Foster, Robertson etc
-
@Higgins said in Foster must go:
@NTA Partially right in your observations but we at least can now acknowledge and (almost) accept when we get beaten by better teams on the day eg England tonking the ABs in the last World Cup. What sticks in the craw more than anything is the continual usage of gameplans that have been proven not to work. In times past if things weren't working you had astute rugby brains (Graham Mourie just as one example) on the field that could see that and changed things accordingly. Nowadays Captains seem to rely solely on the instructions coming down via radio from the coaches box and conveyed by the water runners.
Surely players on the field have better "feeling" on how opposition players and tactics are working and can sense minute things like marginal dropping off in speed levels of players as they every so slightly tire much better than the bank of computers that coaches seem to place 100% faith in can ever do. Ditto for members of their own team.Out of interest in and around what you've said (which I agree with), I'll quote Ben Darwin again on this:
-
@NTA said in Foster must go:
@Higgins said in Foster must go:
@NTA Partially right in your observations but we at least can now acknowledge and (almost) accept when we get beaten by better teams on the day eg England tonking the ABs in the last World Cup. What sticks in the craw more than anything is the continual usage of gameplans that have been proven not to work. In times past if things weren't working you had astute rugby brains (Graham Mourie just as one example) on the field that could see that and changed things accordingly. Nowadays Captains seem to rely solely on the instructions coming down via radio from the coaches box and conveyed by the water runners.
Surely players on the field have better "feeling" on how opposition players and tactics are working and can sense minute things like marginal dropping off in speed levels of players as they every so slightly tire much better than the bank of computers that coaches seem to place 100% faith in can ever do. Ditto for members of their own team.Out of interest in and around what you've said (which I agree with), I'll quote Ben Darwin again on this:
If the boys are ignoring Fozz then someone has to go. Easier to get rid of the coach than all the players
-
@canefan said in Foster must go:
@Victor-Meldrew said in Foster must go:
@Frank said in Foster must go:
@Victor-Meldrew said in Foster must go:
No, the problems go much deeper than just the Coaching set-up and they need addressing as well.
What are those problems?
One example: Our two premier locks are 31 & 33 and nearing the end of their shelf-life. We've had 10+ years to identify succession options and it's been a known problem since 2016. Who do we have?
Now either the player pool in NZ is better and deeper than anywhere in the world and coaching teams haven't picked the right players for the last 6 years, or we've been deluding ourselves and our pool of cattle ain't that great. Who has analysed that and put fixes in place all those years ago? Did anyone?
We know Foster is definitely one, but what are the others?
I'm not sure Foster is the main problem as we've been on a downward trend since 2016, but he ain't the man to fix the problems he can fix either.
Shag became increasingly unable to usher in young talent as he went on. Off the top of my head, Luatua was one guy who we hoped would be good, but he left. BBBR and Whitelock are in the top drawer of locks to play for the ABs. Like so many other positions we have struggled to find immediate replacements. I think in part this is also a problem when you get such longevity from great players, they block the way for a whole generation of young players who then leave
Always think Hansen was on a wing and a prayer to get a RWC2019 win and development was not his priority.
And ironically, though we may bemoan his not selecting our favourite players, Foster has at least tried to address this. Balance aside, our 6/7/8 options are strong and he deserves credit for that.
-
@Victor-Meldrew said in Foster must go:
@canefan said in Foster must go:
@Victor-Meldrew said in Foster must go:
@Frank said in Foster must go:
@Victor-Meldrew said in Foster must go:
No, the problems go much deeper than just the Coaching set-up and they need addressing as well.
What are those problems?
One example: Our two premier locks are 31 & 33 and nearing the end of their shelf-life. We've had 10+ years to identify succession options and it's been a known problem since 2016. Who do we have?
Now either the player pool in NZ is better and deeper than anywhere in the world and coaching teams haven't picked the right players for the last 6 years, or we've been deluding ourselves and our pool of cattle ain't that great. Who has analysed that and put fixes in place all those years ago? Did anyone?
We know Foster is definitely one, but what are the others?
I'm not sure Foster is the main problem as we've been on a downward trend since 2016, but he ain't the man to fix the problems he can fix either.
Shag became increasingly unable to usher in young talent as he went on. Off the top of my head, Luatua was one guy who we hoped would be good, but he left. BBBR and Whitelock are in the top drawer of locks to play for the ABs. Like so many other positions we have struggled to find immediate replacements. I think in part this is also a problem when you get such longevity from great players, they block the way for a whole generation of young players who then leave
Always think Hansen was on a wing and a prayer to get a RWC2019 win and development was not his priority.
