Fozzie
-
@Chester-Draws said in Fozzie:
Foster coached teams consistently played good technical rugby. He had some of the most exciting back lines, and even the forwards were often good.
What he did bad was :
a) select poorly. Often based on favourites -- who he wouldn't drop.
b) never develop a truly winning frame of mind -- they'd beat good sides, only to lose to bad sides the next week.The year the Chiefs made the final was pretty much pure Foster. They played some really good rugby. Only to fold very badly in the biggest game of the year. And it wasn't that they were out-matched. It was that they choked, because their coach couldn't get them to a winning place.
Dave Rennie took largely the same side and they became winners over-night. He picked a couple of great players, dropped some favourites and, crucially, got their heads in the right space.
It's not that Foster is s a bad coach. He just isn't a head coach at international level, where the physical aspects are done at the club level, and the mental aspects are vital.
If he's AB head coach, expect more of what the Chiefs delivered -- weird selections, exciting wins and truly dire losses.
Some great insights from many years ago. But bullshit for today.
How about you add in the bit where he has learned and developed alongside a very good and experienced international coach and has probably learned a hell of a lot in man management. Or the bit where he has been part of a selection team that have learned some big lessons and certainly aren't now afraid of making big calls.
Can he run the ship himself? I don't know as I don't get to see his interactions with players or whether he is the odd one out at selection meetings. He will also need to find at least one more coach to work in his team.
However, I'm also not going to write him off based on how he operated many years ago considering the experiences he has had since then.
I'd be pretty pissed off if a prospective employer judged me on my performance in a role years ago that I maybe wasn't quite experienced enough to do at the highest level but have now continued and gained that experience. -
-
I remember when he was at the chiefs , they looked great in attack but it was other areas that let them down ,
I reckon shag thought the attack part looks good and grabbed him primarily for that reason
-
@kiwiinmelb said in Fozzie:
I remember when he was at the chiefs , they looked great in attack but it was other areas that let them down ,
I reckon shag thought the attack part looks good and grabbed him primarily for that reason
That's a good leader right there
-
Some great insights from many years ago. But bullshit for today.
How about you add in the bit where he has learned and developed alongside a very good and experienced international coach and has probably learned a hell of a lot in man management. Or the bit where he has been part of a selection team that have learned some big lessons and certainly aren't now afraid of making big calls.
Can he run the ship himself? I don't know as I don't get to see his interactions with players or whether he is the odd one out at selection meetings. He will also need to find at least one more coach to work in his team.
However, I'm also not going to write him off based on how he operated many years ago considering the experiences he has had since then.
I'd be pretty pissed off if a prospective employer judged me on my performance in a role years ago that I maybe wasn't quite experienced enough to do at the highest level but have now continued and gained that experience.If someone is shit at a job after ten years experience, then they'll likely be shit at the job after 10 more years.
Foster didn't start with the Chiefs completely inexperienced. He had the Chiefs for eight years after that. Eight years during which they got worse, if anything. So he doesn't appear to learn much from experience.
Since then he's had heaps of experience as an assistant. Being under a good boss is absolutely no guarantee you'll learn anything, because people are who they are. (I'm currently acting head of my department -- my excellent head being on sick leave. Perhaps I'm better than I would have been, but I'm not a patch on him and never will be. I'm a natural assistant and not a leader.)
So while I'm sure Foster will be better now than he was before he was in the AB camp, the argument that all the problems will have been magicked away by hanging out with Hansen I find completely unconvincing.
-
@Chester-Draws said in Fozzie:
Some great insights from many years ago. But bullshit for today.
How about you add in the bit where he has learned and developed alongside a very good and experienced international coach and has probably learned a hell of a lot in man management. Or the bit where he has been part of a selection team that have learned some big lessons and certainly aren't now afraid of making big calls.
Can he run the ship himself? I don't know as I don't get to see his interactions with players or whether he is the odd one out at selection meetings. He will also need to find at least one more coach to work in his team.
However, I'm also not going to write him off based on how he operated many years ago considering the experiences he has had since then.
I'd be pretty pissed off if a prospective employer judged me on my performance in a role years ago that I maybe wasn't quite experienced enough to do at the highest level but have now continued and gained that experience.If someone is shit at a job after ten years experience, then they'll likely be shit at the job after 10 more years.
Foster didn't start with the Chiefs completely inexperienced. He had the Chiefs for eight years after that. Eight years during which they got worse, if anything. So he doesn't appear to learn much from experience.
Since then he's had heaps of experience as an assistant. Being under a good boss is absolutely no guarantee you'll learn anything, because people are who they are. (I'm currently acting head of my department -- my excellent head being on sick leave. Perhaps I'm better than I would have been, but I'm not a patch on him and never will be. I'm a natural assistant and not a leader.)
So while I'm sure Foster will be better now than he was before he was in the AB camp, the argument that all the problems will have been magicked away by hanging out with Hansen I find completely unconvincing.
So glad you weren’t on Shag’s appointment board then.
-
-
Hansen at least won with the Canterbury team. What has Foster ever won?
And sure, Hansen's time at Wales included a disastrous run, but prior to Henry they'd been all shades of shit. And at least he'd coached internationally when he was appointed to the ABs.
Part of the difference is the options we have this time, compared to last. I doubt Hansen would have beaten the equivalent of Jamie Joseph or Schmidt or Rennie.
Foster will displace proven international coaches if he gets the job -- guys with stellar resumes who have done record things with the teams they have had. Guys who have never had a team perform like the 2010 and 2011 Chiefs.
Edit: a Foster All Blacks vs Rennie Wallabies will be something to watch from behind the couch. Given how much better the Chiefs went under Rennie -- why would NZ rugby let that happen?
-
@Chester-Draws said in Fozzie:
Hansen at least won with the Canterbury team. What has Foster ever won?
And sure, Hansen's time at Wales included a disastrous run, but prior to Henry they'd been all shades of shit. And at least he'd coached internationally when he was appointed to the ABs.
Part of the difference is the options we have this time, compared to last. I doubt Hansen would have beaten the equivalent of Jamie Joseph or Schmidt or Rennie.
Foster will displace proven international coaches if he gets the job -- guys with stellar resumes who have done record things with the teams they have had. Guys who have never had a team perform like the 2010 and 2011 Chiefs.
Edit: a Foster All Blacks vs Rennie Wallabies will be something to watch from behind the couch. Given how much better the Chiefs went under Rennie -- why would NZ rugby let that happen?
How do you figure that? Have these guys applied?
Apart from that Schmidt's limitations have been shown. He devised and trained a gameplay against us that we learned to counter. He also failed to provide mental stability. His team crumbled under pressure.
JJ? Yep, I'd like him and Tony Brown in the mix if they felt the time was ready. Japanese pockets may currently be very deep though.
Rennie is an interesting one. As you have said he took the work of Foster and tidied it up on the selection and culture front. Did a bloody good job as well. Smith was the tactical brains though. Rennie is not looking so flash up north and it will be very interesting if he ends up in Oz.I haven't suggested that Foster should walk into the job at all. I'm not in the ABF (anyone but Fozzie) group either though. I think there are some strong suggestions that he could carry on a strong period in NZ Rugby with the right crew alongside him and he deserves a decent hearing. I'm certainly not going to dismiss his abilities based on stuff he did a decade ago.
-
Foster's backline looked great against Ireland. Be interesting to see how they go in the next two games. No problem with Hansen sharing praise with his deputy when he does a good job. Foster will be a serious applicant to the AB's Chief role.
Joseph and Robertson have had much more success as Head Coach so are the favourites to succeed Hansen IMHO.
