Foster, Robertson, Rennie etc
-
@nzzp said in Foster signs 2 year extension:
@act-crusader said in Foster signs 2 year extension:
It’s interesting, when Henry was reappointed after 2007, there was language to the effect that he “deserves a chance to redeem himself”.
He earned that by dominating world rugby for 4 years, crushing strong teams like France, England, etc, and building incredible depth in the squad. We missed that world cup by the alignment of a bunch of paper thin margins; injuries, reffing, lack of mental coaching, and a bit of arrogance.
His record spoke for itself. Fozzie's does not.
That said, I hope we have a whole lot of success under Foster, but I'm not expecting it. I expect marginal selections, poor game plans, and a lack of physicality. I hope to god I'm proved wrong, but we're seeing all the same characteristics we've seen before.
Agree with this 100%
-
@no-quarter said in Foster signs 2 year extension:
There's no way they could can Foster now, it was appointing him in the first place that was utterly ridiculous. And with our first ever loss to a weak Argentina the damage is done and he's permanently in the history books now. Fuck knows where he will take this team, but one things for sure, consistency will not be a feature.
This also sums up my feelings about the whole thing. NZR have painted themselves into a corner because they fucked up by giving him the job in the first place.
If changing coach is so disruptive, why did they only sign him for 2 years at the start?
If last years results weren’t bad enough to get someone else in, how low did they set the performance bar?Now on the eve of an actual test of the team ie. someone other than the rebuilding Wallabies. They have jumped the gun and re-appointed him.
Where the hell does it leave us if we get done by the Boks and one or two of the NH teams?IMO it is yet another example of the arrogance NZR has started to show since 2017 and especially since Robinson came in, where they just assume everything will happen the way they want it to and they can claim they got it right. Unfortunately like every other decision they have made
recently there is a good chance it will all turn to shit quickly. -
@pukunui said in Foster signs 2 year extension:
@no-quarter said in Foster signs 2 year extension:
There's no way they could can Foster now, it was appointing him in the first place that was utterly ridiculous. And with our first ever loss to a weak Argentina the damage is done and he's permanently in the history books now. Fuck knows where he will take this team, but one things for sure, consistency will not be a feature.
This also sums up my feelings about the whole thing. NZR have painted themselves into a corner because they fucked up by giving him the job in the first place.
If changing coach is so disruptive, why did they only sign him for 2 years at the start?
If last years results weren’t bad enough to get someone else in, how low did they set the performance bar?Now on the eve of an actual test of the team ie. someone other than the rebuilding Wallabies. They have jumped the gun and re-appointed him.
Where the hell does it leave us if we get done by the Boks and one or two of the NH teams?IMO it is yet another example of the arrogance NZR has started to show since 2017 and especially since Robinson came in, where they just assume everything will happen the way they want it to and they can claim they got it right. Unfortunately like every other decision they have made
recently there is a good chance it will all turn to shit quickly.Yep, the NZR are creating an awesome resume of turning everything they do to shit
-
Well this news was as pleasant as a kick to the scrotum. Ridiculous that they made this decision now and not at the end of the season. How can you logically sack a guy whose team just put 50 on Australia?
Just with regard to player input, unless they absolutely hate the coach's guts are they likely to express their real views? I'm sure any process is supposed to be confidential but you'd be wary of giving it both barrels if there was a good chance the coach would be reappointed.
-
@nzzp said in Foster signs 2 year extension:
@act-crusader said in Foster signs 2 year extension:
It’s interesting, when Henry was reappointed after 2007, there was language to the effect that he “deserves a chance to redeem himself”.
He earned that by dominating world rugby for 4 years, crushing strong teams like France, England, etc, and building incredible depth in the squad. We missed that world cup by the alignment of a bunch of paper thin margins; injuries, reffing, lack of mental coaching, and a bit of arrogance.
His record spoke for itself. Fozzie's does not.
That said, I hope we have a whole lot of success under Foster, but I'm not expecting it. I expect marginal selections, poor game plans, and a lack of physicality. I hope to god I'm proved wrong, but we're seeing all the same characteristics we've seen before.
Lost 3 out of 4 in South Africa (Mitchell had won there in 02 and 03), that last minute win in Dunners against the Boks, barely scraped over the line against the Wallabies in 06 (both matches), the 1 point win against Wales - there were plenty of scratchy performances and this is during a time when we probably had more talent (albeit players on the rise too).