And ironically, though we may bemoan his not selecting our favourite players, Foster has at least tried to address this. Balance aside, our 6/7/8 options are strong and he deserves credit for that.
Fair call. He just doesn't seem to have to ability to knit them into a cohesive unit with a single minded plan
-
@Higgins said in Foster must go:
What sticks in the craw more than anything is the continual usage of gameplans that have been proven not to work. In times past if things weren't working you had astute rugby brains (Graham Mourie just as one example) on the field that could see that and changed things accordingly. Nowadays Captains seem to rely solely on the instructions coming down via radio from the coaches box and conveyed by the water runners.
Surely players on the field have better "feeling" on how opposition players and tactics are working and can sense minute things like marginal dropping off in speed levelsWe've been blessed with smart rugby brains in the last decade but poss. not so much now. The likes of Ritchie, Conrad, Ma'a etc stood out as keen students of the game but not so much now. Whether it's the team culture or coaching, who knows?
-
@MrDenmore in fairness I thought Cane looked spent about 10 minutes before he was subbed!
-
@Victor-Meldrew said in Foster must go:
So who in NZR was responsible for spotting this, didn't notice, express concerns and help fix the lack of succession planning in key positions?
Succession planning is fucking hard when it is tougher to get out of the team than into it - that was the going statement for the Baggy Greens under Steve Waugh. The ABs have generally been good with blooding young players but incumbency is a hard thing to shake when the whole squad is performing well.
Did they have a process in place to identify and action issues like this? If not then why?
Look at it another way: while you were still barred up from winning 2 x RWC in a row, and 80%+ of your Test matches, and retaining the Bledisloe and Trinations, did anyone give a fuck?
I think a lot of the RWC2019 SF loss was written off as "England bashed us good" instead of "How does our game plan stop us getting bashed in future?" and really, that wasn't Hansen's issue to solve as he wandered off because you almost never played England and never got the other 6N in any sort of form.
Well, Ireland have form now, and you're right in asking those questions. Leading the pack by a distance is tortoise-and-hare stuff sometimes. Again: Wallabies 98-2002 was a ticking time bomb when things started falling apart.
-
@antipodean said in Foster must go:
@Bovidae said in Foster must go:
@chimoaus said in Foster must go:
In terms of players, how many Irish players would you have picked in a combined 15 pre series? They play so well as a unit they get the most out of the stock they have.
As I mentioned the Irish team is essentially Leinster so they play together all year. That has to be an advantage to Farrell and co.
That level of understanding and anticipation is a massive bonus. Combinations matter.
I'll point to the stuff Ben Darwin's company is producing in data terms.
He even said that a change in shirt colour has a statistical effect on teams. Look at England in red v the Barbarians - muddied a little by the different combinations, but in regular leagues it is also a factor, apparently.
In pro sport, every little edge matters.
-
In his performance review, foster identified scoring more points than the opposition as the key to victory. « I think we need to adapt a bit ».
-
@Victor-Meldrew said in Foster must go:
@canefan said in Foster must go:
@Victor-Meldrew said in Foster must go:
@Frank said in Foster must go:
@Victor-Meldrew said in Foster must go:
No, the problems go much deeper than just the Coaching set-up and they need addressing as well.
What are those problems?
One example: Our two premier locks are 31 & 33 and nearing the end of their shelf-life. We've had 10+ years to identify succession options and it's been a known problem since 2016. Who do we have?
Now either the player pool in NZ is better and deeper than anywhere in the world and coaching teams haven't picked the right players for the last 6 years, or we've been deluding ourselves and our pool of cattle ain't that great. Who has analysed that and put fixes in place all those years ago? Did anyone?
We know Foster is definitely one, but what are the others?
I'm not sure Foster is the main problem as we've been on a downward trend since 2016, but he ain't the man to fix the problems he can fix either.
Shag became increasingly unable to usher in young talent as he went on. Off the top of my head, Luatua was one guy who we hoped would be good, but he left. BBBR and Whitelock are in the top drawer of locks to play for the ABs. Like so many other positions we have struggled to find immediate replacements. I think in part this is also a problem when you get such longevity from great players, they block the way for a whole generation of young players who then leave
Always think Hansen was on a wing and a prayer to get a RWC2019 win and development was not his priority.
