Exodus 2017
-
@rotated it seems you were one of those in the camp claiming they failed to get a decent back up to DC, yet you go through and show that they did in fact try to find someone, and fortunately, for the best part of his career, DC was pretty durable, not to mention raising the bar as well.
How else could they have solved the issue?
-
@taniwharugby said in Exodus 2017:
@rotated it seems you were one of those in the camp claiming they failed to get a decent back up to DC, yet you go through and show that they did in fact try to find someone, and fortunately, for the best part of his career, DC was pretty durable, not to mention raising the bar as well.
How else could they have solved the issue?
As hinted at in the above post once they made the decision Donald wasn't up to it in 2009 then dedicate their efforts to finding an adequate replacement - specifically not dropping Cruden after his first start and taking Slade on the EOYT to being with or at the very least after Hong Kong when they really were done with Donald for good (as pointed out there was an injury and as a utility he would have been an adequate replacement, besides they had taken 3 10s in 2009).
After deciding Cruden was the best option going forward 18 months out from the cup, then Slade 12 months from the Cup they somehow went into the tournament with Cruden having started one test (while clearly carrying a niggle in his kicking leg) and Salde two tests (one of which was against Fiji).
That was nothing but lack of conviction with selection, player development and time management. One of the very few missteps they made.
-
again, what should they have done differently?
On one hand the best 10 to have played the game, so you want him to play, as you pointed out, they tried numerous players over the time, I don't care about what you hinted, that is irrelevant, what is relevant is they were looking for a back up, which just didnt pan out, poorly timed injuries, poor luck in other instances (Donald was much maligned for the HK loss, when there were others equally culpable) granted they didn't pan out perfectly or to plan, but again, what more should or could they have done?
Short of benching DC for a season to give someone a better shot at establishing themselves, I cant see what they could or should have done differently that would have changed much.
-
@taniwharugby Looking at the above, and thinking back to it. The only clearly screw up was the selection of McAlister. That really didn't make any sense.
-
@MajorRage case of square peg, round hole?
I honestly don't see how they could have done anything greatly different, or with enough of an impact that would have seen us win more games.
-
@taniwharugby he hadnt played for ages, hadn't played in NZ hence for/against any of his team mates in even longer & was coming off an injury.
It was a straight out panic selection, and a huge risk. Which didn't pay off.
-
The gap between Carter and the rest in 2009-11 (after Evans left) was actually huge so made picking a replacement a lot harder. They did freak out a bit, and blow their own plan in 2010 by not taking away Cruden and Slade. In the end they needed all of them anyway - so maybe it didn't matter. (I see we're perpetuating the Slade saves our bacon myth instead of the Kaino saves out bacon truth
).But hey, sometimes a coach gets lucky and the timing is right, Hansen did ok, DC left and Barrett turns in career best performances that many if they're honest didn't think he had in him, and before that he had Cruden to come in when DC was injured at a time when Cruden was on fire.
@MajorRage Yep, the McAlister selection against France was the worse thing possible for both NZ and him. We blew a test, and he lost most of his reputation (his return is looked back as completely negative now when he actually had a couple of decent tests.)
-
@Nepia said in Exodus 2017:
The gap between Carter and the rest in 2009-11 (after Evans left) was actually huge so made picking a replacement a lot harder. They did freak out a bit, and blow their own plan in 2010 by not taking away Cruden and Slade. In the end they needed all of them anyway - so maybe it didn't matter. (I see we're perpetuating the Slade saves our bacon myth instead of the Kaino saves out bacon truth
).But hey, sometimes a coach gets lucky and the timing is right, Hansen did ok, DC left and Barrett turns in career best performances that many if they're honest didn't think he had in him, and before that he had Cruden to come in when DC was injured at a time when Cruden was on fire.
@MajorRage Yep, the McAlister selection against France was the worse thing possible for both NZ and him. We blew a test, and he lost most of his reputation (his return is looked back as completely negative now when he actually had a couple of decent tests.)
Did he? From memory, I thought he looked good against weak opposition but the minute he faced a decent defence, all he did was ineffectively run sideways. He was no better than Donald (arguably worse).
In hindsight, dropping Cruden was the biggest mistake because Slade didn't exactly turn out to be a memorable AB 10 anyway. From memory, 2011 was the HammerCanes year, which was a complete mess and one of the main reasons why Cruden missed out on the AB squad at first. The next year he was at the Chiefs, had a brilliant Super season and easily made the ABs, so they should've given him a chance to settle in.
But having said all that, who gives a shit about drudging this crap up yet again? Maybe you've forgotten but we won the 2011 RWC, in part because we had four AB 10s. Things worked out like a cliche sports movie, with Donald getting a ton of undeserved shit from all corners but coming back and turning himself into a hero. If I could go back and change it, I wouldn't change a thing (well, maybe drop Guildford...).
-
-
@Billy-Tell said in Exodus 2017:
Not to break up the nostalgia that has overtaken the thread...but returning to the current AB side and Franks has re-signed.
Great news, somewhere out there in the real world redbeard just climaxed.
