Hansen
-
-
@taniwharugby I would give the new coach only a 2-yr contract and reassess after 2021.
-
@Bovidae
I reckon a 2 year contract with a performance related extension built written in:Better the historic AB win/loss % in that period and you get to stay on, if not, bye
Problem is, we hear so often 3 years is the ideal time for a coach...
-
Of course, they have been - but, that doesn't mean they're right.
Doesn't mean they're wrong either.
Being able to say I told you so is the only thing keeping me from slitting my wrists at the moment.You play that game again with the different players and get to change five plays/decisions - e.g. Cane smashes England players and the ball doesn't reach Daly, Savea has the freedom to run rather than contest rucks on his own, J Barrett doesn't come on and turnover ball when we finally have momentum, and
Ioane makes ground in contact and pops a ball to TJ in space - and you could easily get a different result.FYI - I'm 100% not in the Hansen is shit camp, I'm in the Hansen has been bloody good for a long time but made some errors and got out-coached, and I'm definitely not in the new camp of "England were always going to win", we had the team to win and we didn't.
-
All those criticisms are just theories that didn't get tested. The only person's theory that gets tested in reality is Hansen's. And he only gets one shot. Across his career he's been right about 86 percent of the time.
You don't have to look too hard to find someone today who is claiming vindication for "their" player and you're thinking, "you're dreaming mate". But that person will have 5 likes from some other plonkers who are similarly misguided.
By this standard no AB coach can ever be wrong. Critics teams don't take the field and AB coaches have winning standards across their careers.
Time to close the TSF and redirect everyone to NZRU press releases
There's plenty of people who had valid criticism of Hansen over the last few years. I understand being shitty if people changed their views but for the most part people have been consistent. Including those that defend Hansen to extreme lengths.. I won't call them plonkers though, I am better than that
-
-
It's just a silly standard to apply
eg
Some people said Hart was wrong to pick Cullen at centre
That criticism was just a theory that didn't get tested. The only person's theory that gets tested in reality is Harts. And he only gets one shot. Across his career he's been right about 76 percent of the time.
-
@Duluth Yeah - they can never be 100% right or 100% wrong, because at the end of the day, selections are just about assessing the probability that Player X will play well enough for us to win vs the probability that player Y will.
I don't the selections are the main bone of contention but regardless...
Hansen has never been shy about saying "I told you so" in the media after an unpopular selection or a comeback performance after a loss - so he has kind of made his bed in that regard.
-
@Duluth The Cullen selection probably was a poor one. But, it would have been a poor one regardless of whether we won or lost.
The point I am making on Coastie's post is that just because we lost doesn't suddenly make every criticism right - or Hansen wrong.
In the same way as when we beat Ireland it didn't necessarily make Hansen right about everything and every critic wrong.
-
-
@taniwharugby said in Hansen:
I reckon a 2 year contract with a performance related extension built written in
For various reason it's a shame Hansen didn't keep his promise to leave after the Lions.
He was correct, it would be good to move away from the 4 year cycle that is linked to the RWC
-
I had coffee with Hanson once .
I stopped off at Streetwise coffee in Otaki for a flat white he was there with what I assume were some of the coaching staff . It was just after Andy Haden had just called him out for being a forward coach because he was too fat to coach the backs .
I was going to say something complimentary about the previous weekends game but an absolute stunner joined the queue for a coffee . Every guy there stopped talking , seeing a woman that hot in Otaki is like spotting a snow leopard in the wild .
I’m sure he understood -
I took a weekend off thinking about it, in general vaguely hearing about how sensitive and gracious everybody seemed to be about it all, "as a nation" "ïn the current climate" etc, even on radio sport.
So was slightly amused but not at all surprised to awaken in here this evening to a full-on circlejerk in full steam, all frothy and covered in shit.
We lost fair and square, bigtime, to another team that played out of their skins. Just like the Lions did. If we had turned up at 89% of our effort in the Irish game the previous week, we would have won. Instead we turned up at 50%.
So why couldn't the players back it up? As a team there was a massive drop in performance, who's culpable for that? It is a massive challenge doing it consistently as they have done at a level higher than any of the competition for the last however many decades, but it is their unique challenge, and ultimately it is a leadership and management issue.
So of course we need to Blame Foster.
-
@PecoTrain said in Hansen:
Based on performances in yesterdays game, the players I expected more from were Taylor, Whitelock, Retallick, Savea and Read. I'm ignoring backs for now - we lost this game in the forwards. We missed Savea in support at breakdowns (other than that he played well and improved when Cane came on) and the other four an uncharacteristic number of errors compared to their usual games. SB made errors too, but I'm giving him a pass based on coaches playing him out of position and the props did enough.
I've never felt Ardie was a classic Kiwi 7. Wonderful loosie and has been phenomenal this year, BUT not his forte to hold the fort against the twin English opensides, both who were very good. Cane would have been better, and maybe even Todd. Ardie was fine at 6 against Boks, and probably better there.
All said and done the loss of Ritchie/Jerome/Dan and Ma'a was always going to be huge. Take them on 2015 form and plonk them in on Saturday and we win. Which isn't really saying much as each has a strong claim to be in the best AB (and World) XV of the pro era.
-
@PecoTrain said in Hansen:
Based on performances in yesterdays game, the players I expected more from were Taylor, Whitelock, Retallick, Savea and Read. I'm ignoring backs for now - we lost this game in the forwards. We missed Savea in support at breakdowns (other than that he played well and improved when Cane came on) and the other four an uncharacteristic number of errors compared to their usual games. SB made errors too, but I'm giving him a pass based on coaches playing him out of position and the props did enough.
I've never felt Ardie was a classic Kiwi 7. Wonderful loosie and has been phenomenal this year, BUT not his forte to hold the fort against the twin English opensides, both who were very good. Cane would have been better, and maybe even Todd. Ardie was fine at 6 against Boks, and probably better there.
Todd isn't up to this level. Cane should've been our openside with Luatua on the blind. Part of the planning two and a half years out...
All said and done the loss of Ritchie/Jerome/Dan and Ma'a was always going to be huge. Take them on 2015 form and plonk them in on Saturday and we win. Which isn't really saying much as each has a strong claim to be in the best AB (and World) XV of the pro era.
TBF - that's like selecting half of a best ever AB XV.
-
@antipodean almost agree ... but where for Ardie? He was our best player this year. He simply must start.