And ironically, though we may bemoan his not selecting our favourite players, Foster has at least tried to address this. Balance aside, our 6/7/8 options are strong and he deserves credit for that.
Does he? None of them were selected without a body of work in Super Rugby.
-
@NTA said in Foster must go:
@Victor-Meldrew said in Foster must go:
So who in NZR was responsible for spotting this, didn't notice, express concerns and help fix the lack of succession planning in key positions?
Succession planning is fucking hard when it is tougher to get out of the team than into it - that was the going statement for the Baggy Greens under Steve Waugh. The ABs have generally been good with blooding young players but incumbency is a hard thing to shake when the whole squad is performing well.
Did they have a process in place to identify and action issues like this? If not then why?
Look at it another way: while you were still barred up from winning 2 x RWC in a row, and 80%+ of your Test matches, and retaining the Bledisloe and Trinations, did anyone give a fuck?
I think a lot of the RWC2019 SF loss was written off as "England bashed us good" instead of "How does our game plan stop us getting bashed in future?" and really, that wasn't Hansen's issue to solve as he wandered off because you almost never played England and never got the other 6N in any sort of form.
Well, Ireland have form now, and you're right in asking those questions. Leading the pack by a distance is tortoise-and-hare stuff sometimes. Again: Wallabies 98-2002 was a ticking time bomb when things started falling apart.
We had possibly the best collection of talent an AB team has ever seen from 2011 to 2015, and we were still really good until we got the wobbles around 2018. As you say, it is bloody hard to change course and much easier to ride the winning train for as long as you can. It is always very difficult to see the end coming and make changes before it's too late
-
In the final analysis it doesn't matter if Foster has improved over his career. The problem is the assistants he brought to the environment. None of them have amassed a body of work that hints at success at any other level.
-
@antipodean said in Foster must go:
In the final analysis it doesn't matter if Foster has improved over his career. The problem is the assistants he brought to the environment. None of them have amassed a body of work that hints at success at any other level.
A journeyman leading a crew of journeymen
-
@antipodean said in Foster must go:
In the final analysis it doesn't matter if Foster has improved over his career. The problem is the assistants he brought to the environment. None of them have amassed a body of work that hints at success at any other level.
When they were announced, it felt like they were the last men standing, especially Moaar. It was the coaches who said no to joining his setup that was more interesting.
When Foster and Robertson applied, did they have to disclose their coaching team at the time, or not?
-
@antipodean said in Foster must go:
@Victor-Meldrew said in Foster must go:
@canefan said in Foster must go:
@Victor-Meldrew said in Foster must go:
@Frank said in Foster must go:
@Victor-Meldrew said in Foster must go:
No, the problems go much deeper than just the Coaching set-up and they need addressing as well.
What are those problems?
One example: Our two premier locks are 31 & 33 and nearing the end of their shelf-life. We've had 10+ years to identify succession options and it's been a known problem since 2016. Who do we have?
Now either the player pool in NZ is better and deeper than anywhere in the world and coaching teams haven't picked the right players for the last 6 years, or we've been deluding ourselves and our pool of cattle ain't that great. Who has analysed that and put fixes in place all those years ago? Did anyone?
We know Foster is definitely one, but what are the others?
I'm not sure Foster is the main problem as we've been on a downward trend since 2016, but he ain't the man to fix the problems he can fix either.
Shag became increasingly unable to usher in young talent as he went on. Off the top of my head, Luatua was one guy who we hoped would be good, but he left. BBBR and Whitelock are in the top drawer of locks to play for the ABs. Like so many other positions we have struggled to find immediate replacements. I think in part this is also a problem when you get such longevity from great players, they block the way for a whole generation of young players who then leave
Always think Hansen was on a wing and a prayer to get a RWC2019 win and development was not his priority.
And ironically, though we may bemoan his not selecting our favourite players, Foster has at least tried to address this. Balance aside, our 6/7/8 options are strong and he deserves credit for that.
Does he? None of them were selected without a body of work in Super Rugby.
He deserves no credit at all for our loosies given all he's done is persisted with playing an unbalanced trio instead of developing one that could be world class given the talent at his disposal.
-
@antipodean said in Foster must go:
@Victor-Meldrew said in Foster must go:
@canefan said in Foster must go:
@Victor-Meldrew said in Foster must go:
@Frank said in Foster must go:
@Victor-Meldrew said in Foster must go:
No, the problems go much deeper than just the Coaching set-up and they need addressing as well.
