Foster, Robertson etc
-
@Chester-Draws said in Foster must go:
What did work :
-- trying new things until one stuck.
-- a good coach.
It turns out that that pretty much everything hung on the coaching. Everything else was fine when he was good.
-- nothing else matters. Back room chair organising will not fix poor coaching.Agree, very few teams have won trophies with a poor coach.
-
@Chester-Draws I respectfully disagree.
Good coaches in poor environments will struggle. Bad coaches in good environments will look better than they are.
The Blues renaissance came with a new board. Everything good flowed from there; a good coach, better player selection and retention, a competent back room staff, stakeholders/owners that weren't at war with each other. The coach can't fix those issues.
It's like a good 10 in a bad team. They'll be dragged down.
-
@Chester-Draws said in Foster must go:
Rennie showed that Foster was the problem at the Chiefs, although in his case it was also the useless WRU -- but cronyism with Foster was part of that.
Especially this. Though somehow ten years on he's now coaching the All Blacks...
-
@Chester-Draws said in Foster must go:
It turns out that that pretty much everything hung on the coaching. Everything else was fine when he was good.
Sorry, but I think that's way too simplistic and assumes quality of cattle, player development, quality of opposition, the quality of the people choosing and supporting the coach and the processes around managing the game have no impact on the results.
Sure, a good coach is essential and can get the best out of what he's been given, but he can't fix the structural issues in his union.
-
@nzzp said in Foster must go:
@Victor-Meldrew progress for the new coach won't just be winning, but clarity around selections, game plans and direction. There may be short term losses, but there has to be hope for the future.
He has clarity and has managed to sell that 'vision' to his employers about three times now.
Trouble is that it either doesn't work, the players can't apply it and/or it simply isn't right for the situation we face against structured low error teams.
The public also can see zero evidence of positive change and the few public statements about what needs to change seem at odds to what is happening.
'We need more power in the forwards', OK now I'm going to bench or leave out our most powerful hooker -
Given that it is only 3 weeks until we go to SA what is the practical solution here if Foster goes?
A transition to Schmidt whereby he can make gradual changes to the systems in place?
It's either Schmidt commits to the RWC or he acts as a caretaker bringing in new systems and players in consultation with Razor, who then takes over for EOYT after getting his house in order.
One of the next problems then is assistants (who I truly believe are Fosters biggest mistake). Razor has his great team but can they move across to the ABs without derailing the Saders own succession plans? Is Schmidt initially saddled with the same muppets Foster put in place?
Our scrum is OK if not dominant (and dominant scrums mean little against these big teams - the refs still let them get the ball out while moving backwards). Therefore maybe Feek can stay.
The option of Schmidt and Razor working together worries me that it could be another Grizz/Hart -
When the current coaching group got Covid and Schmidt took the coaching reigns, that led to the only win.
Perhaps an interim change is enough to get through the Rugby Championship, and the board doesn't need to rush to get a long term replacement (or maybe Schmidt is the guy, who knows).
-
@Crucial well McLeod should be on the block, regardless, our defence has been woeful for years now.
The disconnect is there for all to see, we don't move as one, staggered, passive and slow, that try posted in the game thread highlighted how poor we were when we twist thier scrum away from the zone they are attacking, its slow ball and yet they still go that way and still make it over the gain line with a simple passing move.
When you watch the Irish line come up quickly, together, structured.
-
Tbh I don't think a massive amount is required to get them back on track. The players are there and when they have nothing to lose, start playing direct and let rip you can see the other teams start getting sqeaky bum time. But that's usually after an inept, bumbling and headless first 40 that's already put them 20 odd points behind. Tactically the ABs have been a mess since even 2016. It's simply arrogance and hubris that can't be papered over by individual brilliance anymore. Same thing with teams tiring. They simply don't hit wall like they used to. If anything we hit the wall after the necessary early 2nd half fightback required to arrest a 20 point deficit. I see all the major teams at least looking like they have a plan and at least playing with some kind of depth and enterprise. I don't know wtf the ABs are doing and I'm not sure the players do either. Just get in someone, anyone who is prepared to fůcking evolve and acknowledge it isn't farking 2015 anymore.
-
@Victor-Meldrew said in Foster must go:
@nzzp said in Foster must go:
@Victor-Meldrew progress for the new coach won't just be winning, but clarity around selections, game plans and direction. There may be short term losses, but there has to be hope for the future.
You raise a really good point though, the issue is deeper than just the coach. But the coach has appeared to be a significant part of the issue.
My point is if/when we dump Foster we have to expect much more than just visibility of new game plan and getting more information at pressers on selection thinking.
