Ousted selector gave rugby honest service

Press, 17 November 1976, Page 28

Ousted selector gave rugby honest service

By

KEVIN McMENAMIN

The unseating last week of the Canterbury rugby back selector, Mr Derek Arnold, was not unexpected. Long before Canterbury ended its largely disappointing winter there were rumours that all was not well within the team and much of the criticism from the outside was levelled at Mr Arnold.

The problem was mainly one of personalities and this was acknowledged a month ago when it was only on the casting vote of the chairman (Mr C. H. J. Rhodes) that the Canterbury union decided against a switch from a two-man panel to a sole selector, with power to co-opt someone to help him with the coaching. The growing support over the last two years for one man has its roots in the need to have an uncluttered line of communication from the coach to the captain to the team.

It was not so much that Mr Arnold and his coselector, Mr Stan Hill, were diametrically opposed and, in fact, there is no evidence that there was any falling out between them. It was just that they are men of different approaches and attitudes to rugby and a close working relationship did not come easily. The difficulties in this respect ar,e well known to those who support the idea of having just one selector. He is then the boss

and he has a free hand in choosing the coaching helper he knows he can work with.

The saddest part of Mr Arnold’s defeat is. that in terms of commitment to his task it was undeserved. He gave himself wholeheartedly to the job and if there were times when he seemed overzealous it was purely that he could function no other way. Always a strong competitor in his playing days, he could perform no differently as a coach. It was very probably this fierce determination and clear appreciation of what should be expected from top footballers that got Mr Arnold off-side in some quarters. He was not hesitant in stepping on a few toes if it meant achieving his aims.

On one occasion last winter this writer and Mr Arnold had a lively discussion on the role of selector. He dismissed quite emphatically a suggestion that a selector is akin to a politician in that he is answerable to the people who elect him and he must keep on side with them if he wants to be reelected.

As a coach and a selector, Mr Arnold was his own man. It is an admirable trait, but it may well have cost him a third year in office. The rugby union has never been noted for treating kindly

those who set their own rules.

There were some people who contended that Mr Arnold selected like he played — totally unpredictably. Circumstances, to some extent, forced him. into making difficult decisions this year, but the one which confounded most people — and possibly diminished his standing — was when he substituted a reserve for a fit, previously selected, player just an hour or two before a game. He was plagued, too, by the continuing debate on the relative merits of Doug Heffernan, chosen by Mr Arnold as full-back, and Richard Wilson, who was preferred by many and who was ranked higher nationally. Yet this was just a toss-up situation selectors have to face from time to time. Mr Arnold’s training methods were also questioned on occasions. He worked his players hard and this may have contributed to the staleness that crept into the side’s play late in the season. But Mr Arnold was not a general who led from the rear. He pushed himself very nearly as hard as his players in training and there is one incident that typifies his intensity of purpose. Man-to-man tackling was being practised and a

back had twice missed his man. “Surely you can stop an old man like me.” stormed Mr Arnold as he took up station on the 22-metre line.

Calling on al! his old ploys of pace changes, a side-step few of today s players could match, and a jolting fend he got past the player, who fearful, no doubt, that his representative career was about to abruptly end gave chase and eventually pulled Mr Arnold to the ground by a shirt-sleeve. Happily, the lesson and all the energy expended was not wasted.

Mr Arnold may have suffered through becoming a Canterbury selector at too early an age. He was chosen, possibly as a compromise choice, from a short list of candidates and he had the problem of having to deal with players he knew personally and had played alongside. His action last year in sending Fergie McCormick into retirement caused much heart-burn and one that might haunt Mr Arnold tot many years to come. However, his bravery in doing what he thought best, despite the consequences, was true to character.

- By some of his actions, Mr Arnold probably invited criticism, but it would be a little unfortunate if his dismissal was interpreted v as a way of explaining away Canterbury’s disappointing back play last winter. No man could have tried harder to improve the standard. His chief sin may have been trying a little too hard.