he thought the sacking of MJ was premature. Then again he was given reprieve after a World Cup failure so he would be open to keeping someone on. But then he repaid that faith so maybe there's something to be said for continuity.

World Champions At Wasting Talent. Wow. Ouch. Possibly true.

I can't help but wonder whether this is pay back for the many barbs shot his way by a certain RWC winning English coach all those years ago, saved up for just this moment.

kiakahaaotearoa wrote:Ted certainly rubbed people the wrong way, particularly early in his career when his people skills involved telling you how bad a person you were. Like good wine though, he mellowed with age and learnt to take on a more human side, particularly with the Polynesian players who typically don´t respond well to authoritarian barking of orders.

Smug was a word oft used to describe him. When your team wins more than 80 per cent of your matches though, it's very easy to pull out that word.What cannot be questioned with Henry is his knowledge of the game. What can be questioned is the motivation for these public statements. Is he paving the way for a shake up of the system or has he been rung to get his comments and simply given them in his typically honest way.

Personally I think great advances have been made with selection and performance in the English backs compared with the days of Noon, Balshaw and other crimes against backplay. That is why he thought the sacking of MJ was premature. Then again he was given reprieve after a World Cup failure so he would be open to keeping someone on. But then he repaid that faith so maybe there's something to be said for continuity.

71% actually.

TycroesOsprey wrote:

kiakahaaotearoa wrote:Ted certainly rubbed people the wrong way, particularly early in his career when his people skills involved telling you how bad a person you were. Like good wine though, he mellowed with age and learnt to take on a more human side, particularly with the Polynesian players who typically don´t respond well to authoritarian barking of orders.

Smug was a word oft used to describe him. When your team wins more than 80 per cent of your matches though, it's very easy to pull out that word.What cannot be questioned with Henry is his knowledge of the game. What can be questioned is the motivation for these public statements. Is he paving the way for a shake up of the system or has he been rung to get his comments and simply given them in his typically honest way.

Personally I think great advances have been made with selection and performance in the English backs compared with the days of Noon, Balshaw and other crimes against backplay. That is why he thought the sacking of MJ was premature. Then again he was given reprieve after a World Cup failure so he would be open to keeping someone on. But then he repaid that faith so maybe there's something to be said for continuity.

71% actually.

"He coached the All Blacks to 88 wins in 103 tests for a winning percentage of 85.4 percent" According to Wikipedia. Tycroes, are you subtracting all of the moral victories when Wales could have won on their day?

Or subtracting the out of context losses that Wales suffered despite having Henry as coach?

Hey sorry I read that wrong though he was talking about SCW I humbly apologise.

Easy mistake TO! I'm sure you read "smug" as the first word in the sentence and assumed it was Sir Woodward.

71%...still not bad, though?

miteyironpaw wrote:Easy mistake TO! I'm sure you read "smug" as the first word in the sentence and assumed it was Sir Woodward.

71%...still not bad, though?

Aye if Im honest taht was exactly what happened. Must do better

TycroesOsprey wrote:

miteyironpaw wrote:Easy mistake TO! I'm sure you read "smug" as the first word in the sentence and assumed it was Sir Woodward.

71%...still not bad, though?

Aye if Im honest taht was exactly what happened. Must do better

I was wondering if you'd somehow included GH's winning percentage with Wales and the Lions in his stats

In fairness, I don't know what his winning % was for those teams (and I'm too lazy to look it up), and I doubt there's enough games to drag 85% down to 71% overall.

Is it the English players that wont blast the oppo off the ball, or is it how the game is being refed nowdays?

It seem that every time a player goes to ground the ref is shouting hands off, dont go in there. So no player goes forward at all.

well hje had a 58% record with Wales after 34 matched losing 13 and one draw and he had a 33% win rate with the lions but only 3 internationals

so 138 played 109 won Actually I think his ratio goes up to 88% but Im rubbish at maths.

majesticimperialman wrote:Is it the English players that wont blast the oppo off the ball, or is it how the game is being refed nowdays?

