The telling black marks that Scott Robertson had to go as All Blacks coach – Paul Lewis

THE FACTS

Interesting that the demise of Scott Robertson has ignited various pundits, former All Blacks and overseas coaches, most delivering a variation on the theme that Robertson was dismissed before being given a fair shake.

Surely this was a classic case of live by the sword, die by the sword. Robertson got the job after a campaign behind the scenes – and not-so-behind-the-scenes – when former coach Ian Foster was still in the hot seat.

Robertson played some strategic cards when Foster’s light was dimming after some poor performances by his team, highlighted by Robertson’s infamous “Bula” greeting to media in 2023, suggesting he was on the way to coach Fiji if he didn’t score the top job.

Foster was effectively replaced not long before the 2023 World Cup campaign; he somehow overcame the “dead man walking” syndrome, helping guide his team to a World Cup final they nearly won. Now, however, Robertson’s departure as the first All Blacks coach to leave the job during a World Cup cycle has drawn a chorus of “unfair” from several quarters.

None – and I mean none – of those now complaining about Robertson’s treatment had ever written or said anything praising the job Robertson was doing.

There’s reason for that: it wasn’t much good.

We can dismiss entirely French coach Fabien Galthie’s crocodile tears, talking about the rapid-fire dismissals of Robertson and Foster. He said New Zealand Rugby’s (NZR) “national policy does not help its national team”. Tell you what, Fabien, France bringing out substandard sides to New Zealand to grow your depth while preventing the All Blacks from experiencing France’s best does not help our national team either. More to the point, it cynically devalues the international game.

Perhaps the most heartfelt and pointed criticism came from pundit/commentator Scott Stevenson in a broadside which called NZR “a pack of clowns”, casting the season review as “a hit job” with a pre-determined ending. He made the entirely valid point that rugby guru Sir Wayne Smith’s Herald interview showed that the man often turned to by NZR in times of extremity had been blindsided; not consulted; left out of the review which led to Robertson’s release.

Relevant? You bet. Had Smith been involved, it would probably have quelled talk of the players leading a “revolt” against the coach, something chairman David Kirk strenuously denied and which Stevenson labelled “bullshit”.

So why omit Smith from this process when his involvement could have diluted the ability of Stevenson and others to cry foul? I can only think of two reasons: 1) Stevenson was right and NZR had made up its mind Robertson had to go and/or 2) Smith’s involvement in that record-breaking loss to South Africa last year. Perhaps it was felt his shared responsibility would colour his views or that he had been involved only part-time during the season and that the review wanted to hear from those involved from go to whoa. We may never know.

Tony Brown, the assistant coach with the Springboks, said he thought the All Blacks were “tracking okay”. Really? I think we all know what would likely have happened to Brown and the Boks coaches had it been a record win to the All Blacks in Wellington. Robertson could have been – and was – excused a ropey first year in charge because, as Smith said, progress is often slow when you take over as a new All Blacks coaching group.

However, in my opinion, there were several telling black marks in 2025 against Robertson: that dismaying loss to the Boks; the loss to England which made it clear the All Blacks were off the pace, followed by the spectacle of a weak Welsh side putting four tries on them; the loss of assistant coaches Leon MacDonald (2024) and Jason Holland, suggesting something was amiss in the control centre.

On top of that came the blurring of Robertson’s public persona. At first, he wasn’t so much a breath of fresh air as a gale. He spoke openly, refreshingly, revealingly. Latterly, as the pressure went on, his public statements became woollier and more confused, seemingly designed to say little; just survive the interviews. That confusion seemed to make its way into the team.

Let’s not forget: this is the guy who arrived in the coaching job hailed as a messiah; the man with the will to kill the ills; the multiple Super Rugby champ whose breakdancing, ready grin and surfer-boy schtick would usher in a new era.

It is no crime for an employer to decide an employee is not good enough or is not doing a good enough job. When that employee arrives on a tidal wave of fresh hope and promise, it makes the letdown even more distinct – and the need for action more urgent if there are no signs of improvement. There weren’t.

Those insisting Robertson was harshly treated often instance his 74% win record; 20 tests won out of 27. Stats are one thing; analysis another. When those seven tests/the 26% demonstrate the goal of the World Cup is not within reach, action is required.

That said, as this column pointed out last time, Kirk has laid down a marker which will affect how his chairmanship is later measured. The axe had to be wielded. Maybe it could have been employed differently but, let’s face it, not good enough is, well, not good enough.