Some other people have commented that John Mitchell's contract was not renewed and Henry's contract was, despite the poor WC result.
I can only equivocate, but my feeling is that the NZRU and their agenda is based on protecting and advancing the AB brand, possibly above what is best for the All Black team.
It is likely John Mitchell lost his coaching job because he based the team in Melbourne, away from the media circus of the WC in 2003 and in the process, "tarnishing" the PR image of the All Blacks. In contrast, the 2007 WC/Adidas campaign was a PR dream before the ABs untimely exit.
I think the NZRU took the management of public relations agenda heavily into account when deciding on post-WC coaches.
Also, I think it was Chris Moffett that said that some of the NZRU should be sacked for agreeing to resting the players during the super 14 - possibly Henry's re-selection was to avoid a loss of face by the NZRU?
Would Henry ever be sacked with the incumbent NZRU?
Tags: