Rob Penney wasn't given much without Whitelock and Mo'unga
Rob Penney didn’t appoint himself.
No coach does.
I had misgivings about the decision of the Crusaders board to install Penney as head coach of the franchise and expressed those at the time.
I won’t go as far as saying the Crusaders set Penney up to fail in the short term, but I’m not sure he inherited the calibre of squad that predecessor Scott Robertson did.
The heart of Robertson’s Crusaders was Sam Whitelock. Richie Mo’unga the brains.
You take those two out and, frankly, you’re not left with much. At least not when it comes to having the clinical ability to win when it counts.
I see a few fans piling on Penney now and pointing to disappointing outcomes in his previous coaching roles.
Look, folk need people to blame when they’re unhappy, but Penney shouldn’t be the target.
Let’s isolate Whitelock for a moment.
Talk can be cheap, but it appears he’s been sounded out about an early return from his club contract in France and an unexpected swansong with the All Blacks.
Some might wonder why Robertson - having assumed the All Blacks job - might seek the services of a guy who’ll turn 36 later this year.
Well, look at how the Crusaders are going right now and wonder no more.
If anyone knows Whitelock’s value, it’s Robertson. He’ll be acutely aware of the hole left in the Crusaders without him and conscious that the same can’t happen to the All Blacks.
It was Penney that gave Whitelock his start in professional rugby. Robertson too, in a coaching capacity.
That’s why I struggle to join the group of folk wanting to round on Penney and I assume his appointment is potentially more about development than immediate results.
The Penney-coached Canterbury teams I covered were humble, hardworking and unbeatable when it counted.
The culture, to my eye, was outstanding and I’ll give a couple of examples.
Daniel Carter and Richie McCaw played a bit for Canterbury during Penney’s tenure.
As stars, they knew they would be doing media every time they turned up to training.
Neither gave you a lot, in terms of barn burning quotes, but I did once get a very good and informative one-on-one interview out of Carter.
The thing is, before the pair even laced a boot at training, they asked who’d requested them for media that day and then fulfilled every obligation.
I moved onto Wellington and the Hurricanes after that where, if you were a player of note, you didn’t have to do media. No, you were too special for that.
I mention that, because Penney’s teams won. So did those he left to Tabai Matson and Robertson.
The Hurricanes eventually did too, but only after Mark Hammett had come in and put a bit of the Canterbury culture into the place.
That’s one of the reasons I can’t really endorse the criticism of Penney.
I’ve seen him take boys, such as Whitelock, and groom them for All Black careers.
I’ve seen him take punts on left-field thinkers like Matson and Robertson and set them on the path to successful coaching careers.
I’ve seen what red-and-black rugby means to him and the responsibility he felt to honour the great coaches and players who’d come before him, through the performances of his teams.
I’ve seen the work he put into creating a culture where everyone was valued and respected.
Maybe players such as Whitelock, Kieran Read, Owen Franks, Ryan Crotty and Matt Todd would’ve become All Blacks anyway. I prefer to think the values instilled by Penney played an important part.
Robertson’s departure was always going to mark the end of an incredible era.
I don’t know if we’ll see the like of it again. But I do know what’s Penney’s done before and the environment he created so that others could continue to succeed after he was gone.
Latest Comments
I think you've confused loss ratio with win ratio (I already gave you those numbers).
Not according to you're theory of winning rugby it doesn't "reflect performance", but maybe you have a further opinion on that two year period of success I mentioned? This decade they have had two years of winning football (SR AU) and the other two years with just the sole team winning (SRP).
I think you're looking for something in my post that isn't there, I'm just providing informational and letting a normal debate flow from it(sadly there forums aren't setup to capitlize on this time of community evolvement). What you need to focus on providing reason for is the lack of SR success in 00's, while obtain consistent/good national success. Does it not necessarily work both ways? The national team can obviously do well despite the clubs not, but can you say the national team will do well if it has winning club sides? Ie they can focus on that lower level creating a winning culture and let the top take care of itself? As I have said above, the one striking reason the Wallabies still had good results in the 00's (same win rate as when they had much better SR results around 2011), is despite only having one team with a winning season a lot of the time they were some of their best winning seasons in SR history.
Also as per you refer to recent consolidation this year and possible improvement and/or change of how the data needs to be interrupted, that pretty much applies to everything so far in the 20's, i'm not sure it's worth trying there either. The 10's, where the 'winning formula' theory works, and 00's, where it doesn't, are the more consistent era's (provide more reliable data) imo.
Go to commentsThe players have to play to the " gameplay " they trained for , instructed by the coaches .
England looked lost when Ireland upped the ante.
In contrast all the Irish players looked far better coached and attacked in unity .
Also
To criticise a 1.75 and 13 stone ball player for not being able to tackle expertly is like criticising Maro Itoje for not having a decent sidestep . Stupid.
Anyone knows a retreating pack makes the life of the 9 and 10 very difficult and this where the game turned .
That and silly penalties , dropped balls etc etc .
Borthwick will be here for a while But the team is crying out for better direction from the coaches .
Is the RFU listening .