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?
-
@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
-
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
TBH, I would rather have been 100% wrong with Jordie Barrett and Sevu Reece finishing shared MoTM.
-
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.
You're giving your NH friends an awful lot of concessions to get to this 0/2.
Choosing the starting point to be immediately after RWC 2015 (OK - it's the cycle, but it's a favourable start point for them because otherwise it's 1-0 to us).
Accepting that all the other games between the ABs and NH teams are "Argentine friendlies". The real score against Tier 1 NH opposition is 12-2 and how come we don't ever get to take our eye off the ball?
Giving us 0 for the drawn Lions series (surely we get 0.5) - and I strongly agree with nzzp's assessment that the Lions got the rub of the green in that one.
And, when we get to the World Cup, they get six starters and we get one.
-
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.
You’re right about all those unfortunate circumstances, which occurred during the Lions series. However, despite all that, we had the opportunity to win it but failed to do so, indeed playing with the same lack of smarts and composure that we saw 2 years later in this SF loss against England. This for me is the most disappointing thing about how the last 4 years have gone - we seem to have lost that strategic advantage in the top two inches we’d developed since 2007.
-
-
I think the one contingency maybe no-one banked on, and someone mentioned it here humourously earlier in the game thread, was Ireland coming runner up in their pool. We should have played Scotland or Japan in the Quarter and maybe Wales in the Semi.
England won their group comfortably, so were always going to play Australia or Wales in the QF. Wales won their group.
Based on their performances England would still have been in the SF against NZ.
-
I think this one sums up the salient points
-
-
@Machpants
Good article except the part saying Squire was a the hardman at 6 and we really missed him.
Flat track bully - imo -
@Frank there is a (misconceived) impression in our media Squire is a hardman, not sure where it came from
-
@taniwharugby probably a good traditional six though. But I have no problem with our loose trio. When it was the proper 3 starters
-
@Machpants said in Hansen:
I think this one sums up the salient points
I agree with almost all of the article. ABs could and maybe should have won both Irish games.
One game which for me encapsulated the change in mindset was Springboks last year in Wellington. We had them entirely and comprehensively under control, them a couple of ludicrous mistakes and then we were under pressure. At that point the fragility was evident. A game we ought never to have lost.
