When should Foster go?
-
@canefan said in When should Foster go?:
@Kiwiwomble said in When should Foster go?:
Already looking ropy this season; let him take the flak and someone can take over next year with a full season to build
Has an incumbent AB coach ever been fired before his contract ran out? Might be a season of firsts...
#2020
-
Did anybody see the votes for ABs coach? Recount now!
-
Maybe I’m a just a glutton for punishment but I went for the option “till the end of his contract”.
Sometimes you need to burn everything down in order to rebuild. We will see emerging players come through a lot faster in an environment where they are struggling for answers.
But I’d also be happy if Foster resigned today.
-
-
@canefan nothing so far suggests he is very good at CEOing.
I say end of the season, but I expect he will see out his contract because he wont step down, NZR wont terminate him, despite the hammering our 'brand' is suffering right now.
-
@taniwharugby said in When should Foster go?:
@canefan nothing so far suggests he is very good at CEOing.
I say end of the season, but I expect he will see out his contract because he wont step down, NZR wont terminate him, despite the hammering our 'brand' is suffering right now.
Definitely not the NZRFUs style to fire an old boy
-
@taniwharugby said in When should Foster go?:
@canefan nothing so far suggests he is very good at CEOing.
I say end of the season, but I expect he will see out his contract because he wont step down, NZR wont terminate him, despite the hammering our 'brand' is suffering right now.
Yep, for the NZRU it’s a dilemma between damage to the brand vs the NZRU daring to ever admit that they were wrong about something.
Their misplaced pride in their “process” will win out and we’ll be stuck with Foster for at least the duration of his contract. Unfortunately.
-
@Donsteppa said in When should Foster go?:
@taniwharugby said in When should Foster go?:
@canefan nothing so far suggests he is very good at CEOing.
I say end of the season, but I expect he will see out his contract because he wont step down, NZR wont terminate him, despite the hammering our 'brand' is suffering right now.
Yep, for the NZRU it’s a dilemma between damage to the brand vs the NZRU daring to ever admit that they were wrong about something.
Their misplaced pride in their “process” will win out and we’ll be stuck with Foster for at least the duration of his contract. Unfortunately.
You're probably right, and that is so depressing.
My wife commented after we lost:
"You said this would happen when they appointed him"Me: "Yep about as difficult as predicting the sun coming up in the morning"
I don't often get credit from her about being right.
As @tim said, I'm not even angry just tired. It was so predictable.
We do the same thing every time and expect different results. We all know the word for that...
-
I haven't even bothered reading the match thread.
I had been giving him a bit of rope and he has gone and tied the noose.
The whole point behind appointing Foster was that he was at the coalface and was close to observing what was going wrong and therefore how to fix it without throwing out everything and starting again. The continuity concept worked with Ted2 and with Shag.
The thinking had validity.What we have seen though is that he has worked to change one aspect (and we are showing a bit more physicality) but hasn't fixed the issue that our style relies on the other team making errors. Yes, that is a major strength of our game and will work a good portion of the time. However, others have seen that if they can cut down the errors and put huge effort and accuracy into tackling we simply don't know what to do.
It is up to the coaches to provide that 'what to do' when another team plays like England did last year or Argentina just did.
Mounga hasn't been given any tools. We rely on him pulling off a flukey bit of skill.Unless Foster and co can show that they have a clear path to building these gameplans and that they are working through them (and copping some losses along the way) then he should stand down.
At the moment it looks like exactly the same team but with Frizell told to hit people harder.
Where were the set piece moves to manipulate a hole in a rushing defence? -
@Crucial said in When should Foster go?:
I haven't even bothered reading the match thread.
I had been giving him a bit of rope and he has gone and tied the noose.
The whole point behind appointing Foster was that he was at the coalface and was close to observing what was going wrong and therefore how to fix it without throwing out everything and starting again. The continuity concept worked with Ted2 and with Shag.
The thinking had validity.What we have seen though is that he has worked to change one aspect (and we are showing a bit more physicality) but hasn't fixed the issue that our style relies on the other team making errors. Yes, that is a major strength of our game and will work a good portion of the time. However, others have seen that if they can cut down the errors and put huge effort and accuracy into tackling we simply don't know what to do.