It seem that every time a player goes to ground the ref is shouting hands off, dont go in there. So no player goes forward at all.

I made the same point earlier. Players just are not allowed to compete or come through the middle of a ruck in the prem thanks to the ref. Unfortunately most players do not even try and bother half the time and have become conditioned to it.

God it is 88% thats got to make him the most successful coach in world rugby history.

TycroesOsprey wrote:God it is 88% thats got to make him the most successful coach in world rugby history.

Fred Allen's was 100% IIRC (the Needle's test record was 14-0, not sure about tour matches). That's over a lot less games admittedly.

And against what opposition kiwi? I mean you probably trounced us in the mid sixties but he didnt play the lions and wouldnt most of those victories have come against the Ozzies who were no great shakes until the 80s? cant seem to find a list of teams played.

Whilst I will always think of Carwyn James as the best coach Ive seen(and met) GH has to be up there, If only it wasnt for Austin Healey he could well have won a lions series as well.

Actually just found a link and he did beat the lions 4.0 wiped the floor with France as well. Im on poor form today.

It can't be 88%, the average (even a weighted average) can't be bigger than the biggest number (85.4%)

Henry's record:

NZ: 88 wins in 103 tests.
Wales: 20.5 wins in 34 tests.
Lions: 1 win in 3 tests.

Overall: 109.5 wins in 140 tests, or 78.2%.

Still a phenomenal record though.

robbo277 wrote:It can't be 88%, the average (even a weighted average) can't be bigger than the biggest number (85.4%)

Henry's record:

NZ: 88 wins in 103 tests.
Wales: 20.5 wins in 34 tests.
Lions: 1 win in 3 tests.

Overall: 109.5 wins in 140 tests, or 78.2%.

Still a phenomenal record though.

I did say I was rubbish at maths.

how the heck do you get half a win!!

can you give us the real stats please

please dont tell me you are calling draws half a win- in what world has anyone nulled out draws in win ratio's

ok best way to work out how good a coach is- its immaterial what there win ratio is because they have played in various quailties of teams- if one coach only coached nz it doesnt mean he is better than someone who has only coached wales and scotland because he has a better win ratio.

wales overall have a 51.27 win ratio- henry with wales has a 58.8% win ratio- doing a great job thats the truth of it.

NZ have an 75% win ratio- henry had an 85.4% with him- very good again

martin johnson on the other hand- 55% against englands averge of 57%!!

True henry has a very good record,and this is reflected in the fact that he was IRB coach of the year 5 times,he was even New Zealand coach of the year 4 times.

As i say i think he has a point, but the points raised on reffing are also valid. Who is it that needs to make changes here though? The RFU? Perhaps it's a combination - poor coaching, poor reffing...maybe, if we're honest, players are a little inadequate as well (though you can surely partially link this to coaching).

I would also say that while GH is clearly well qualified to make statements on this he has always come across as a miserable, smug, arrogant S of a B to me in all interviews i've seen. Not meaning any offence to any Kiwi posters here, just never had much time for the bloke. Pretty certain SCW had the same effect on most people!

Also - as this was/is my first post - cheers to all for offering your thoughts!

Henry talking through his ass again i see,
Wales tried to run players on through the ruck and make space for quick ball a while ago but they got pinged off the park for it,deemed as obstruction.

So Henry we all know how to play rugby and we all can see the style the All Blacks adopt but like it or not the cold hard facts are refs allowed your boys to get away with murder at the break down.

Any team in the top 15 of the world even the minnows would win a hell of a lot if given such a free reign as your precious little mentally fragile bunch were given.

All good in the Hood. Good on you for breaking the ice. Sorry my comment seems to have hijacked your post into a stats fest.

Viewtothegym, the world needs more giggles so good on you for contributing to that.

