Foster, Robertson etc
-
@KiwiMurph said in Foster must go / Assistant Coach changes:
@Victor-Meldrew said in Foster must go / Assistant Coach changes:
And I'd add that sacking the coaching staff without addressing those problems runs a real risk of making the situation actually worse.
I'm not sure how much worse it can get to be perfectly honest. That first half vs Ireland in test 3 is in the conversation for the worst half played by an All Black team in history.
If you are going to focus on one half of one game, then yes, I'd agree. (Personally the 2007 quarter final & RWC2019 semi was the worse I've seen)
But imagine if NZR went with public opinion & sacked a coach the players respected (which they certainly seem to) and that exacerbated the NZR/Player relationship problem Hansen talked about. Would that improve the team culture, execution of game plan, player availability etc or make it worse do you think?
And if the new coach managed, despite that, to gain the team's confidence, but didn't perform and he got sacked (like Foster) for poor results, then what?
-
@Victor-Meldrew said in Foster must go / Assistant Coach changes:
Personally the 2007 quarter final
That's interesting, the ABs were dominant in that game. It just the ref decided not to ref what was going on
-
@Machpants said in Foster must go / Assistant Coach changes:
@Victor-Meldrew said in Foster must go / Assistant Coach changes:
Personally the 2007 quarter final
That's interesting, the ABs were dominant in that game. It just the ref decided not to ref what was going on
We completely lost the plot in that game and had zero on-field management and ability to adapt. Some of the dumbest, brainless rugby an AB team has played IMO.
-
@KiwiMurph said in Foster must go / Assistant Coach changes:
That first half vs Ireland in test 3 is in the conversation for the worst half played by an All Black team in history.
yep, it was the first game I can recall bailing at half time (not including ones where we were up by 40 or so against tier 2 or 3 opposition) it was pitiful, it'd be what I'd expect if an NPC side played a full strength top tier rugby team, and I expect, hope the ABs have rewatched that game to see what everyone else has and learn from it and work to be better (well we know they want to, but hopefully they are given the tools to be better)
-
@stodders said in Foster must go / Assistant Coach changes:
@antipodean said in Foster must go / Assistant Coach changes:
@Chris-B said in Foster must go / Assistant Coach changes:
@mariner4life A random dude in ChCh might know because the Crusaders (and the Blues) would have to be looking for new coaches.
But, yeah - if Fozzie is a dead man they should have buried him and Joe be taking the team to SA.
If that's NZR's grand plan, then they're going to be in a bit of a bind when Fozzie starts winning everything with more competent assistants.
That's fine. That'll mean he leads the team to WC and sails off into the sunset. It will only become awkward if he misses the hints and reapplies for another term
Herein lies the conundrum; if he wins everything from now, why wouldn't you keep him in the job?
-
Clear-headed thinking? Sure! Let us start by keeping to one group of people, is this about posters on here or the media? Could you please stick to one?! For the record I read you as talking about posters here and I am not paid to defend or attack the media, so I won't. Well, not here.
That is not unpicking, that is avoiding the real question, on what criteria was his contract extended? What are the KPIs that he is apparently hitting? He selected his assistant coaches, if the NZR don't think 2 (or 3?) performed, how is that not a reflection on his judgement?
That's not the real question in the real world, not even remotely. You are looking into what happened in the past when we need to ask how we improve things going forward.
In the real world my wife certainly judges me on my past deeds and her expectation as to whether that will repeat in the future, and I suggest that is what people do. And Foster unequivocally promised things. It is also what they do in this wacky field called science, predict based on past examples. And it is not an either/or, I can certainly look at the past to judge how to improve things in the future. And call me a visionary genius but selecting and reselecting a coach with one of the worst win-loss records doesn't sound to most like the future.
The real question is would a new coach do any better and how long do we give him to prove himself & what happens if there's no improvement. What do we do then?
All questions are real. Whether they apply to reality is another question.
