The New Zealand Rugby Union stood by their head coach after the disappointment of 2007 and are now about to reap their reward, writes MATT WILLIAMS

MARC LIÉVREMONT and Graham Henry are completely different animals. Yet they share one common element; their respective unions have stood by them in the face of a massive public and media outcry for their dismissal.

They have both been public enemy number one in their countries. Naturally, there has been a calming of the criticism this week, but that will instantly return for one of them, after tomorrow morning’s game.

Henry is vastly experienced, while Liévremont’s first real professional gig is with the national team.

Henry at 65 is an old coach; Liévremont at 42 is still very young. Henry is conservative, gruff and calculated; Liévremont – with that Zorro-esque pencil-thin moustache – is outspoken, emotional and erratic.

For these two men the stakes could not be any higher. Both are faced with 80 minutes that will either deliver rugby immortality or rugby oblivion. A hero or a fool.

Who would be a coach?

I met Henry back in 1996. It was the first year of professionalism and I was a wet-behind-the-ears assistant coach of the NSW Waratahs. He was coaching an Auckland Blues team that is the best I have ever come up against at any time in my life.

We lost 56-44 at Eden Park, despite having some great players like David Campese and Matt Burke. Their line-up was stunning: Sean Fitzpatrick, Olo Brown, Zinzan Brooke, Robin Brooke, Michael Jones, Carlos Spencer, Eroni Clarke and two little wingers named Joeli Vidiri (who galloped over for three tries) and Jonah Lomu.

They were an incredible sight to behold, packed with leaders, speed, power and match-winning freaks. My grandmother from Nenagh could’ve coached them to the Super 12 championship title.

But Nan wasn’t the coach – it was an aloof, arrogant and condescending man that went by the name of “Ted”. Without doubt Henry was the schoolmaster boss of that team, controlling and commanding the egos of world stars.

He went on to become head coach of Wales for four years and was sacked before lasting a record eight seasons with New Zealand.

His amazing reappointment as head coach after the 2007 World Cup quarter-final defeat to France is a lesson in rugby methods as New Zealand, once again, displayed the wisdom that makes them the leading nation in our game.

The NZRU conducted an audit of their team’s performance after the last World Cup. I have read the document they produced.

It was mature and correct. The main thrust of the review was that the ’07 team were brilliantly prepared by Wayne Smith, Steve Hansen and Henry. However, a perfect storm of injuries (both outhalves) combined with poor on-field decisions by the players (failing to go for drop goals) and referee Wayne Barnes (Michalak’s forward pass for Jauzion’s try) led to a narrow defeat.

The NZRU concluded that Graham Henry was not to blame.

If New Zealand win tomorrow it will be a great victory for those who understand and analyse a coach’s role in a team.

The world of soccer still influences our opinion in this regard; win and you are great, lose and you are gone. Teams who follow this mantra usually stagnate. Just compare Chelsea with Manchester United.

Great sporting groups around the planet have one thing in common; longevity of their staff, be it CEOs, coaches or the bagman.

The coach doesn’t make tackles, catch balls or break the gainline. They co-ordinate the week’s preparation and planning before empowering players to implement the game plan.

I vividly remember once asking a Scottish player why he missed six tackles in a Test match. He launched into an attack on the pre-game meal, claiming there was too much chicken and not enough pasta. He refused to take responsibility for his actions, instead blaming ridiculous off the field issues. Needless to say, he never got another opportunity to prove the chicken and pasta theory was correct.

Henry is one game away from attaining an Aristotle-like perch in New Zealand life or facing a wave of unchecked ridicule.

This unfair situation typifies the ignorance most people have of coaching. Henry has done a phenomenal job, under the sort of pressure that would cripple most men.

He plotted the route to the final. It is now up to the players.

And what of Liévremont? He had success at under-21 level, winning the 2006 World Cup in France, and he achieved promotion to the Top 14 with US Dax in 2007.

But that’s it.

In France he is seen as the coach illégitime.

He has my empathy. He has worked his hardest and there have been some marvellous victories, most notably against New Zealand in 2009.

However, there will always be the 60-point loss to Australia in Paris and, of course, Tonga.

I’m down coaching in Narbonne as I write this. I’ve just returned from the local food market (Le Halles – world famous for French cuisine), where the public’s knowledgeable rugby voice can be heard. It was here that I was reliably informed that England would be dismissed. And Wales too.

The locals were certain this group of players wouldn’t bend after those miserable pool defeats to Tonga and New Zealand.

So I arrived down this morning eager to hear the unpredictable (just like their team) native viewpoint on the final.

They believe France can win because they view New Zealand as equals. They will never bend on one knee before the black jersey.

An incredible question was asked repeatedly by people in the market: Have we earned the right to be world champions under Liévremont?

My life’s training has been to grab a win, any win, and get on the bus.

France won the toss for the choice of jersey yet allowed New Zealand keep their beloved black.

I was astonished by this. The other foreigners in Narbonne said the same. But the French were unanimous: we have to beat them legitimately and that means beating the black jersey.

I can’t help admire such panache and spirit.

Henry will probably hold the William Webb Ellis trophy tomorrow night but both his national union and the French union deserve credit for standing by and empowering their coaches.

It shows an understanding of their role and that of elite coaching. Those who chop and change are doomed to mediocrity.