I think England have traditionally used their pack to intimidate the opposition. Nowadays, people like Lawes are not as heavy as other locks in previous teams but he is certainly mobile. So you would think this would lend itself to a more mobile game in general. But that doesn't seem to be the case and I think Henry is justified in his claims that England are protecting too much the ball without sucking in defenders using their previous strengths of rolling mauls and punching up the middle with driving play.

So in the coming Murrayfield match, you would think the best tactics are to hit over the ball and clear the ball quickly and bring the ball out to a wider contact area and make the Scottish forwards run across field all day and tire them out. But why do I get the feeling that England will think they still have the players to drive up the middle and take the game to the Scottish forwards and power them off the ball and then use the crash ball or run angles when they go wide?

If you´ve got rid of players like Easter and Tindall and go for a team with mobility and dynamism as their strengths, then the traditional game that served England in the past seems to contradict the strengths this current England squad has.

Oh your so funny!

Counter act my point if you don't agree, or is it right so you can't? and it hurts because you don't like it.

kiakahaaotearoa wrote:All good in the Hood. Good on you for breaking the ice. Sorry my comment seems to have hijacked your post into a stats fest.

Viewtothegym, the world needs more giggles so good on you for contributing to that.

I think England have traditionally used their pack to intimidate the opposition. Nowadays, people like Lawes are not as heavy as other locks in previous teams but he is certainly mobile. So you would think this would lend itself to a more mobile game in general. But that doesn't seem to be the case and I think Henry is justified in his claims that England are protecting too much the ball without sucking in defenders using their previous strengths of rolling mauls and punching up the middle with driving play.

So in the coming Murrayfield match, you would think the best tactics are to hit over the ball and clear the ball quickly and bring the ball out to a wider contact area and make the Scottish forwards run across field all day and tire them out. But why do I get the feeling that England will think they still have the players to drive up the middle and take the game to the Scottish forwards and power them off the ball and then use the crash ball or run angles when they go wide?

If you´ve got rid of players like Easter and Tindall and go for a team with mobility and dynamism as their strengths, then the traditional game that served England in the past seems to contradict the strengths this current England squad has.

Cheers Kia, and no worries, i like a good stat attack.

Think you're spot on here as well. Through accident rather than design i think there is a generation of lighter, more nimble forwards, but we haven't recognised this and learnt to use them as such. Perhaps even worse, we've picked people like Easter to 'add ballast'. Or we've picked big backs to act as auxiliary forwards. That's all well and good, but as decent as people like Tindall have been defensively, they're never going to compete at the breakdown like someone like BOD (admittedly a true one off). If you're going to commit to a quicker game, players like him need to be jettisoned. Otherwise you pick a team full of these lumps and hope to God you can arm-wrestle a team to death. But the latter seems a hopelessly outdated approach these days.

The problem is other teams seem to produce players that are both big and dynamic.

You have your view and you sleep better at night thinking the ABs wouldn't beat your team if there were a supposedly even playing field. Conspiracies are easier to dream up than analyse why a team is successful in its own right. In your mind, you only lose because of this perceived injustice. I don't see any reason to shake you from that fantasy world. It would be like shaking you out of your sleep in the Matrix and opening your eyes to the real world. The adjustment might prove too shocking for you.

the better teams get the better decisions overall. but then there are the better teams, however world cups in recent years(rugby and football) have been a shocker for bad decisions. needs sorting out

What worries me Kia as the Blacks are my second team is that you now have Hansen as coach. I just dont rate him. GH picked up the worst welsh side in history and sent us on a ten match winning streak and got us into the QF of a RWC where the ref was appalling.

Hansen on the other hand

How will All Blacks fans react to his mantra of performance not results? How will they react if he destroys the lineout because he doesnt get it? (Thats when our lineout went into terminal decline and he was no great shakes for NZ until the responsibility was taken away.

On top of that I dont think he has the cahoonies to develop the side. For Steve Hansen in 2012 read Andy Robinson in 2004. Personally I think the Blacks should havelooked for a new broom to build a new side.