A better question, to my mind, which I thought you would ask, is, would changing the coach this close to the RWC be a good option?So, not losing 7 tests in 24 overall would be a start. So close to a 75% average after 2 years. Too difficult?
Which is what Foster pretty much achieved in his first 2 years before he was re-appointed.
Pretty much? For someone who wants clear criteria, this is not very clear.
Did Foster pass 75% or not? Is he clearing this level in the next 2 years?
"Pretty much" doesn't cut it. It hasn't been pretty and the strategy hasn't been much chop.What happens if the new bloke does the same? Sack him, after he loses 4/5 games like people want Foster sacked, or keep him until the end of his contract to give him a chance of hitting the 75% target?
Interesting. I gave several criteria, you are only choosing one then adding in your own. 4/5 games---I never stipulated that. Those goalposts are moving a lot, can you please stop shaking them?!
Here is an easier one: not losing a series at home to a country we never lost a series at home before could be another one. OUT!
Unworkable. If Foster had gone after the poor 2021 EOYT results and, say, Robertson had taken over and lost to Ireland in his first 2 tests in charge, Robertson would be sacked after 2 Tests and you'd have to get (yet) another coach in to do the 3rd Test.
Well I didn't say the new coach had to be found between test 2 and 3. But I am suggesting at the end of the series that could be a key option. And it is workable, my criteria. Because you are creating a hypothetical extreme situation then making it sound like I expect them to be replaced before the series finished. Reductio ad absurdum.
AND: Responsibility for assistant coach selection and performance. If you lose half your assistant coaching team, for example. OUT!
And by doing that you'd actually take away any responsibility for assistant coach selection and performance. If his assistants were not performing and he wanted to cut them loose to improve things, he'd have a disincentive to do that as he'd be given the sack for not keeping his assistants. Worse position than we are in now.
You are confusing him firing them with the NZR demanding they go.
We have no clear evidence that the first case happened.
I did say "lose" but I did not say he can't fire them.
Given his eulogies for them I find it hard to believe he wanted to let them go.
Shall I quote what he said about them again? -
@antipodean said in Foster must go / Assistant Coach changes:
Herein lies the conundrum; if he wins everything from now, why wouldn't you keep him in the job?
Yeah, and I might win Lotto. (I don't buy tickets, btw.)
Foster might win the RWC, but there's no chance we win everything up to that point.
He will likely have a good run for the next short while. Then, just when it looks like things are getting sorted, the ABs will turn to dogshit again. It's how he rolls.
-
@Chester-Draws said in Foster must go / Assistant Coach changes:
@antipodean said in Foster must go / Assistant Coach changes:
Herein lies the conundrum; if he wins everything from now, why wouldn't you keep him in the job?
Yeah, and I might win Lotto. (I don't buy tickets, btw.)
Foster might win the RWC, but there's no chance we win everything up to that point.
He will likely have a good run for the next short while. Then, just when it looks like things are getting sorted, the ABs will turn to dogshit again. It's how he rolls.
I gotta say the Chiefs fans said this at the time and they seem to be correct so far.
-
@Victor-Meldrew said in Foster must go / Assistant Coach changes:
@Machpants said in Foster must go / Assistant Coach changes:
@Victor-Meldrew said in Foster must go / Assistant Coach changes:
Personally the 2007 quarter final
That's interesting, the ABs were dominant in that game. It just the ref decided not to ref what was going on
We completely lost the plot in that game and had zero on-field management and ability to adapt. Some of the dumbest, brainless rugby an AB team has played IMO.
Ummmm....you're talking about the last 9 month?
-
@Billy-Tell said in Foster must go / Assistant Coach changes:
@Machpants said in Foster must go / Assistant Coach changes:
@nzzp said in Foster must go / Assistant Coach changes:
@Victor-Meldrew said in Foster must go / Assistant Coach changes:
When you unpick the "Foster must go" argument and ask how many Tests you'd give a Foster-replacement to improve things (like the win percentage) before he too gets sacked, things get a bit more vague and/or complicated for some reason. Really can't think why if the quality of the coach is a key problem.
