Is Umaga doing a good job?
-
@rancid-schnitzel said in Is Umaga doing a good job?:
Actually one thing I think that would have made a difference at the Blues since Evans pissed off is a proper world class flyhalf. It wouldn't have won them a title but they probably would have won a shit load more matches.
You know. I've never seen thst suggested about the Blues ever.
(Or perhaps I just got trolled mightily and proved that I don't get irony ... )
-
-
@dogmeat said in Is Umaga doing a good job?:
So I assume the eight posters who voted yes all support other franchises?
my standing bet on chiefs finishing above blues with my mate has (almost.. not really ) bought me a second home so yes...
-
@dogmeat you do realize you can check who voted Yes (or No if you have more time)
-
@taniwharugby yes I do - and did before I posted my aphorism
-
@dogmeat said in Is Umaga doing a good job?:
So I assume the eight posters who voted yes all support other franchises?
I'd say it's more complicated than that.
Is Umaga doing a good job? No.Is Umaga doing an obviously bad job? No.
Is the team improving (slowly)? Sort of - there seems to be a lot of cultural stuff to unwind before restarting
Is there a better coaching option out there? God knows, but not sure there is an obviously better choice.
Changing coaches regularly has not had a significant effect on team performance. Pat Lam copped a load of shit for his losing season, but ultiamtely I don't think he was any worse than the others we have had. Coaches by themselves will not fix the organisation - it will come down to a good front office, healthy team environment, and good recruitment. If we can somehow find a good 8-9-10 combo, that's great, but it's bloody hard to win without world class players around that spine.
Thankfully, we don't have any more Benji Marshall type selections. I like that.
-
@nzzp said in Is Umaga doing a good job?:
Pat Lam copped a load of shit
The organisation changed a lot in Kirwans first year. They loosened their wallet and hired full time support coaches. The max two players outside the region limit was removed. Also they moved from the old training facilities that the players hated and thought was a dump etc etc
I would've liked to have seen Lam have the same advantages that Kirwan and Umaga have had.. but the changes happened too late for him.
Now I would like to see a non-celebrity coach have an opportunity after those improvements
-
@nzzp said in Is Umaga doing a good job?:
@dogmeat said in Is Umaga doing a good job?:
Changing coaches regularly has not had a significant effect on team performance. Pat Lam copped a load of shit for his losing season, but ultiamtely I don't think he was any worse than the others we have had. Coaches by themselves will not fix the organisation - it will come down to a good front office, healthy team environment, and good recruitment. If we can somehow find a good 8-9-10 combo, that's great, but it's bloody hard to win without world class players around that spine.
I think there were some different issues with Lam and in hindsight he probably should have been stuck with. He was the last coach to get the Blues to the playoffs and part of his downfall was he didn't have fulltime assistant coaches plus the Blues had an archaic training facility. Both of those have now been fixed but not before Lam was punted.
Kirwan just straight up is not a very good coach - it really showed in his final season when he didn't have Graham Henry and Mick Byrne around it all really fell apart.
Umaga has certainly done better than Kirwan but I think an argument could be made he has peaked in his ability to improve the team.
The Moala thing really sums things for me. Tana is in his 3rd year as coach, is a former midfielder, and has, to this point, yet to figure out his midfield combination and more specifically, yet to figure out that Moala stifles the midfield (in attack and defence). This isn't some revelation all of a sudden - this is something that has been glaringly obvious for at least the last year. Tana's answer to having Rieko play midfield (who played his school rugby in midfield, wants to play midfield and looks to have much more potential in midfield than Moala) is 'he's the best winger in the world we aren't going to move him'. Well that's great but that does nothing to answer the question as to who plays midfield, meanwhile the Blues have started with two losses with their midfield getting outplayed in both games.
-
@kiwimurph I thought Bryce Woodward was Fulltime as his assistant?
-
2 full time coaches (Lam & Woodward), everyone else was part time.
Now there is 4 full time plus a mental skills coach. Similar to what the other teams had during Lams time.
-
Do we think Tana could actually play Reiko at 13 without upsetting the AB crowd? and re Moala I wonder if Tana thinks he's the best of a few poor options, so better to have him and his 'experience/potential' on the field rather than get slated for a playing a less experienced guy in that role.
