Hansen
-
@gt12 i think there is a fair bit in that.
On the surface the last 4 years brings an 83% win rate, and that looks glorious.
Dig a little deeper and the story changes a bit
England at the same time have won 80%. We only played them twice, for a bad loss, and the narrowest of wins
Ireland have 71%, we lost to them twice.
Most of our games are against the RC teams. And they have had a pretty shit time of it. The saffers have won 58% of their games. The Wallabies 44%. And Argentina a pathetic 22%. We gt to pad our stats against some pretty ordinary sides.
When it counts, we've not covered ourselves in glory. Unless it's a must-win against Aus at Eden Park.
-
Of course, that doesn’t mean he hasn’t been an outstanding coach, but he can’t be in the very top echelon of coaches - at least not since 2015 - because when it has mattered - and when he didn’t have McCaw and Carter - he couldn’t get a good enough game plan to fulfill even one of his two most important KPIs during the last four years.
You would have to say 0/3. The rhetoric going into the EOYT tour last year is that it was a RWC dress rehearsal and outside of banking the Bledisloe it was the most important goal. Before the Irish test he said unequivocally that it was a battle for number one and the team was preparing accordingly.
As we saw in the last week talk is cheap. But given the major logistical operation, and decision to christen a handful of 1-test All Blacks it would be hard to argue the ABs weren't absolutely gunning for those two tests last year.
-
@antipodean When has Todd played badly for the ABs? Actually, I would argue he is the type of player we need. The old fashioned, nuggety flanker who would have been perfect against those two English lads in the loose.
-
I think that the problem of Hansen’s coaching since 2015 - coinciding with Read’s captaincy - is that at the two biggest points in this cycle, that is the Lions and WC (so not even counting the embarrassing first loss to the Irish which Read captained) we just didn’t produce. So, overall, the winning percentage is great and we look amazing. However equally, my NH friends argue (with some reason) that these are the only two times we ever play the NH when they have purpose to be truly at their best - the 6N is generally their yearly focus. So, in some ways, it’s a misleading percentage because we are 0/2 at the highest level during the last four years.
I have a different view of the Lions. They were lucky to draw that series - you can't say the coaching cost us there. SBW has a brain fart (and we still damn near win that test), and then a horror refereeing call at the end to cost us the chance of a win. That, and we got ripped apart by injury - we had nearly peak Ben Smith out in the first 20 minutes, debutantes in Laumape, ALB (or close to it I think), and maybe Jordie? Then Naholo out with broken jaw from swinging arm (no consequences for SOB), and the Lions really didn't lose anyone. For me, we win that series almost every time, and I reckon we were up for it properly.
Denigrating Ireland is tough on the team too; they were No 1 in the world going into the tournament, and while Japan beat them, they still brought it at times against us. We just snuffed out what they did do.
So, I'm taking a different view - it was a flat performance, England played out of their skins, and the bounce of the ball just didn't go our way. That happens in top sport sometimes.
-
@Old-Samurai-Jack said in Hansen:
@antipodean When has Todd played badly for the ABs?
See Ireland quarter final.
Actually, I would argue he is the type of player we need. The old fashioned, nuggety flanker who would have been perfect against those two English lads in the loose.
He's at best a poorer version of Cane. Why would you select him over the best we have?
-
the 6N is generally their yearly focus. So, in some ways, it’s a misleading percentage because we are 0/2 at the highest level during the last four years.
by the same token, we are at the end of a long season, so we are nowhere near our best.
Cant recall who it was last week said it appears a slight shift in NZ mentality (from the coaching team) where they go into a test wanting to win (Dublin last year) but at the same time, are tying something differentl they are happy to accept a loss to build on the big picture.
I still think the style we were trying to play (well were, assuming the next coach will change again) was good enough to beat anyone, but we seemed to move away from this and actually played a bit more like Aus v England last week, despite the fact they lost!!
-
we had nearly peak Ben Smith out in the first 20 minutes
Smith was fully fit for the third test and Hansen chose not to select him. They misdiagnosed an ear ache as a concussion and clarified before the team was named.
Much like Cane for the SF and Kaino at lock he would need to take responsibility for those calls.
-
we had nearly peak Ben Smith out in the first 20 minutes
Smith was fully fit for the third test and Hansen chose not to select him. They misdiagnosed an ear ache as a concussion and clarified before the team was named.
Much like Cane for the SF and Kaino at lock he would need to take responsibility for those calls.
A wrong call is not necessarily a bad call. Medical calls are really hard to over-ride; not sure you can blame Hansen for that (although ultimately the buck stops with him)
As for Cane, we've done that to death on another thread; hindsight is easy, but the tactic of 4 lineout forwards and being aggressive isn't a bad idea ... just didn't work.