You asked this on the other thread, and it's a great challenge.
The consensus was it's not just the losing, but the way we're losing. We seem miles behind other nations, particularly England France Ireland in our attacking and defensive patterns. Our players no longer seem to be better than the opposition at the core skills and vision.
So, a better record, and/or visible improvements in the way we play.
If Foster had the team playing well and we lost to a better side, most folk would accept that as steps on the journey. Right now we're seeing players seem to get worse in the AB environment; muddled thinking, poor skills, woeful kicking, lack of clarity of action and gameplan, and slow speed of thought.
Joe Rocks, translated from French interview
Moreover, the attack game is not varied enough and faced with these increasingly better-organised defences, these movements, which worked until now, no longer work
There's not any innovation, that's totally on the coach. We lose cos the team is based on X factor and individual brilliance, and is not enough. We actually need to work for victory. The excellent Nick Bishop has any analysis on Rugby Pass about the midfield, and the crap we see now. Let's play a fullback and a wing in the midfield, cos X factor, yeah that'll work. And that's just one area of muddled X factor thinking of many.
Until foster is gone, the ABs are in a tactics free fall.
For the last six years, New Zealand have increasingly reached towards ‘X-factor’, rather than players steeped in the technical and physical demands of play at numbers 10, 12 and 13
Interesting that he is one of the few press that agree with the majority opinion here, is not just foster, but late Hansen as well
In fairness a good number of people on this forum wanted rieko at 13. We don’t have a lot of other options TBH with the injuries to ALB and JG. I’m going to wait & see how the next 2 tests go.
That is fair and it is based on a couple of things (a) the potentially massive upside of him developing into a world class centre - has physical gifts no player in world rugby can match (and for that reason, I reckon the ABs are not the only team who would play him in the 13 if given the chance), and (b) the realisation that our game relies almost entirely on individual brilliance and the natural conclusion from this that we need our individually brilliant players to get their hands on the ball as many times as possible in any given match in order to win (hence Ardie at 8, Beauden at 10 etc).
If we had a settled, well-functioning midfield combination (e.g. JG and ALB) and any semblance of a game plan most people would have accepted I think that RI should be left to play on the wing, with the possibility of moving into the midfield late on in games as the loosen up.
-
@Victor-Meldrew said in Foster must go / Assistant Coach changes:
@nzzp said in Foster must go / Assistant Coach changes:
@Victor-Meldrew said in Foster must go / Assistant Coach changes:
When you unpick the "Foster must go" argument and ask how many Tests you'd give a Foster-replacement to improve things (like the win percentage) before he too gets sacked, things get a bit more vague and/or complicated for some reason. Really can't think why if the quality of the coach is a key problem.
You asked this on the other thread, and it's a great challenge.
The consensus was it's not just the losing, but the way we're losing. We seem miles behind other nations, particularly England France Ireland in our attacking and defensive patterns. Our players no longer seem to be better than the opposition at the core skills and vision.
So, a better record, and/or visible improvements in the way we play.
If Foster had the team playing well and we lost to a better side, most folk would accept that as steps on the journey. Right now we're seeing players seem to get worse in the AB environment; muddled thinking, poor skills, woeful kicking, lack of clarity of action and gameplan, and slow speed of thought.
I agree 100%. Just think that a lot of those problems run deeper than just the coaching staff and they need addressing with equal or greater priority. And I'd add that sacking the coaching staff without addressing those problems runs a real risk of making the situation actually worse.
Perhaps Hansen was on the money or not with his comments on NZR, but he raised some good points
Many of those problems you have identified and which definitely do need fixing are long term problems, though - such as the deterioration of our overall skill levels and general talent, especially within the tight 5. These are all issued which took a long time to manifest themselves, at least in any seriously problematic way, and they will take a long time to fix - some of them will only be fixed in the next 5 years or so as new generations of talent come through.