Goes back to the curse of 1st 5 for me. Black and then Perofeta getting injured has totally fucked their initial plans. I get that you have to be able to change plans but while Gatland isn't terrible, he isn't driving the team around - and if he is trying Moala and co don't seem to be listening.
-
They should get Tom Coventry in the mix he would be a hell of an addition. Did great with the magpies and chiefs and has done well at NH.
The blues although at times are shocking are also up against it being in the NZ conference. They could have a resonable season and due to the structure still not make the playoffs as you can't get 5 NZ teams in the draw. The last 2 seasons they have been 1 win out of being in the top 8 on points (but still missing out due to other NZ teams).
They weren't great on the weekend but were also one not straight lineout away from a potential win. That hookers 2 throws at the end were both not straight even though the ref only called the last one not straight.
Not really a blues fan and understand mediocrity isn't accepted in NZ rugby but as a kiwi living in Brisbane I am this week listening to Reds fans in RM Williams boots telling me what a good ground out win the reds had after scoring no tries at their home ground against an average opponent.
I for one would rather support a Blues than Reds side.
-
It is possibly the biggest misconception about the new format, that it is not possible to have 5 NZ teams in the finals. Not just the conferences have changed, also the rules around who qualifies for the finals! This is from the SANZAAR website:
Finals Series
Quarter-final Hosts (4 teams)- Three Conference winners
- Best Wildcard team – (based on tournament points) regardless of Conference
Quarter-final Wildcard spots (4 teams)
- Four next best Wildcard teams (based on tournament points) regardless of Conference
So NZ will have one conference winner, and the remaining four teams can claim wildcard spots.
Obviously, it will be difficult, because we have the most difficult conference for winning national derbies, but if teams manage to win (almost) all of their games v non-NZ competition, it should be possible. -
@stargazer said in Is Umaga doing a good job?:
It is possibly the biggest misconception about the new format, that it is not possible to have 5 NZ teams in the finals. Not just the conferences have changed, also the rules around who qualifies for the finals! This is from the SANZAAR website:
Finals Series
Quarter-final Hosts (4 teams)- Three Conference winners
- Best Wildcard team – (based on tournament points) regardless of Conference
Quarter-final Wildcard spots (4 teams)
- Four next best Wildcard teams (based on tournament points) regardless of Conference
So NZ will have one conference winner, and the remaining four teams can claim wildcard spots.
Obviously, it will be difficult, because we have the most difficult conference for winning national derbies, but if teams manage to win (almost) all of their games v non-NZ competition, it should be possible.Technically, yes all 5 teams could make it, and despite all the wrist slitting going on north of the Bombays the Blues were a win and a BP away from making that happen last year (and the players should have shot themselves after failing to turn up against the Sunwolves). Along the way any number of favourable calls or luck in their favour could have seen them make the finals.
However, last year was also very freakish in the weakness of 2/3s of the comp teams. The win ratio from all non NZ teams apart from the Lions and Stormers was pathetic with one conference failing to produce a single team with a +50% record. That doesn't happen often.
Minimum threshold to even cross your fingers on other results is probably 43 points, so 9 wins plus 7 BPs or preferably 10 wins plus whatever BPs you will pick up along the way without thinking about them too much (3 or 4 seems to be a natural accumulation).
That means that you need to win 2 derbies minimum (if winning all non conference games). Drop a non conference game and you have to add another in conference win to the target.
So really, you need to win nearly all non conference games and probably 3 of your 4 home 'in conference' ones.
The flip side of all NZ teams doing that and getting through is that, apart from the conference winner, the NZ teams win likely all just scrape in.
Obviously any NZ win the Blues get is a loss for another NZ team.
-
@crucial said in Is Umaga doing a good job?:
@stargazer said in Is Umaga doing a good job?:
It is possibly the biggest misconception about the new format, that it is not possible to have 5 NZ teams in the finals. Not just the conferences have changed, also the rules around who qualifies for the finals! This is from the SANZAAR website:
Finals Series
Quarter-final Hosts (4 teams)- Three Conference winners
- Best Wildcard team – (based on tournament points) regardless of Conference
Quarter-final Wildcard spots (4 teams)
- Four next best Wildcard teams (based on tournament points) regardless of Conference
So NZ will have one conference winner, and the remaining four teams can claim wildcard spots.
