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 NZR’s “national policy does not help its national team”. Tell you what, Fabien, France bringing out sub-standard 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 the NZR had made up their 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, 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 Bok 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 AB 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 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 seven-time 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.