Keeping or changing the AB will coach will not fix these issues, at least not in any significant way. However, changing the AB coach could fix the problem of us playing an out of date game plan, which relies on skills and talent we simply don't have anymore.
-
@junior yeah I disagree. We don't see these same issues in high intensity SR games. The players have the skills (look at the difference between Jordan in black vs Jordan in red and black). It's got to come down to AB training, game plan and implementation for mine.
-
@junior said in Foster must go / Assistant Coach changes:
@Billy-Tell said in Foster must go / Assistant Coach changes:
@Machpants said in Foster must go / Assistant Coach changes:
@nzzp said in Foster must go / Assistant Coach changes:
@Victor-Meldrew said in Foster must go / Assistant Coach changes:
When you unpick the "Foster must go" argument and ask how many Tests you'd give a Foster-replacement to improve things (like the win percentage) before he too gets sacked, things get a bit more vague and/or complicated for some reason. Really can't think why if the quality of the coach is a key problem.
You asked this on the other thread, and it's a great challenge.
The consensus was it's not just the losing, but the way we're losing. We seem miles behind other nations, particularly England France Ireland in our attacking and defensive patterns. Our players no longer seem to be better than the opposition at the core skills and vision.
So, a better record, and/or visible improvements in the way we play.
If Foster had the team playing well and we lost to a better side, most folk would accept that as steps on the journey. Right now we're seeing players seem to get worse in the AB environment; muddled thinking, poor skills, woeful kicking, lack of clarity of action and gameplan, and slow speed of thought.
Joe Rocks, translated from French interview
Moreover, the attack game is not varied enough and faced with these increasingly better-organised defences, these movements, which worked until now, no longer work
There's not any innovation, that's totally on the coach. We lose cos the team is based on X factor and individual brilliance, and is not enough. We actually need to work for victory. The excellent Nick Bishop has any analysis on Rugby Pass about the midfield, and the crap we see now. Let's play a fullback and a wing in the midfield, cos X factor, yeah that'll work. And that's just one area of muddled X factor thinking of many.
Until foster is gone, the ABs are in a tactics free fall.
For the last six years, New Zealand have increasingly reached towards ‘X-factor’, rather than players steeped in the technical and physical demands of play at numbers 10, 12 and 13
Interesting that he is one of the few press that agree with the majority opinion here, is not just foster, but late Hansen as well
In fairness a good number of people on this forum wanted rieko at 13. We don’t have a lot of other options TBH with the injuries to ALB and JG. I’m going to wait & see how the next 2 tests go.
That is fair and it is based on a couple of things (a) the potentially massive upside of him developing into a world class centre - has physical gifts no player in world rugby can match (and for that reason, I reckon the ABs are not the only team who would play him in the 13 if given the chance), and (b) the realisation that our game relies almost entirely on individual brilliance and the natural conclusion from this that we need our individually brilliant players to get their hands on the ball as many times as possible in any given match in order to win (hence Ardie at 8, Beauden at 10 etc).
If we had a settled, well-functioning midfield combination (e.g. JG and ALB) and any semblance of a game plan most people would have accepted I think that RI should be left to play on the wing, with the possibility of moving into the midfield late on in games as the loosen up.
I actually think that if we had a functioning attack pattern in the ABs am we’d be seeing a lot more benefit from Rieko at 13. The potential to create mismatches in the midfield is there if we design structures to get it to happen.
Or we could use the midfield bomb after three phases…
-
@Victor-Meldrew said in Foster must go / Assistant Coach changes:
@Machpants said in Foster must go / Assistant Coach changes:
@Victor-Meldrew said in Foster must go / Assistant Coach changes:
Personally the 2007 quarter final
That's interesting, the ABs were dominant in that game. It just the ref decided not to ref what was going on
We completely lost the plot in that game and had zero on-field management and ability to adapt. Some of the dumbest, brainless rugby an AB team has played IMO.