Mike Cron is a welcome addition (reinstatement) to the coaching set up Tycroes. He helped cure us of the yips in the line out and scrum. It will be interesting to see how Hansen reacts. I think his assistants look much better with Cron´s involvement but Foster is an unknown quantity. He worked well with the defunct Junior ABs with Colin Cooper but the Chiefs never reached any great heights under him. Then again they had a lot of injuries.

I think casting Hansen off for somebody fresh sounds good on paper but with Deans on contract and Gatland (they´re hardly fresh) I don´t think there were any serious claims to breaking with continuity.

Im not disputing the handling skills which are indeed exceptional or the unbelievable talent of Dan Carter,
but the breakdown is an area were the AllBlacks are a law unto themselves

The breakdown is an area of dispute for any international side. Look at the coming 6N matches and then tell me on Monday hand on heart that you didn´t think there were some questionable things going on at the breakdown. I´m not saying that the rules aren´t bent by the ABs but I don´t buy into this theory either that they alone are bending the rules nor do refs look upon the ABs more favourably because black is a slimming colour. That´s too simplistic to think there´s one rule for every other side and another for the ABs.

I do know where you´re coming from though. I heard the same thing when England were dominant in 2002-3 and when SA were dominant at various times. When you´re number 1, people find ways to undermine that fact.

"nor do refs look upon the ABs more favourably because black is a slimming colou"

your right they dont- but they do (maybe subconciously or due to pressure) look favourable on the all blacks because they are no.1.

if you cant see that then i am sorry its abit naive, it happens(sadly) in every reffed sport going

If referees look favourably on the All Blacks because they are no.1. Then how did they get to be No.1?
They havent always been No.1.

aukland its not a shut and closed case lad.
its an opinion that no.1 teams in reffed games seem to get slightly more favourable decisions, be it man u, barcelona, the all blacks.

its not gonna make them win if they play awfull or fall from grace, but if its a 50/50!!

refs are human and sadly it has become nature for them to take the easy route- its self preservation- we need as much technology as possible

mystiroakey wrote:aukland its not a shut and closed case lad.
its an opinion that no.1 teams in reffed games seem to get slightly more favourable decisions, be it man u, barcelona, the all blacks.

its not gonna make them win if they play awfull or fall from grace, but if its a 50/50!!

refs are human and sadly it has become nature for them to take the easy route- its self preservation- we need as much technology as possible

I cant believe you just called sombody over 20 years older than you "lad"

55 isnt that old is it, leave the poor bloke alone

No sweat guys I took it as a compliment..

I can't believe it!
Not a ball has been kicked nor try scored. Only a WC winning coach giving his opinion and already ITS THE REFS FAULT !!!

They ref us differently in England than every other part of the world that's why we're rubbish at the breakdown.

Other sides always get the rub of the green.

Looks like you're getting the excuses in way early this year. Im looking out for the official who's reffing what game thread so we can see England will yet again be unfairly treated by (insert refs name) when the day comes.

Oh well, I wonder what would have happened if England's star player was red carded for an offence that occurred 20 or so times but until that point had only been a penalty or yellow card.
Maybe they could ask the ref if there was time for the lineout, get told yes and then the ref blows for full time.
Maybe a try awarded against them in a quick lineout that was clearly illegal (sorry Ireland).

If that were happen you'd have a point.



We're reffed differently and more harshly than the rest of world

who is your mental rambling directed at. I really have no idea what started you of, but you seem a little bit unhinged lad,

the only people that have whinge about bad decisions recently have been the french and welsh. not sure were you are are from or if your even sane, but i hope you feel better about that little outburst

Lot of lads about lately.....

Kiwireddevil wrote:

TycroesOsprey wrote:God it is 88% thats got to make him the most successful coach in world rugby history.

Fred Allen's was 100% IIRC (the Needle's test record was 14-0, not sure about tour matches). That's over a lot less games admittedly.

Kitch Chriiste had a record of 13-0 during 1994/5