Obviously, it will be difficult, because we have the most difficult conference for winning national derbies, but if teams manage to win (almost) all of their games v non-NZ competition, it should be possible.Technically, yes all 5 teams could make it, and despite all the wrist slitting going on north of the Bombays the Blues were a win and a BP away from making that happen last year (and the players should have shot themselves after failing to turn up against the Sunwolves). Along the way any number of favourable calls or luck in their favour could have seen them make the finals.
However, last year was also very freakish in the weakness of 2/3s of the comp teams. The win ratio from all non NZ teams apart from the Lions and Stormers was pathetic with one conference failing to produce a single team with a +50% record. That doesn't happen often.
Minimum threshold to even cross your fingers on other results is probably 43 points, so 9 wins plus 7 BPs or preferably 10 wins plus whatever BPs you will pick up along the way without thinking about them too much (3 or 4 seems to be a natural accumulation).
That means that you need to win 2 derbies minimum (if winning all non conference games). Drop a non conference game and you have to add another in conference win to the target.
So really, you need to win nearly all non conference games and probably 3 of your 4 home 'in conference' ones.
The flip side of all NZ teams doing that and getting through is that, apart from the conference winner, the NZ teams win likely all just scrape in.
Obviously any NZ win the Blues get is a loss for another NZ team.
Under the 2016 and 2017 format, only a maximum of 4 NZ franchises could reach the finals (conference winner and a maximum of 3 wild cards). And yes, as I already indicated, it will be difficult also under the current format.
-
@stargazer said in Is Umaga doing a good job?:
@crucial said in Is Umaga doing a good job?:
@stargazer said in Is Umaga doing a good job?:
It is possibly the biggest misconception about the new format, that it is not possible to have 5 NZ teams in the finals. Not just the conferences have changed, also the rules around who qualifies for the finals! This is from the SANZAAR website:
Finals Series
Quarter-final Hosts (4 teams)- Three Conference winners
- Best Wildcard team – (based on tournament points) regardless of Conference
Quarter-final Wildcard spots (4 teams)
- Four next best Wildcard teams (based on tournament points) regardless of Conference
So NZ will have one conference winner, and the remaining four teams can claim wildcard spots.
Obviously, it will be difficult, because we have the most difficult conference for winning national derbies, but if teams manage to win (almost) all of their games v non-NZ competition, it should be possible.Technically, yes all 5 teams could make it, and despite all the wrist slitting going on north of the Bombays the Blues were a win and a BP away from making that happen last year (and the players should have shot themselves after failing to turn up against the Sunwolves). Along the way any number of favourable calls or luck in their favour could have seen them make the finals.
However, last year was also very freakish in the weakness of 2/3s of the comp teams. The win ratio from all non NZ teams apart from the Lions and Stormers was pathetic with one conference failing to produce a single team with a +50% record. That doesn't happen often.
Minimum threshold to even cross your fingers on other results is probably 43 points, so 9 wins plus 7 BPs or preferably 10 wins plus whatever BPs you will pick up along the way without thinking about them too much (3 or 4 seems to be a natural accumulation).
That means that you need to win 2 derbies minimum (if winning all non conference games). Drop a non conference game and you have to add another in conference win to the target.
So really, you need to win nearly all non conference games and probably 3 of your 4 home 'in conference' ones.
The flip side of all NZ teams doing that and getting through is that, apart from the conference winner, the NZ teams win likely all just scrape in.
Obviously any NZ win the Blues get is a loss for another NZ team.
Under the 2016 and 2017 format, only a maximum of 4 NZ franchises could reach the finals (conference winner and a maximum of 3 wild cards). And yes, as I already indicated, it will be difficult also under the current format.
Cheers, forgot that. But still comparatively speaking the season performance by the Blues was fringe qualifying.
-
From Nigel Yalden
Good morning & welcome to another edition of "When Rugby Geeks Get Bored". I've taken a look scoring by quarters numbers for the Blues during recent NZ derbies. Now rather than going all the way back to the start of their poor run against other kiwi franchises, I've chosen just to go with the games beginning 2016, which is when Tana Umaga took over as Blues coach. This is the same as what I did last year with the Warriors in the NRL, though I've chosen to added possession stats for this as well (am trying to get territory stats too but they are proving a bit tougher to locate & then disseminate) PS Team of the Week should be ready for you later this afternoon - cheers heaps NY