We actually played quite smart, I thought, in the period after the yellow card - got the ball in the right area of the field, dominated possession, went forward up the guts with our forwards, soaked up the clock, and managed to bag a 5-pointer. The really dumb thing was that we didn't then get away from that when we went back up to 15 on the pitch and the French and barnes just started ignoring the breakdown rules, which meant the up the guts strategy became less effective.
-
This post is deleted!
-
@KiwiMurph said in Foster must go / Assistant Coach changes:
@mariner4life said in Foster must go / Assistant Coach changes:
I don't think Ian Foster is doing a good job as the head coach. But, i also believe our player development in NZ has stalled over the past few years. Maybe not helped by spending all the time playing ourselves, or the Aussies who have their own issues. The best players in the country are in the squad. But some of them are not good enough.
Other than Samisoni who are the tight forwards who have come through in the last 5 years for the ABs?
Other than Samisoni those that have come through don't exactly scream 'future world xv contender'. They are placeholders.
and ST doesn't get nearly enough game time.
That's the big issue.
I'm more hopeful for the next 5 years looking at the pipeline but there's going to continue to be a suffering in between.
It will be interesting to see if Jason Ryan can help some of these guys lift their performances in the meantime.
Whilst I haven’t been a big fan, I thought Ta’avao was starting to look like a test prop in the last year or so (minus a very unfortunate red card incident). His work rate had improved, he looked in better shape and it was now just a matter of opportunity.
-
@Bones said in Foster must go / Assistant Coach changes:
@junior yeah I disagree. We don't see these same issues in high intensity SR games. The players have the skills (look at the difference between Jordan in black vs Jordan in red and black). It's got to come down to AB training, game plan and implementation for mine.
Fair point - it could be a combination of the training, game plan etc, as well as the inability of these players to execute the same skills at a higher level due to the relative lack of time to execute. Havili is probably a good example here - looks a million dollars with his passing and kicking at Super Rugby, but looks like he's moving in slow motion trying to execute the same skills at test level simply because everything else is moving that much faster and he's not.
-
@gt12 said in Foster must go / Assistant Coach changes:
@junior said in Foster must go / Assistant Coach changes:
@Billy-Tell said in Foster must go / Assistant Coach changes:
@Machpants said in Foster must go / Assistant Coach changes:
@nzzp said in Foster must go / Assistant Coach changes:
@Victor-Meldrew said in Foster must go / Assistant Coach changes:
When you unpick the "Foster must go" argument and ask how many Tests you'd give a Foster-replacement to improve things (like the win percentage) before he too gets sacked, things get a bit more vague and/or complicated for some reason. Really can't think why if the quality of the coach is a key problem.
You asked this on the other thread, and it's a great challenge.
The consensus was it's not just the losing, but the way we're losing. We seem miles behind other nations, particularly England France Ireland in our attacking and defensive patterns. Our players no longer seem to be better than the opposition at the core skills and vision.
So, a better record, and/or visible improvements in the way we play.
If Foster had the team playing well and we lost to a better side, most folk would accept that as steps on the journey. Right now we're seeing players seem to get worse in the AB environment; muddled thinking, poor skills, woeful kicking, lack of clarity of action and gameplan, and slow speed of thought.
Joe Rocks, translated from French interview
Moreover, the attack game is not varied enough and faced with these increasingly better-organised defences, these movements, which worked until now, no longer work
There's not any innovation, that's totally on the coach. We lose cos the team is based on X factor and individual brilliance, and is not enough. We actually need to work for victory. The excellent Nick Bishop has any analysis on Rugby Pass about the midfield, and the crap we see now. Let's play a fullback and a wing in the midfield, cos X factor, yeah that'll work. And that's just one area of muddled X factor thinking of many.
Until foster is gone, the ABs are in a tactics free fall.
