KEY POINTS:
Whatever happens in the All Black coaching saga, there are three certainties. First, this is taking longer than an ice age. There are wooden Indians, stuffed animals and Telecom internet help desks that move faster than this.
Second, there is more political intrigue in the election of the
All Black coach 2008 than in our general election 2008. In the latter, Helen and Miserable Michael will attempt to bribe us. Yawn. In the former, we have behind-the-scenes political manoeuvring of Machiavellian proportions.
Third, the PR offensive on behalf of Messrs Graham Henry, Steve Hansen and Wayne Smith is gathering pace and there are some things being said which require puncturing with a septic needle.
First cabs off the rank were veteran rugby writer Bob Howitt and former North Harbour, US coach and All Black selector Peter Thorburn.
I admire these two. Howitt is a highly knowledgeable soul who has gained scoops over a period of decades. Thorburn is a lively, entertaining and out-of-the-box thinker on the game who has written columns and been a regular commentator in these pages.
But their advocacy of Henry's continued employment strains credibility. This comes, mind you, in a political environment which has transformed suddenly from "Robbie Deans can start selecting his first squad" to "Henry's got the numbers".
Both say Henry's experience is too vast to be summarily dispensed with; that he will learn from his mistakes.
Sportstop will confine itself to a brief but cynical snort here. The views of this column on Henry's continued reign have been made clear so require only minimal review with the use of the words: rotation, reconditioning, lack of leadership; 'judge us on the World Cup'; failure to admit mistakes; insistence that nothing would change.
The last two alone are grounds for the jettisoning of Henry and co. But the abject failure of a World Cup strategy so completely endorsed by the NZRU and so painfully exposed at Cardiff may be needed as a reminder for a stubborn few. Let's put it this way. Would General George Custer have been awarded another command if he'd survived the Sioux after making the grievous error of splitting his 450 men into three groups to do battle with 1800 Indians? In charge of peeling potatoes, maybe.
Would the captain of the Titanic have been given another ship if he'd avoided death after hitting the iceberg? Said captain, incidentally, had been carpeted after hitting another large object - a British warship - the year before. So much for learning from mistakes, then.
There's an obligation that goes with command, particularly when that command prescribes a definite course of action - so definite that one's career is staked on it.
So when Howitt talks about referee Wayne Barnes - yes, folks, we are still blaming the ref, ain't politics grand? - being Henry's 'insurmountable object', he was referring to Henry's iceberg, so to speak.
Howitt linked Barnes to Laurie Mains' 'insurmountable object' - the 1995 World Cup team who were smitten with food poisoning (absolutely true) deliberately administered by a waitress called Suzy (never confirmed).
This is a dubious argument for three reasons: 1) People may remember that the All Blacks would have won that match had Andrew Mehrtens succeeded in his drop goal attempt (at least they tried); 2) linking excuses doesn't change anything - they are still excuses and, like blaming Barnes, should never have been offered; and 3) the other blokes played better than we did, even if we were the more talented team.
Thorburn's advocacy included the line that the NZRU should not hire Robbie Deans just to stop him from being employed by the Wallabies.
Unfortunately, this carries with it a lot of the implied arrogance that many have detected in the All Black approach to the 2007 World Cup. It dismisses Deans' legitimate claims to the throne. It smacks of the 'our way was the right way' attitude that many opposed to Henry dislike.
And then there's the good old NZRU. If the latest grindings of the rumour mill are to be believed, Henry has the numbers.
So has the NZRU done a whisper-whisper deal? You go through the motions re getting your job back but we'll say you have to re-apply and then we'll give you the job ahead of Deans. You'll have to recant on rotation and reconditioning but... nudge, nudge, wink, wink...
As a face-saver, it's interesting as the NZRU and the board are as much to blame for the failed World Cup strategy and execution. It may also be a way to see Deans off the premises and arrange a handover to Hansen a couple of years down the track.
But wouldn't it be better for New Zealand rugby if we started with a clean slate; removing totally the taint that came from 2007? Or is that too an 'insurmountable obstacle' because it places too many people in high places in between the Titanic and the iceberg?