Blues v Highlanders
-
@chester-draws said in Blues v Highlanders:
Experienced first-fives they might have chased (or kept) include:
Tom Taylor
Stephen Donald, after Rennie arrived
Gareth AnscombeBut they weren't looking for players like that. They didnt want solid and reliable. They wanted superstar players. Since none were available they signed kids hoping they'd come right.
You keep mentioning Anscombe as a 10. He wasn't a Super level quality 10. Chiefs played him at 15. If memory serves me correctly he was named to start one Super game at 10 for the Chiefs at Pukekohe but got injured in the leadup and didn't play.
-
@chris-b didn't they try to sign Slade?
-
@taniwharugby said in Blues v Highlanders:
@chris-b didn't they try to sign Slade?
Not that I can recall - at least, not at that time.
I recall suggesting at the time that they should - but, the Blues fans didn't seem keen on the idea.
You'd have to think that for the right deal he would have been signable - I'm pretty sure the Crusaders wouldn't have been in a position to throw a bucket of money at him and his previous shift to the Highlanders and subsequent shift to Pau suggests he wasn't wedded to them.
-
@chris-b said in Blues v Highlanders:
I recall suggesting at the time that they should - but, the Blues fans didn't seem keen on the idea.
Slade could have been the new Chris Noakes. I really don't think it would have made any difference who signed at 10.
The main problem is internal standards. No one is accountable for anything. Board, coaches and players. The search for a flyhalf obsession is just another excuse for people not to perform their jobs properly and blame an external factor
Poor Umaga, Redman, players. If only they had Beauden Barrett. It's just not fair! The reality is if Barrett came to the Blues he would be surrounded, at every level, by people with such low standards he would fail.
-
@duluth Quite possibly, though you'd still have been better off with Slade than Benji Marshall - or pretty much anyone else who's been available.
You're probably right about the rest.
Someone posted this article about the new Warriors CEO a few weeks back. He is talking a lot of sense.
https://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/league/102882832/how-cameron-george-fixed-the-warriors
The part that struck me most was him saying, "I only get one chance of getting this right and we haven't got it right yet, but I feel like with the contribution of everyone now, we're heading in a direction that can really help us win back our fans and put pride in our performances, which is my ultimate goal."
One thing I'm pretty sure about these rugby franchises is that they operate very similarly to any other workplace. There will be people who are not up to their jobs and people who are actively undermining things - as much as possible, you've got to weed them out.
-
Cheers, that's an interesting article. It appears they have done what I want the Blues to do - raise expectations and take responsibility.
There are a handful of players with high personal standards, but not enough.
As for leadership, Parsons is the only leader I can recall in recent seasons taking responsibility for anything. Jackson is close, at least he doesn't make excuses.
The rest are just excuse makers and shoulder shruggers. That has to filter through the entire organisation. The same people who take no responsibility are the ones that talk about 'culture' incessantly. They are the problem not the solution. It's infuriating.
-
@chris-b said in Blues v Highlanders:
@duluth Quite possibly, though you'd still have been better off with Slade than Benji Marshall - or pretty much anyone else who's been available.
You're probably right about the rest.
Someone posted this article about the new Warriors CEO a few weeks back. He is talking a lot of sense.
https://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/league/102882832/how-cameron-george-fixed-the-warriors
The part that struck me most was him saying, "I only get one chance of getting this right and we haven't got it right yet, but I feel like with the contribution of everyone now, we're heading in a direction that can really help us win back our fans and put pride in our performances, which is my ultimate goal."
One thing I'm pretty sure about these rugby franchises is that they operate very similarly to any other workplace. There will be people who are not up to their jobs and people who are actively undermining things - as much as possible, you've got to weed them out.
Yep, I want to a talk on leadership by Paul Blackwell a year or so back, the former owner of the Breakers who turned them from laughing stock to repeat champions. He spoke about having to weed out people from the players right up to the CEO who were basically rotten and undermining the whole organisation with shitty attitudes, a lack of responsibility and even straight out corruption, contributing to a toxic environment.
-
@no-quarter isn't that what Rennie did at the Chiefs?
Players who wouldn't do what he wanted were asked to move on. The whole structure of the organisation was changed too.
The thing is, that you need someone doing the change who is good at picking who to keep and who to release, and can sell the process. Such people are hard to find.
-
only takes one or 2 bad eggs to mess up things for everyone, much worse if they are senior players too.
