John Drake: Why the Blues keep falling over

It's appropriate the Blues will face the Chiefs for the last game of this year's campaign.

Let's face it, this may well be the last involvement in Super rugby for many involved. Some are planning their exits, and some will have no say.

Way back in early February, I, like the other lemmings, again picked the Blues as semifinalists at a minimum, and commended the Chiefs as a competitive outfit, but maybe lacking the depth in key areas to go all the way.

The Chiefs are based on the Waikato mentality with the seamless introduction of Bay of Plenty and Counties Manukau talent, although BoP talent returns over the Kaimais while the Counties guys tend to forget the way home to Pukekohe after the bright lights and charms of the Waikato.

Go to Hamilton for a Super 14 game and you will hear cowbells aplenty and that sad case with the chainsaw.

The coaches, management and front office are locals who understand the rugby heritage of the area and never stray too far away from the entrenched culture.

A bad start in South Africa made this season a catch-up exercise and while the new faces stepped up most times, coach Ian Foster must have been frustrated that injuries have never really allowed him to play the combinations he wanted to.

Remember, neither Waikato nor Bay of Plenty really fired in last year's NPC while Counties Manukau didn't make the second division final.

The recruits from outside have all done well, with Mils Muliaina and Sam Tuitupou leading the charge and the likes of Kristian Ormsby not far behind.

Is there much more the Chiefs can do to improve? Probably, but not much other than continue to build the depth and retain players from the lure of pounds and yen.

They are consistent in their off-field setup and appear to be maximising their resources.

With a bit of luck on the fitness front, and providing they retain their influential players, they will be a contender next year.

The Blues for the seventh time in eight years have failed to make the semis, so it could be argued this present group has done no better or worse than those before them. Unfortunately this thinking belongs to the worst examples of dumbing down and political correctness.

Some argue the failures are an Auckland rugby problem, yet Auckland management and supporters will smugly say they consistently have a winning record in the NPC so it's not their fault.

Some will say North Harbour are the trouble child, that they were bad news when part of the Chiefs and have never won a trophy, although they have a large cabinet in expectation.

North Harbour management and supporters will say they have always been treated as second-class citizens by the Eden Park fat cats, their players never get a fair go and are forced out to other Super rugby franchises to get a better deal (I thought Super franchises couldn't lure talent, only unions?)

Against these reasons it seems there are more and more North Harbour players in the Blues, the North Harbour Super rugby crowds are way lower than at Eden Park and the North Harbour union never has enough money to keep their players.

Finally, there's Northland. Pillaged of young talent by their Blues partners, they seem just happy to be involved and really appreciate any payout and the odd loan player at the end of the year.

The Blues directors and management say they can't protect all the players in the area from being taken south.

Privately, some will blame a longstanding New Zealand Rugby Union policy of wanting to dilute the region's rugby power, something to do with everything else except the Government and the Rugby Union moving to Auckland!

What about the players? Everyone says with the talent available the Blues should be up with the best.

Certainly there is All Black class in the franchise, but there are also glaring weaknesses and lack of depth - in particular hooker, all the loose forward positions, halfback, and No 10.

For most of the season, the set pieces have stuttered from average to poor, considering the number of All Blacks involved.

The defence, which once won the Blues a title, has leaked far too much, so the organisation and mentality in this area must be questioned.

Other interesting questions would include the following:

* Do the coaches suit the mentality of the players and vice versa?

* Is the current group a happy bunch prepared to die for the cause and the culture of the franchise?

* Is there any culture in the franchise, and what is culture anyway?

* The front office has consistently selected coaches and management from outside the franchise area over a number of years. Is this right?

* What's been the matter with the locals, and if there is a problem, how did it get so far?

In professional sport you pick the best available, but I wonder if this applies to Super 14.

The consistently successful teams have been controlled from within and in the case of the Crusaders/Canterbury structure control has been almost a dictatorship.

There appear so many issues and differing opinions that any attempt at an easy fix will be hard to take credibly.

However, some starters at review time may be:

* Are the current board the right people for the job?

Why shouldn't the Auckland union dominate the whole show? It works for Canterbury and certainly worked for the Blues in the glory years.

This would mean dictatorship of selections, coaches and management. It seems the Auks are always being blamed for having too much control. Well, may be they should have far more.

If some in the franchise are unwilling to get on the Auckland bus they should be swept aside and given no say.

* Get more cunning when dealing with the NZRFU. A few days down at the Canterbury union would probably produce a few tips on this.

* Put in place a three to four-year plan, not a quick fix. Hold on to local players and coaches and be honest and humble enough to identify weak areas in player development and recruit accordingly from other provinces.

Some difficult questions, and I suspect some unpleasant answers for the Blues board of directors, both current and in the future.