What are those problems?
One example: Our two premier locks are 31 & 33 and nearing the end of their shelf-life. We've had 10+ years to identify succession options and it's been a known problem since 2016. Who do we have?
Now either the player pool in NZ is better and deeper than anywhere in the world and coaching teams haven't picked the right players for the last 6 years, or we've been deluding ourselves and our pool of cattle ain't that great. Who has analysed that and put fixes in place all those years ago? Did anyone?
We know Foster is definitely one, but what are the others?
I'm not sure Foster is the main problem as we've been on a downward trend since 2016, but he ain't the man to fix the problems he can fix either.
Shag became increasingly unable to usher in young talent as he went on. Off the top of my head, Luatua was one guy who we hoped would be good, but he left. BBBR and Whitelock are in the top drawer of locks to play for the ABs. Like so many other positions we have struggled to find immediate replacements. I think in part this is also a problem when you get such longevity from great players, they block the way for a whole generation of young players who then leave
Always think Hansen was on a wing and a prayer to get a RWC2019 win and development was not his priority.
And ironically, though we may bemoan his not selecting our favourite players, Foster has at least tried to address this. Balance aside, our 6/7/8 options are strong and he deserves credit for that.
Does he? None of them were selected without a body of work in Super Rugby.
Can't that be said for successful pick by any coach? Ma'a was an automatic pick at 12 often despite his S15 form
-
@NTA said in Foster must go:
Look at it another way: while you were still barred up from winning 2 x RWC in a row, and 80%+ of your Test matches, and retaining the Bledisloe and Trinations, did anyone give a fuck?
Exactly my point. Someone should have. It isn't rocket-science to plan 5 years ahead.
-
@canefan said in Foster must go:
@No-Quarter pretty much nailed it there. Based on his CV I can't remember a less worthy AB coach. That is an indictment on those who chose him
Not only an indictment on the choice but an indictment on the process - we had a wealth of coaching talent and the process was so drawn out and so clearly favoured Foster that the expected competition with experience all opted to work with more reliable employers rather than wait around for NZRugby.
So we supposedly had a two-horse race between Foster and Robertson.
While Robertson may have lacked international coaching experience, he was a successful Super Rugby coach who had demonstrated he could rebuild a team and clearly excels at man management (arguably one of the key skills of the previous two coaching teams) while Foster was able to bring in a mediocre coaching team with ideas from 10 years ago.
-
Thinking about the NZRU, rather than Foster, they have put themselves in a corner.
It was they that decided to select Foster, knowing full well that he was a potentially toxic choice.
If things had gone well under Foster's tenure, it would have confirmed to the NZRU that their assessment and decision making processes were ok. However, given the majority of ppl (supporters, media, former players) think it has not gone well, that single decision paints the NZRU in a very negative light. It has even united people across provincial biases, which is ways telling.
What's worse for the NZRU is that every non-decision or decision that turns bad from here on in will be seized upon by the public and especially critics, because the trust that was once there has dissipated.
They are in a no win situation here in some ways. The pre-4N review may well turn out to be a positive one for Foster, but the damage his continued stay will do to the NZRU both domestically and internationally will grow regardless. This impacts on the brand and potentially on the demand to see the All Blacks. With where rugby is currently, this could be incredibly dangerous for NZ rugby.
The NZRU are now managing reputational risk. Handled badly, it could have serious consequences for a significant period to come. This is not something they can bury their head in the sand on. It requires transparency, something the NZRU appears to be sorely lacking in.
It may also require Foster to be offered as the sacrificial lamb, because of the NZRU's own poor performance. Any coach that follows Foster would do well to keep a watchful eye on the NZRU.
-
@stodders said in Foster must go:
t was they that decided to select Foster, knowing full well that he was a potentially toxic choice
He provided continuity and had a c. 80% success ratio when they re-appointed him in August '21. Sure, he'd lost to Argentina for the first time (as Hansen had to Ireland) but the other losses were narrow ones to Oz and SA, so there's a reasonable argument for them to say they'd made the right choice. Despite all the negativity around then, the wheels only really started to fall off bigtime on the 2021 EOTY.
It may also require Foster to be offered as the sacrificial lamb, because of the NZRU's own poor performance. Any coach that follows Foster would do well to keep a watchful eye on the NZRU.
I think a new coach should worry more about the public . Imagine the furore if a new coach loses more than one game in the RC and loses to England on the EOTY and ends up with a worse record than Foster....