Sure, I'll give a loss or two if that means progress, but I'd want some pretty rapid progress after 2-3 games if I were NZR and have some contingency plans on re-appointment in place if it doesn't happen. Hope is all well and good, but let's not have another Foster-like fiasco.
I don’t think that will be an expectation nor should it be.
If (and I still think it is a massive if) a new coach and assistants are installed then NZR will have to say there is a massive problem to justify such a step. Massive problems aren’t turned around in 2-3 games.
From a playing perspective it will take time for philosophy buy in and the changes to manifest. From a PR perspective we will be in that similar position to the post Connolly and MacKenzie Wallabies of managing expectations and sending out messages of what’s working in camp etc.
-
I saw a brief interview with RTS pre game and when asked how he found things he talked about having huge amounts of study to do with systems etc but then added that Fozzie said 'we don't want robots out there, the systems are just a framework'.
It's a simplification off one newcomers comment but I have to wonder if that is part of the issue here. Either give clear direction and plans whereby players get to express themselves only at 'pull the trigger' moments or don't bother. They seem not to understand when to stick to the plan at the moment.
A good case was on the weekend, we got a small roll on making Ireland defend, got down in their 22 and to me it was time to keep heaping on pressure until a crack appeared but instead we went for what was presumably a phase one glory move off the lineout,. Execution was out and we let the foot off the gas.
Were was the ruthlessness? Players don't seem to understand the need to keep applying pressure in an organised way. Even a very good defence will show cracks after 10 plus phases as long as those phases draw them out of structure. Then you can show off your instinctive brilliance. -
Are we (under Foster) still doing the passive defence and trying to score off turnover transitions strategy from the Hansen era? Sounds like it from the Scott McLeod complaints? I've not really been watching.
How we ever got coaching transition at end of 2019 with that proven failed strategy is beyond my comprehension.
The way the team journeyed from 2017 Lions 1st Test to RWC 2019 just absolutely blows my mind. What a waste of what was still the end of a good generation with an absolute wealth of experience. Lost all belief that Hansen was maybe ever a good coach after that failure of vision and implementation. How could they possibly want transition from that steaming pile of outdated crap?
But, this takes me to a general point that would also answer this question by VM (below). I'd want a coach that has a strategy that puts the chance of the result in our own hands, rather than the outcome being dictated by whether the opponents are liable to be keystone-cops somewhere in midfield.
A coach that has a proactive, rather than reactive, vision of how the game should be played. Will put the team in a way better position than a disguisedly failing Hansen team and 100% better position than a Foster team with a similar ethos but zero buy in by the players, fans, journos etc.
For the all consuming RWC cycle focus. Scraping to tight wins, losing some, is actually better prep than thrashing everyone for 4 years with a 90% win record. Occasionally losing, but then comforting ourselves with the fetish of THE BACKLASH. That sort of fetishising gets us a fantastic record in 3rd/4th playoffs.
Need a team and coaching strategy that can attempt to control our own destiny over 3 consecutive matches against near-peer opposition. Get that, and that would be something I would buy into.
The top 8 of world rugby is quite strong these days, and this looks to be a near permanent thing. Gone are the days of hoping our 'bad day' in the RWC playoff run happens to be against a team like a 199/2003 level Scotland or Wales etc.
Need a coaching team that understand consistency of performance. Not excitement on-a-good-day and even more exciting backlashes after it has gone wrong.
@Victor-Meldrew said in Foster must go:
Genuine question. If Foster is replaced - and I think he should be - and the new coach drops more than one game in the TRC and/or loses a game on the EOYT (more than possible the way England, Wales & Scotland are playing at the moment), he will have done no better, or possibly worse, than Foster in 2021.
What do we do then? Do we sack the new coach and look for another to turn things around in time for Sept 2023?
-
@Crucial I think examples like that and last week not taking points on offer while we were still in the game is showing Cane is struggling with things too, whether he isn't buying the game plan or is totally misreading the game situation and this teams limitations...?
-
@Rancid-Schnitzel said in Foster must go:
Tbh I don't think a massive amount is required to get them back on track. The players are there and when they have nothing to lose, start playing direct and let rip you can see the other teams start getting sqeaky bum time. But that's usually after an inept, bumbling and headless first 40 that's already put them 20 odd points behind. Tactically the ABs have been a mess since even 2016. It's simply arrogance and hubris that can't be papered over by individual brilliance anymore. Same thing with teams tiring. They simply don't hit wall like they used to. If anything we hit the wall after the necessary early 2nd half fightback required to arrest a 20 point deficit. I see all the major teams at least looking like they have a plan and at least playing with some kind of depth and enterprise. I don't know wtf the ABs are doing and I'm not sure the players do either. Just get in someone, anyone who is prepared to fůcking evolve and acknowledge it isn't farking 2015 anymore.