I certainly supported the reappointment of Henry but there were shaky performances, lots of rotation and selection question marks in that first 4 years. Which from my perspective is perfectly reasonable.
-
@rancid-schnitzel works both ways though, there are plenty of players Fozzie NEEDS, so if they came out swinging, NZR 'should' listen because if they felt they couldnt work with him, it jeopardises their future in Black, not form speaking out, but looking at off-shore options
The Barretts (mostly BB) Whitelock, Retallick, Ardie, Cane, Smith, ALB, Rieko, Mounga, Coles are all key to any side Fozzie is gonna pick and the near future of the team, if half them came out and said he's a dick, send him, I expect NZR would have no choice but to take it seriously.
Because you can garrantee the leadership group speak about such things, so a 'coup' of sorts is highly likely if they thought he was shit.
I have already said it was a shit decision to re-appoint now, while several games are ahead, and with the experience not going too, high possibility we lose more than 1.
-
@taniwharugby said in Foster signs 2 year extension:
@rancid-schnitzel works both ways though, there are plenty of players Fozzie NEEDS, so if they came out swinging, NZR 'should' listen because if they felt they couldnt work with him, it jeopardises their future in Black, not form speaking out, but looking at off-shore options
The Barretts (mostly BB) Whitelock, Retallick, Ardie, Cane, Smith, ALB, Rieko, Mounga, Coles are all key to any side Fozzie is gonna pick and the near future of the team, if half them came out and said he's a dick, send him, I expect NZR would have no choice but to take it seriously.
Because you can garrantee the leadership group speak about such things, so a 'coup' of sorts is highly likely if they thought he was shit.
I have already said it was a shit decision to re-appoint now, while several games are ahead, and with the experience not going too, high possibility we lose more than 1.
Yeah I just feel if they don't hate the guy then it's unlikely they'll slander him. The leadership group must also be very close to him after all these years. All the players you mentioned will have probably developed a fairly strong friendship with him. Takes a lot to throw that under a bus.
-
@act-crusader said in Foster signs 2 year extension:
@nzzp said in Foster signs 2 year extension:
@act-crusader said in Foster signs 2 year extension:
It’s interesting, when Henry was reappointed after 2007, there was language to the effect that he “deserves a chance to redeem himself”.
He earned that by dominating world rugby for 4 years, crushing strong teams like France, England, etc, and building incredible depth in the squad. We missed that world cup by the alignment of a bunch of paper thin margins; injuries, reffing, lack of mental coaching, and a bit of arrogance.
His record spoke for itself. Fozzie's does not.
That said, I hope we have a whole lot of success under Foster, but I'm not expecting it. I expect marginal selections, poor game plans, and a lack of physicality. I hope to god I'm proved wrong, but we're seeing all the same characteristics we've seen before.
Lost 3 out of 4 in South Africa (Mitchell had won there in 02 and 03), that last minute win in Dunners against the Boks, barely scraped over the line against the Wallabies in 06 (both matches), the 1 point win against Wales - there were plenty of scratchy performances and this is during a time when we probably had more talent (albeit players on the rise too).
I certainly supported the reappointment of Henry but there were shaky performances, lots of rotation and selection question marks in that first 4 years. Which from my perspective is perfectly reasonable.
I thought Henry played faced a superior-coached and skilled Bok side to Mitchell?
-
@rancid-schnitzel said in Foster signs 2 year extension:
@taniwharugby said in Foster signs 2 year extension:
@rancid-schnitzel works both ways though, there are plenty of players Fozzie NEEDS, so if they came out swinging, NZR 'should' listen because if they felt they couldnt work with him, it jeopardises their future in Black, not form speaking out, but looking at off-shore options
The Barretts (mostly BB) Whitelock, Retallick, Ardie, Cane, Smith, ALB, Rieko, Mounga, Coles are all key to any side Fozzie is gonna pick and the near future of the team, if half them came out and said he's a dick, send him, I expect NZR would have no choice but to take it seriously.
Because you can garrantee the leadership group speak about such things, so a 'coup' of sorts is highly likely if they thought he was shit.
I have already said it was a shit decision to re-appoint now, while several games are ahead, and with the experience not going too, high possibility we lose more than 1.
Yeah I just feel if they don't hate the guy then it's unlikely they'll slander him. The leadership group must also be very close to him after all these years. All the players you mentioned will have probably developed a fairly strong friendship with him. Takes a lot to throw that under a bus.