It is up to the coaches to provide that 'what to do' when another team plays like England did last year or Argentina just did.
Mounga hasn't been given any tools. We rely on him pulling off a flukey bit of skill.Unless Foster and co can show that they have a clear path to building these gameplans and that they are working through them (and copping some losses along the way) then he should stand down.
At the moment it looks like exactly the same team but with Frizell told to hit people harder.
Where were the set piece moves to manipulate a hole in a rushing defence?Like kicking what should have been a routine touch finder for an attacking lineout over the deadball line? Or letting the forwards go a dozen phases then kick the ball straight at an Argie when just outside the 22?
-
@Rancid-Schnitzel said in When should Foster go?:
@Crucial said in When should Foster go?:
I haven't even bothered reading the match thread.
I had been giving him a bit of rope and he has gone and tied the noose.
The whole point behind appointing Foster was that he was at the coalface and was close to observing what was going wrong and therefore how to fix it without throwing out everything and starting again. The continuity concept worked with Ted2 and with Shag.
The thinking had validity.What we have seen though is that he has worked to change one aspect (and we are showing a bit more physicality) but hasn't fixed the issue that our style relies on the other team making errors. Yes, that is a major strength of our game and will work a good portion of the time. However, others have seen that if they can cut down the errors and put huge effort and accuracy into tackling we simply don't know what to do.
It is up to the coaches to provide that 'what to do' when another team plays like England did last year or Argentina just did.
Mounga hasn't been given any tools. We rely on him pulling off a flukey bit of skill.Unless Foster and co can show that they have a clear path to building these gameplans and that they are working through them (and copping some losses along the way) then he should stand down.
At the moment it looks like exactly the same team but with Frizell told to hit people harder.
Where were the set piece moves to manipulate a hole in a rushing defence?Like kicking what should have been a routine touch finder for an attacking lineout over the deadball line? Or letting the forwards go a dozen phases then kick the ball straight at an Argie when just outside the 22?
Exactly. Those are the bits that when they don't come off, hurt you.
Those kicks are difficult and he will often get them but they should be also practising a lower risk option for that situation where we desperately needed to score. A safer kick to 10 metres out and a planned set piece from there.
-
@Crucial said in When should Foster go?:
@Rancid-Schnitzel said in When should Foster go?:
@Crucial said in When should Foster go?:
I haven't even bothered reading the match thread.
I had been giving him a bit of rope and he has gone and tied the noose.
The whole point behind appointing Foster was that he was at the coalface and was close to observing what was going wrong and therefore how to fix it without throwing out everything and starting again. The continuity concept worked with Ted2 and with Shag.
The thinking had validity.What we have seen though is that he has worked to change one aspect (and we are showing a bit more physicality) but hasn't fixed the issue that our style relies on the other team making errors. Yes, that is a major strength of our game and will work a good portion of the time. However, others have seen that if they can cut down the errors and put huge effort and accuracy into tackling we simply don't know what to do.
It is up to the coaches to provide that 'what to do' when another team plays like England did last year or Argentina just did.
Mounga hasn't been given any tools. We rely on him pulling off a flukey bit of skill.Unless Foster and co can show that they have a clear path to building these gameplans and that they are working through them (and copping some losses along the way) then he should stand down.
At the moment it looks like exactly the same team but with Frizell told to hit people harder.
Where were the set piece moves to manipulate a hole in a rushing defence?Like kicking what should have been a routine touch finder for an attacking lineout over the deadball line? Or letting the forwards go a dozen phases then kick the ball straight at an Argie when just outside the 22?
Exactly. Those are the bits that when they don't come off, hurt you.
Those kicks are difficult and he will often get them but they should be also practising a lower risk option for that situation where we desperately needed to score. A safer kick to 10 metres out and a planned set piece from there.
They are fucking not!!!
A penalty punt for touch?!