Kaino v Ireland - if anyone really saw us losing that, well done, but the consensus was that they had injuries, and basically blindsided us.
Edit: on Ben Smith:
https://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/rugby/all-blacks/94222617/lions-tour-ben-smith-ruled-out-of-lions-test-series-due-to-concussion-issues -
-
@antipodean He didn't play badly during that game! Even watch when he got the yellow card. He was injured, his arm wasn't working but he still tried to use his body to stop the attacking player. A little silly but total commitment! (Seriously, watch that play again on YouTube and focus on Todd).
Different player to Cane. He is a better pilferer, scavenger than Cane. But I would still play Cane first as well as he is obviously the better player. However, my point, I wouldn't say stupid things like "he isn't up to this level" when clearly he is. -
@Nepia I didnt have an issue with the team as it was named, but I thought that was because we had a game plan specific to it, which it appeared we didnt.
In hindsight I think I'd have started SB at lock and Cane and bought BR off the bench.
-
As for Cane, we've done that to death on another thread; hindsight is easy
It's only getting done to death because posters keep making these comments despite the fact it was pointed out before the match. Foresight MFers!
So I went back and checked - sure enough, you had the knives out and stuck your neck out (well done!). Otherwise it was pretty quiet, and pretty well everyone else was happy enough with the team, assuming we actually attacked their lineout.
Do you think Sam Cane would have made a difference in the team? Or were we going to be spanked anyway
-
As for Cane, we've done that to death on another thread; hindsight is easy
It's only getting done to death because posters keep making these comments despite the fact it was pointed out before the match. Foresight MFers!
So I went back and checked - sure enough, you had the knives out and stuck your neck out (well done!). Otherwise it was pretty quiet, and pretty well everyone else was happy enough with the team, assuming we actually attacked their lineout.
Do you think Sam Cane would have made a difference in the team? Or were we going to be spanked anyway
The only person that could have helped us on Saturday was Ritchie McCaw. He had learnt how to keep the team composed and structure and not get all score panicky.
-
@Old-Samurai-Jack said in Hansen:
@antipodean He didn't play badly during that game!
Directly responsible for their 14 points. Got a YC. Hardly a glowing endorsement is it?
-
@antipodean said in Hansen:
@Old-Samurai-Jack said in Hansen:
@antipodean He didn't play badly during that game!
Directly responsible for their 14 points. Got a YC. Hardly a glowing endorsement is it?
respectfully, that's weak analysis. There was a fair bit of argument about the PT/YC - take that out, and how did he go?
-
@antipodean said in Hansen:
@Old-Samurai-Jack said in Hansen:
@antipodean He didn't play badly during that game!
Directly responsible for their 14 points. Got a YC. Hardly a glowing endorsement is it?
respectfully, that's weak analysis.
Mixed with hyperbole it's the best kind around here.
There was a fair bit of argument about the PT/YC - take that out, and how did he go?
The argument was misplaced and he completely missed Henshaw from the scrum.
-
As for Cane, we've done that to death on another thread; hindsight is easy
It's only getting done to death because posters keep making these comments despite the fact it was pointed out before the match. Foresight MFers!
So I went back and checked - sure enough, you had the knives out and stuck your neck out (well done!). Otherwise it was pretty quiet, and pretty well everyone else was happy enough with the team, assuming we actually attacked their lineout.
Do you think Sam Cane would have made a difference in the team? Or were we going to be spanked anyway
I don't remember being the only one who had an issue at the time ... maybe I was just the only one to put it in a specific post?
We can't know what difference he made, but considering how he blunted the attack of the Irish with his offensive defence, something we surely lacked in the England match, I do think he would have ... and as I noted in my knives post the big issue was it changed the way our loosies had to play.
-
As for Cane, we've done that to death on another thread; hindsight is easy
It's only getting done to death because posters keep making these comments despite the fact it was pointed out before the match. Foresight MFers!
So I went back and checked - sure enough, you had the knives out and stuck your neck out (well done!). Otherwise it was pretty quiet, and pretty well everyone else was happy enough with the team, assuming we actually attacked their lineout.
Do you think Sam Cane would have made a difference in the team? Or were we going to be spanked anyway
I don't remember being the only one who had an issue at the time ... maybe I was just the only one to put it in a specific post?
We can't know what difference he made, but considering how he blunted the attack of the Irish with his offensive defence, something we surely lacked in the England match, I do think he would have ... and as I noted in my knives post the big issue was it changed the way our loosies had to play.
I did go back - seemed to be mainly you (so well done again for the foresight). I (and a number of others) seemed to see the tradeoff between keeping the trio together, and having an extra lineout option with SB. Unfortunately, it didnt' play out the way that we expected with the tactics ... and so we circle back to hindsight