-
@Billy-Tell said in Exodus 2017:
Not to break up the nostalgia that has overtaken the thread...but returning to the current AB side and Franks has re-signed.
Whew..that's one crossed off the list...now only another 19 to go...
-
Rassie Erasmus dismisses speculation that Munster are seeking All Black Ben Smith
The Munster coach says he is only looking for Irish qualified players.
It's not us after Smith anyway. I wonder if there have been actual talks with anyone?
It's a long while since a SH star used Munster as bate to try and wrangle a better deal back home. Feels good!
-
@Unco said in Exodus 2017:
@Nepia said in Exodus 2017:
The gap between Carter and the rest in 2009-11 (after Evans left) was actually huge so made picking a replacement a lot harder. They did freak out a bit, and blow their own plan in 2010 by not taking away Cruden and Slade. In the end they needed all of them anyway - so maybe it didn't matter. (I see we're perpetuating the Slade saves our bacon myth instead of the Kaino saves out bacon truth
).But hey, sometimes a coach gets lucky and the timing is right, Hansen did ok, DC left and Barrett turns in career best performances that many if they're honest didn't think he had in him, and before that he had Cruden to come in when DC was injured at a time when Cruden was on fire.
@MajorRage Yep, the McAlister selection against France was the worse thing possible for both NZ and him. We blew a test, and he lost most of his reputation (his return is looked back as completely negative now when he actually had a couple of decent tests.)
Did he? From memory, I thought he looked good against weak opposition but the minute he faced a decent defence, all he did was ineffectively run sideways. He was no better than Donald (arguably worse).
In hindsight, dropping Cruden was the biggest mistake because Slade didn't exactly turn out to be a memorable AB 10 anyway. From memory, 2011 was the HammerCanes year, which was a complete mess and one of the main reasons why Cruden missed out on the AB squad at first. The next year he was at the Chiefs, had a brilliant Super season and easily made the ABs, so they should've given him a chance to settle in.
But having said all that, who gives a shit about drudging this crap up yet again? Maybe you've forgotten but we won the 2011 RWC, in part because we had four AB 10s. Things worked out like a cliche sports movie, with Donald getting a ton of undeserved shit from all corners but coming back and turning himself into a hero. If I could go back and change it, I wouldn't change a thing (well, maybe drop Guildford...).
He had a good game against the Wallabies at Homebush - DC gets all the credit (and deserves his credit) for the match but McAlister played a crucial role in getting us over the gain line in that tight match. But he was never the same player after he went overseas.
Clearly we do by responding even though we didn't bring it up!
-
@Nepia said in Exodus 2017:
The gap between Carter and the rest in 2009-11 (after Evans left) was actually huge so made picking a replacement a lot harder. They did freak out a bit, and blow their own plan in 2010 by not taking away Cruden and Slade. In the end they needed all of them anyway - so maybe it didn't matter. But hey, sometimes a coach gets lucky and the timing is right,
I think the thing that somewhat damns the cartel in this instance is that they ended up with Slade as their number 2 first five at the 2011 RWC - and at that point he had about 120 minutes of test experience in the position - with about half of it against Fiji.
All the eggs were really in the Danny Boy basket - and when that upended, we really needed to get lucky.
In some ways, the scene was perfectly set for Donald. He'd already copped a lambasting for Hong Kong, so whatever he got from the RWC, if we lost, wouldn't be much worse . Aside from which, everyone knew he wasn't supposed to be there anyway - and Piri had already guaranteed the hotseat for himself by missing all those kicks in the first half. So probably a bit less pressure than if he'd been in the squad in the first place.
In hindsight, Henry's reign probably wasn't quite as seamless as Hansen's. I'm still a bit stunned that they apparently didn't tell Henry that Piri was injured.
-
@Chris-B. I think it's easier to be seamless at 10 when you have the 2012 onwards version of Cruden and the 2016 version of Barrett (and the less deer in the headlights later version of Slade).
I didn't know they didn't tell Henry that Piri got injured in the warm up - who was they? The players?
-
@Nepia Wayne Smith and Deb Robinson, I think.
Apparently Piri got injured running his own extended goal-kicking session the day before.
In Henry's book (which I just looked at) Graham noticed Piri looked to be favouring his leg in the wrm-ups and said "What's wrong with Piri?" Smith said he didn't know and would find out - and did so - asked Deb Robinson. Found out that Piri had a less severe case of DC's aductor tear - but, Piri was confident it would be OK when it warmed up. So Robinson already knew and hadn't told the coaches.
I can't recall the source of where I saw or read that they still decided not to tell Graham about this because they didn't want to worry him - at a glance I couldn't see it in Graham's book, but it might have been in the Weight of the Nation or some subsequent interview.
Someone will know.
-
Maybe clutching at straws but maybe the bun in the oven chez les Dagg will keep Israel in NZ...
-
@Billy-Tell said in Exodus 2017:
Maybe clutching at straws but maybe the bun in the oven chez les Dagg will keep Israel in NZ...
Yep. I thought the same. Nicer to have the family support for your first one.