-
@Crucial said in When should Foster go?:
@Rancid-Schnitzel said in When should Foster go?:
@Crucial said in When should Foster go?:
I haven't even bothered reading the match thread.
I had been giving him a bit of rope and he has gone and tied the noose.
The whole point behind appointing Foster was that he was at the coalface and was close to observing what was going wrong and therefore how to fix it without throwing out everything and starting again. The continuity concept worked with Ted2 and with Shag.
The thinking had validity.What we have seen though is that he has worked to change one aspect (and we are showing a bit more physicality) but hasn't fixed the issue that our style relies on the other team making errors. Yes, that is a major strength of our game and will work a good portion of the time. However, others have seen that if they can cut down the errors and put huge effort and accuracy into tackling we simply don't know what to do.
It is up to the coaches to provide that 'what to do' when another team plays like England did last year or Argentina just did.
Mounga hasn't been given any tools. We rely on him pulling off a flukey bit of skill.Unless Foster and co can show that they have a clear path to building these gameplans and that they are working through them (and copping some losses along the way) then he should stand down.
At the moment it looks like exactly the same team but with Frizell told to hit people harder.
Where were the set piece moves to manipulate a hole in a rushing defence?Like kicking what should have been a routine touch finder for an attacking lineout over the deadball line? Or letting the forwards go a dozen phases then kick the ball straight at an Argie when just outside the 22?
Exactly. Those are the bits that when they don't come off, hurt you.
Those kicks are difficult and he will often get them but they should be also practising a lower risk option for that situation where we desperately needed to score. A safer kick to 10 metres out and a planned set piece from there.
Sorry, his fückups are the fault of the coach? There is plenty of ammunition to rain on Foster, but absolute brain farts from experienced players shouldn't be one of them.
And since when is a kick for the line like that difficult for a professional, test flyhalf?
-
think the point is he was kicking for the 5m lineout, that is the difficult part, but given how far out he was kicking from, he shouldnt have been going for that lower % play...irony is, if he had gone for say 10-15m out, he woulda put it into the 5m with that kick....
-
@taniwharugby said in When should Foster go?:
think the point is he was kicking for the 5m lineout, that is the difficult part, but given how far out he was kicking from, he shouldnt have been going for that lower % play...irony is, if he had gone for say 10-15m out, he woulda put it into the 5m....
I know he has said that he is happy to take the risk and go for extra metres and if it doesn't come off then he can live with it. That's fine if we are in the lead or at least are in the game, however this was a crucial time in the game where we were well behind and needed to score. It was definitely not the time to take a risk. This team lacks rugby IQ and Mounga displayed that perfectly with that kick.
-
@Rancid-Schnitzel said in When should Foster go?:
@Crucial said in When should Foster go?:
@Rancid-Schnitzel said in When should Foster go?:
@Crucial said in When should Foster go?:
I haven't even bothered reading the match thread.
I had been giving him a bit of rope and he has gone and tied the noose.
The whole point behind appointing Foster was that he was at the coalface and was close to observing what was going wrong and therefore how to fix it without throwing out everything and starting again. The continuity concept worked with Ted2 and with Shag.
The thinking had validity.What we have seen though is that he has worked to change one aspect (and we are showing a bit more physicality) but hasn't fixed the issue that our style relies on the other team making errors. Yes, that is a major strength of our game and will work a good portion of the time. However, others have seen that if they can cut down the errors and put huge effort and accuracy into tackling we simply don't know what to do.
It is up to the coaches to provide that 'what to do' when another team plays like England did last year or Argentina just did.
Mounga hasn't been given any tools. We rely on him pulling off a flukey bit of skill.Unless Foster and co can show that they have a clear path to building these gameplans and that they are working through them (and copping some losses along the way) then he should stand down.
At the moment it looks like exactly the same team but with Frizell told to hit people harder.
Where were the set piece moves to manipulate a hole in a rushing defence?Like kicking what should have been a routine touch finder for an attacking lineout over the deadball line? Or letting the forwards go a dozen phases then kick the ball straight at an Argie when just outside the 22?
Exactly. Those are the bits that when they don't come off, hurt you.