I do wonder if they have the same loyalty to his assistants though.
-
@rancid-schnitzel but this is thier careers too, surely if you think your boss is gonna hold your career back you leave or if given the opportunity to speak about them, you do?
But can also see the loyalty angle too.
The likes of Whitelock, Smith, Retallick have the opportunity to go out legends of our game, but if Fozzie (cos that is where the fingers are pointing) fucks things up for the team, it will tarnish thier careers too.
-
At the national level and particularly for the current crop of ABs, I can’t see any personalities or egos that would push for a coup even if they thought it was warranted.
Given the way the ABs are viewed and the whole “no one is bigger than the jersey” mantra, I’d say it would be highly unlikely for a player or even a handful to come out publicly and speak out about a coach to get them removed. Both players and coaches positions are pretty tenuous at the best of times.
I’d see that possibly happening at Super level where there’s less public scrutiny on the line (still risks), not the history and there is still a view that it’s all a bit artificial and about the money anyway so more cutthroat. But I’d say unlikely at provincial level because of the history, pride, grassroots, community connection etc.
-
-
@godder said in Foster signs 2 year extension:
There's a lot of pontificating in this thread about process, but the main issue as far as I can tell is that we just don't rate Foster, so any process that appoints Foster is flawed.
It doesn't help that GH was part of the process and even he was disappointed they picked Fozzie
. -
@godder said in Foster signs 2 year extension:
There's a lot of pontificating in this thread about process, but the main issue as far as I can tell is that we just don't rate Foster, so any process that appoints Foster is flawed.
Or,
#1 we don't understand the process so judge Foster on his results..
#2 His results...
#3 ..We don't understand why he received two more years...
-
@chester-draws said in Foster signs 2 year extension:
@bovidae said in Foster signs 2 year extension:
The senior players (and Shand) would have been asked for feedback and I doubt this decision would have been made now if their opinions were overwhelmingly negative.
I'm not sure of this. The evidence is that Foster is an extremely likeable person and players like him. He never faced any issues with the Chiefs, even when they came second last.
In some cases there have been useless coaches that get player support precisely because it allows the players to do what they want.
@junior said in Foster signs 2 year extension:
@bovidae said in Foster signs 2 year extension:
The senior players (and Shand) would have been asked for feedback and I doubt this decision would have been made now if their opinions were overwhelmingly negative.
The players generally seem happy enough and Foster seems like a decent enough bloke. But that does not mean he's the best person to coach the team and get it performing to its absolute maximum. Maybe he's too likeable and not willing to push players hard enough or make tough enough decisions...?
Couple of similar points here that make me think of when our sevens programme turned to shit near the end of the Tietjens era. There were pretty strong noises back then that the players wanted 'more say' and 'leadership from within the playing group', and when they got their way, they cut back on the gruelling fitness training Titch was putting them through, and started losing.
Point being that even with a good coach, the players can sabotage their own chances while thinking they are doing good - let alone with the affable old fossil that Foster seems to be.
-
@nostrildamus said in Foster signs 2 year extension:
..We don't understand why he received two more years...
Gregan gave us 4 more years...
-
So disillusioned with NZR.
The oustanding coach in SR over a long period of time with the winning Crusaders doesnt get a look in. Their reason not enough international experience. What??
That have got it so wrong.
-
@delicatessen
I think there is many more variables into why NZ 7s dropped off.
The world putting some kind of effort into 7's being the main one.
-More players heading overseas (general depth erosion of NZ Rugby)
-7s becoming its own sport meaning players had to commit more.
-other teams adapting and evolving, which I don't think NZ did.Under Titch in the end we were playing an awful crash ball wide style which I guess kind of suited the cattle he picked but ultimately didn't work.
He also did nothing special with Samoa that showed he was kind of done. great career but time moves on. The stories I've heard of camps he would train were horrendous on the field and in the kitchen and i know most people think that make players better but, there are clear limits to adaption and thats well beyond it. -
@muddyriver Titch's methods worked well when we had the best cattle and we trained harder than everyone else
-
I wonder if there was another coach with the same AB record as Fozzie whether they would have nearly as much negativity about them.
It feels like he has basically zero 'benefit of the doubt' and there's a whole bunch of confirmation bias occurring - with any success brushed off and any failure "I told you so"
Now that I think about it - this whole place runs on confirmation bias on basically every topic - me especially!
Stuff