100%, while I think those that appointed Foster should be held accountable, I don't think NZR is this completely rotten institution all of a sudden. Yeah they're not perfect, which is what led to Foster's appointment, but a good coach for the ABs will go a very long way to solving our problems here.
Foster's teams all play the same way - no real structure, just helter skelter bullshit that relies more on individual brilliance than a gameplan that breaks the opposition down. This was exactly how his Chiefs played, and is exactly how the ABs are playing now.
If we can install a coach that can work with his assistants implement a coherent gameplan our players performances will improve 10 fold.
Head coach is not an easy job, which is why so many crash and burn in the role, and that's why it's so important that we only ever appointment people that have a strong record of success in the position beforehand. Foster had none of that.
-
@taniwharugby In Cane's defence he did opt for an early shot at goal to get some points on the board, which JB missed. And then there was the poor throw from Taylor from the attacking lineout.
I tend to think that the players fall back on what they know best when in trouble, so the aimless kicking etc is on them.
-
@Rapido said in Foster must go:
Are we (under Foster) still doing the passive defence and trying to score off turnover transitions strategy from the Hansen era? Sounds like it from the Scott McLeod complaints? I've not really been watching.
How we ever got coaching transition at end of 2019 with that proven failed strategy is beyond my comprehension.
The way the team journeyed from 2017 Lions 1st Test to RWC 2019 just absolutely blows my mind. What a waste of what was still the end of a good generation with an absolute wealth of experience. Lost all belief that Hansen was maybe ever a good coach after that failure of vision and implementation. How could they possibly want transition from that steaming pile of outdated crap?
But, this takes me to a general point that would also answer this question by VM (below). I'd want a coach that has a strategy that puts the chance of the result in our own hands, rather than the outcome being dictated by whether the opponents are liable to be keystone-cops somewhere in midfield.
As well as other teams adjusting to the 'no mistakes/direct play' systems we have seen the SA 'kick,kick,kick' which, while effective for a game or two is more easily adjusted to.
There is also the factor of law interpretations. Turnovers like we used to get don't exist much anymore. Teams dont allow them and if you get isolated you hang on and give away a penalty rather than try and avoid the whistle and instead have to deal with a counter. If you don't play too much in your own half a penalty from a turnover isn't too much of a problem and you can at least reset the defence.
The NH refs are also much more lenient on not supporting bodyweight at a ruck (which will be a real problem once we have a generation come through on the new under age rules that say hands must be under a stable body) and interpretations of players standing in rucks being allowed to play the halfback.
Basically, not only have we not adjusted to the adjustments other teams have made we have failed to keep in touch with how the NH want the game. They were on the back foot for years as WR brought into the game being 'more attractive' and now we are getting backlash from that. -
@Bovidae he's struggling with his own game too, including defence which points to something not being right, either with him or other aspects too.
-
@taniwharugby said in Foster must go:
@Bovidae he's struggling with his own game too, including defence which points to something not being right, either with him or other aspects too.
We all know that rugby works best played as an ultimate 'team game'. A group of different skills and sizes with clear roles to play and tasks to complete. If those roles and tasks aren't clear or someone isn't doing there's well, it impacts everyone.
This is why rugby union has for a long time been the sport of choice for armed forces in many parts of the world. The lessons of teamwork and roles, and following instructions are showcased and explored. -
-
@Victor-Meldrew said in Foster must go:
@Chester-Draws said in Foster must go:
It turns out that that pretty much everything hung on the coaching. Everything else was fine when he was good.
Sorry, but I think that's way too simplistic and assumes quality of cattle, player development, quality of opposition, the quality of the people choosing and supporting the coach and the processes around managing the game have no impact on the results.
Sure, a good coach is essential and can get the best out of what he's been given, but he can't fix the structural issues in his union.
At Super level and AB level the quality of players doesn't go up and down so much. (At club and school, of course, it is different). In this particular case, I would argue that our recent extremely poor form is not a lack of players.
Of course the decision to choose the right coach requires good choices. But does that really rely on good structure? I've seen good structures ruined by bad people, and good people work well enough in bad structures (which they then fix, often as not). Generally the people are overwhelmingly important, not how the the chairs are arranged.
And a good coach can sort out structure, if sufficiently powerful. Rennie definitely did it. I believe Henry did it.
Again and again we see average teams transformed by a change of coach. I am I really expected to believe that a backroom change happened in Queensland just as Ewen McKenzie came in? The Blues and Warriors made all sorts of background changes, yet it was the one when MacDonald was selected that was the magic one? Or maybe the changes made no difference, and the coach did.
Edit: Waikato placed higher than Canterbury in last year's NPC. Are you willing to argue that Canterbury must therefore have a structure as bad as one of the most inept organisations on the planet, the WRU?