Those kicks are difficult and he will often get them but they should be also practising a lower risk option for that situation where we desperately needed to score. A safer kick to 10 metres out and a planned set piece from there.
Sorry, his fückups are the fault of the coach? There is plenty of ammunition to rain on Foster, but absolute brain farts from experienced players shouldn't be one of them.
And since when is a kick for the line like that difficult for a professional, test flyhalf?
Kicking for the line is fine. Pushing it to the corner has a risk especially on a shallow angle. He took a risk and didn't execute well enough.
What I am saying is that he shouldn't have to take the risk. They should be coached with a lower risk option to use in that situation. i.e. play safe and if it goes closer then fine but here's the play from 10 metres out.
To flip your theory around a good team shouldn't find things that much more difficult to run a play from 10 metres as 5. In fact the 5m play is obvious and you get a defence only 5m away.
Coaches should be providing the ammo and thought processes to make the best decisions. The players should have the skills to execute. -
@Crucial said in When should Foster go?:
@Rancid-Schnitzel said in When should Foster go?:
@Crucial said in When should Foster go?:
@Rancid-Schnitzel said in When should Foster go?:
@Crucial said in When should Foster go?:
I haven't even bothered reading the match thread.
I had been giving him a bit of rope and he has gone and tied the noose.
The whole point behind appointing Foster was that he was at the coalface and was close to observing what was going wrong and therefore how to fix it without throwing out everything and starting again. The continuity concept worked with Ted2 and with Shag.
The thinking had validity.What we have seen though is that he has worked to change one aspect (and we are showing a bit more physicality) but hasn't fixed the issue that our style relies on the other team making errors. Yes, that is a major strength of our game and will work a good portion of the time. However, others have seen that if they can cut down the errors and put huge effort and accuracy into tackling we simply don't know what to do.
It is up to the coaches to provide that 'what to do' when another team plays like England did last year or Argentina just did.
Mounga hasn't been given any tools. We rely on him pulling off a flukey bit of skill.Unless Foster and co can show that they have a clear path to building these gameplans and that they are working through them (and copping some losses along the way) then he should stand down.
At the moment it looks like exactly the same team but with Frizell told to hit people harder.
Where were the set piece moves to manipulate a hole in a rushing defence?Like kicking what should have been a routine touch finder for an attacking lineout over the deadball line? Or letting the forwards go a dozen phases then kick the ball straight at an Argie when just outside the 22?
Exactly. Those are the bits that when they don't come off, hurt you.
Those kicks are difficult and he will often get them but they should be also practising a lower risk option for that situation where we desperately needed to score. A safer kick to 10 metres out and a planned set piece from there.
Sorry, his fückups are the fault of the coach? There is plenty of ammunition to rain on Foster, but absolute brain farts from experienced players shouldn't be one of them.
And since when is a kick for the line like that difficult for a professional, test flyhalf?
Kicking for the line is fine. Pushing it to the corner has a risk especially on a shallow angle. He took a risk and didn't execute well enough.
What I am saying is that he shouldn't have to take the risk. They should be coached with a lower risk option to use in that situation. i.e. play safe and if it goes closer then fine but here's the play from 10 metres out.
To flip your theory around a good team shouldn't find things that much more difficult to run a play from 10 metres as 5. In fact the 5m play is obvious and you get a defence only 5m away.
Coaches should be providing the ammo and thought processes to make the best decisions. The players should have the skills to execute.I can agree to some of that but I'm pretty darn sure there are certain other players that wouldn't get your benefit of the doubt in that situation. Sometimes there are basics that should be obvious to professional rugby players. If coaches need to remind them of that then God help us.
-
@Rancid-Schnitzel special coaching to ensure you kick a penalty out in the field of play?
Jesus, that's a low bar. No wonder we're shit
-
@Rancid-Schnitzel said in When should Foster go?:
If coaches need to remind them of that then God help us.
not sure it's about reminding them, probably more situational awareness and playing to a structure rather than allowing everyone a bit of rope to do with as they choose, whenever, where ever on the park.