-
@chester-draws said in Blues v Highlanders:
Experienced first-fives they might have chased (or kept) include:
Tom Taylor
Stephen Donald, after Rennie arrived
Gareth AnscombeBut they weren't looking for players like that. They didnt want solid and reliable. They wanted superstar players. Since none were available they signed kids hoping they'd come right.
Tom Taylor was gone from NZ rugby well before Tana took over the Blues. He was clearly cashing in overseas given if he wanted to stay in NZ he had a clear path to the Crusaders 10 spot with Carter and Slade leaving after the RWC in 2015.
Gareth Anscombe had been tried and let go from the Blues years ago also. That was JK's choice. (One i think was a silly move). As mentioned earlier he then mainly played 15 for the chiefs before leaving. He was never a viable option.
Stephen Donald is an interesting one i haven't heard mentioned before. He may have been an option to be a mentor in place of Gatland. He might have been able to help with the team "culture" side also.
-
-
@kiwimurph said in Blues v Highlanders:
You keep mentioning Anscombe as a 10. He wasn't a Super level quality 10. Chiefs played him at 15. If memory serves me correctly he was named to start one Super game at 10 for the Chiefs at Pukekohe but got injured in the leadup and didn't play.
I remember Anscombe got his chance at ten in 2014 due to Cruden being sidelined, but all their attacking stats were considerably worse during that time (must have been 3-4 games I reckon), so he was back playing bench/15 after that.
-
@siam said in Blues v Highlanders:
Hmmm weeding out the disruptors so your organisation prospers.....
Hammertime huh?
If only the canes had won a title....
A hitman weeding out the disrupters is one thing. Being a good coach is quite another. You need both
-
@siam said in Blues v Highlanders:
Hmmm weeding out the disruptors so your organisation prospers.....
Hammertime huh?
If only the canes had won a title....
If only the Canes had made the finals ....
TBH, I don't know why (aside from an easy way to rile me up
) the Hammettuer is continually brought up in these types of discussions, especially when the example of Rennie has been mentioned. He came in, changed the culture (wank wank) at the Chiefs, moved on players he didn't want, won the competition and did it all without chasing away top line players and a huge chunk of fanbase. -
@nepia said in Blues v Highlanders:
@siam said in Blues v Highlanders:
Hmmm weeding out the disruptors so your organisation prospers.....
Hammertime huh?
If only the canes had won a title....
If only the Canes had made the finals ....
TBH, I don't know why (aside from an easy way to rile me up
) the Hammettuer is continually brought up in these types of discussions, especially when the example of Rennie has been mentioned. He came in, changed the culture (wank wank) at the Chiefs, moved on players he didn't want, won the competition and did it all without chasing away top line players and a huge chunk of fanbase.Yep. His change of culture led to 4 final-less years and some very shitty rugby. He leaves, one of those players who was considered poisonous to the culture (Nonu) comes back and they kick arse and should have won the entire comp. Maybe Boyd could have done all that without 4 years of utter dross.
You can't be just a head kicker, you also have to coach.
-
@sapetyvi said in Blues v Highlanders:
@kiwimurph said in Blues v Highlanders:
You keep mentioning Anscombe as a 10. He wasn't a Super level quality 10. Chiefs played him at 15. If memory serves me correctly he was named to start one Super game at 10 for the Chiefs at Pukekohe but got injured in the leadup and didn't play.
I remember Anscombe got his chance at ten in 2014 due to Cruden being sidelined, but all their attacking stats were considerably worse during that time (must have been 3-4 games I reckon), so he was back playing bench/15 after that.
Yes he was worse than Cruden, especially when given the reins with little warning. I would argue that at that time Cruden was the equal best 1st-five in the world -- provided he didn't have to kick goals.
The question isn't "was Anscombe the best for the Chiefs", but "would he have helped the Blues?".
My list, incidentally, isn't aimed at Tana. It's previous coaches that didn't get good halves. Tana has shown equal poor judgement of course.
-
@chester-draws He certainly would have been better than Benji.
-
After what Anscombe's father said to Pat Lam in 2012 with support from Gareth himself, I was quite glad to see the back of him. The best decision Kirwan made.
-
@african-monkey said in Blues v Highlanders:
After what Anscombe's father said to Pat Lam in 2012 with support from Gareth himself, I was quite glad to see the back of him. The best decision Kirwan made.
Missed that. Please explain.
-