For the last six years, New Zealand have increasingly reached towards ‘X-factor’, rather than players steeped in the technical and physical demands of play at numbers 10, 12 and 13
Interesting that he is one of the few press that agree with the majority opinion here, is not just foster, but late Hansen as well
In fairness a good number of people on this forum wanted rieko at 13. We don’t have a lot of other options TBH with the injuries to ALB and JG. I’m going to wait & see how the next 2 tests go.
That is fair and it is based on a couple of things (a) the potentially massive upside of him developing into a world class centre - has physical gifts no player in world rugby can match (and for that reason, I reckon the ABs are not the only team who would play him in the 13 if given the chance), and (b) the realisation that our game relies almost entirely on individual brilliance and the natural conclusion from this that we need our individually brilliant players to get their hands on the ball as many times as possible in any given match in order to win (hence Ardie at 8, Beauden at 10 etc).
If we had a settled, well-functioning midfield combination (e.g. JG and ALB) and any semblance of a game plan most people would have accepted I think that RI should be left to play on the wing, with the possibility of moving into the midfield late on in games as the loosen up.
I actually think that if we had a functioning attack pattern in the ABs am we’d be seeing a lot more benefit from Rieko at 13. The potential to create mismatches in the midfield is there if we design structures to get it to happen.
Or we could use the midfield bomb after three phases…
Yeah, I mean standing flat on attack is not really the ideal way to give a guy with lighting pace the opportunity to regularly get on the outside of his man - it generally helps to have a bit of a run up to do this.
-
@nzzp said in Foster must go / Assistant Coach changes:
@Victor-Meldrew said in Foster must go / Assistant Coach changes:
When you unpick the "Foster must go" argument and ask how many Tests you'd give a Foster-replacement to improve things (like the win percentage) before he too gets sacked, things get a bit more vague and/or complicated for some reason. Really can't think why if the quality of the coach is a key problem.
You asked this on the other thread, and it's a great challenge.
The consensus was it's not just the losing, but the way we're losing. We seem miles behind other nations, particularly England France Ireland in our attacking and defensive patterns. Our players no longer seem to be better than the opposition at the core skills and vision.
So, a better record, and/or visible improvements in the way we play.
If Foster had the team playing well and we lost to a better side, most folk would accept that as steps on the journey. Right now we're seeing players seem to get worse in the AB environment; muddled thinking, poor skills, woeful kicking, lack of clarity of action and gameplan, and slow speed of thought.
Great post.
NZR were so quick to fire Mitchell and Deans who went through a clean sweep of the Tri-Nations, put 50 points on SA and Australia away. Won the Bledisloe and then lost one game, the semi and were fired. I think it was the only second game they lost that season. I think the All Blacks will be stronger for the changes but a 0-2 loss might be what the All Blacks really need.
-
@Victor-Meldrew said in Foster must go / Assistant Coach changes:
@Frank said in Foster must go / Assistant Coach changes:
Foster is a problem and Razor would be a better coach. I am not sure why you are doubting this.
I admire your absolute certainty, I really do. He's a great coach at SR level, but think about where we'd be if Robertson repeats his U20 record with the AB's. In an ideal world he'd have taken an Assistant role so he could ease himself in but he turned that down saying it was head-honcho or nothing. You can say he didn't want to work under a clown, but the optics are poor.
Fair enough. But ceteris paribus, we gotta go with the best coach we can find first to see if that has a major influence. As for testing that coach, we would want to see an improvement in coherency, playing style, and yes results.
I don't see the ABs as a "suck it and see", experimental test-tube environment - we have to do better than that.
Robertson has had success as a head coach. Foster has not. Rather than think about where we'd be if Robertson replicates U20, think about where we are with Foster replicating the Chiefs.
There are two approaches for filling jobs: one is promoting from within, and one is recruiting from without - why do you think only promoting from within is valid? Appointing an un-proven as a head coach guy to a head coach role is just as much suck it and see: we've seen it, and it sucks.
