Foster, Robertson etc
-
@WillieTheWaiter said in Foster:
I think with the backing Foster has got from the players publicly over the last few weeks (I know what do they know, they not posting in here lol), even if there is genuine thoughts of replacing him isn't there a chance of alienating the players?
this is the issue - fozzie seems immensely popular with the players and it's a big part of why he got picked and why he's still around.
They need to scrap that thinking and take a ruthless results focused approach.
I'm hoping all that result did was allow fozzie back into the country without a lynch mob being there waiting for him at the airport.And I think it’s a bit different for a national team than say a SR franchise where players are directly contracted to the franchise. The All Blacks are selected and so can easily be replaced (putting to side the quality argument) if they feel alienated.
No doubt there is a human element to this from the players. Many of them will be feeling the heat because along with Foster they were in those losses, so in a team environment they will be looking for ways to galvanise rather than fracture further.
-
@Crucial Possibly my view is one dimensional and yours and others are more nuanced. But the bottom line is the score board which, despite what the players or past players or coaches or Foster have to say, shows failure. Sometimes what is obvious and in front of our faces is more real than what a thousand words can say.
So if bottom line is scoreboard and we had played weaker teams than we did and won does that make things OK?
Fact (not excuse) is that we have had to adjust quickly at a time where we have had to play three teams that are on a high, two of which aren't usually that good and play them all at their home grounds as well. All at a time when we are looking for new players that can play the type of game that will beat them. Were we (Foster) smart enough to see them coming? Nope. But the key is making those adjustments and coming out on top. -
Why would you remove a coach that won against the current World Champions at Ellis Park?
-
@Crucial Possibly my view is one dimensional and yours and others are more nuanced. But the bottom line is the score board which, despite what the players or past players or coaches or Foster have to say, shows failure. Sometimes what is obvious and in front of our faces is more real than what a thousand words can say.
So if bottom line is scoreboard and we had played weaker teams than we did and won does that make things OK?
Fact (not excuse) is that we have had to adjust quickly at a time where we have had to play three teams that are on a high, two of which aren't usually that good and play them all at their home grounds as well. All at a time when we are looking for new players that can play the type of game that will beat them. Were we (Foster) smart enough to see them coming? Nope. But the key is making those adjustments and coming out on top.That’s opinion right there….
-
@ACT-Crusader said in Foster:
@Crucial Possibly my view is one dimensional and yours and others are more nuanced. But the bottom line is the score board which, despite what the players or past players or coaches or Foster have to say, shows failure. Sometimes what is obvious and in front of our faces is more real than what a thousand words can say.
So if bottom line is scoreboard and we had played weaker teams than we did and won does that make things OK?
Fact (not excuse) is that we have had to adjust quickly at a time where we have had to play three teams that are on a high, two of which aren't usually that good and play them all at their home grounds as well. All at a time when we are looking for new players that can play the type of game that will beat them. Were we (Foster) smart enough to see them coming? Nope. But the key is making those adjustments and coming out on top.That’s opinion right there….
So Ireland aren't playing the best they ever have? And France aren't on one of their highs among their lows?
-
@WillieTheWaiter said in Foster:
I think with the backing Foster has got from the players publicly over the last few weeks (I know what do they know, they not posting in here lol), even if there is genuine thoughts of replacing him isn't there a chance of alienating the players?
this is the issue - fozzie seems immensely popular with the players and it's a big part of why he got picked and why he's still around.
They need to scrap that thinking and take a ruthless results focused approach.
I'm hoping all that result did was allow fozzie back into the country without a lynch mob being there waiting for him at the airport.I would hope that NZ rugby public in general are intelligent enough to not even thinking words like lynch mob mate. All due respect to you and all, this is exactly the kind of thing that happened when Hart came home after WC exit to death threats etc written all over his luggage.
Not sure why anyone get's so upset. Dave Rennie is starting to cop shit in Aus as his results make Fosters look gold, but once again, the players etc seem to be in his corner.
There is some pretty shit stuff appearing about Bok coach too, Eddie Jones in England , it would seem we got some pretty shit coaches around world.ah yeh you obvs don't know me I'm certainly not suggesting there should be one - I totally agree with what you're saying. Fozzies a top man I'm just meaning there are plenty of dickheads out there as you would have seen and the vitriol he's been on the receiving end of is outrageous.. just hoping the win means he's facing less hatred when he gets back and if he gets shuffled on at least he's going out on a bit of a high..
-
But. Mark Robinson has also showed and is showing himself to be a poor executive. So, I have no idea what will happen. But I have little doubt if the can is kicked down the road, based on hope his new assistants can drag him upwards - rather than his proven body of work - we will probably just be back here in about December, and then if kicked further, again back here in abut about July.
got a work colleague who has a mate who works in a large venture capitalist firm in the UK.
He was telling him they had a big session set up in London where they were presenting an investment plan to Robinson - (had a few interesting ideas such as setting up was a structure where 'marquee' players would be loaned to teams around the world.. )
anyway, this session - full of some pretty senior execs with global involvement in multiple sports.. Robinson turned up 30 mins late and walked in wearing shorts and a t shirt..
he just seems to miss the mark as the leader of a supposed world leading sports organisation - I really feel like there needs to be some overseas experience brought into NZR from maybe another 'larger' sport to help grow the brand. I know that firm mentioned above were pretty scathing of the AB's social media game.. and you certainly wouldn't say their comms team isn't anything more than average..
Time to stop promoting from within and spread the net a bit wider -
About players backing Foster. Maybe that's because he's a nice guy and a good backs coach, and not necessarily about him being a good head coach? There may be aspects of his coaching that are really good in addition to the ones that are not good at all. Who knows? We don't know what the players are really thinking about this and won't know until their career is completely over.
I wonder what Robertson's relationship with Foster is like? Could they work together, for example, with Razor becoming head coach and Foster stepping back and going back to the assistant role? Like Tana at the Blues? I wonder whether both would agree to that?
-
@ACT-Crusader said in Foster:
@Crucial Possibly my view is one dimensional and yours and others are more nuanced. But the bottom line is the score board which, despite what the players or past players or coaches or Foster have to say, shows failure. Sometimes what is obvious and in front of our faces is more real than what a thousand words can say.
So if bottom line is scoreboard and we had played weaker teams than we did and won does that make things OK?
Fact (not excuse) is that we have had to adjust quickly at a time where we have had to play three teams that are on a high, two of which aren't usually that good and play them all at their home grounds as well. All at a time when we are looking for new players that can play the type of game that will beat them. Were we (Foster) smart enough to see them coming? Nope. But the key is making those adjustments and coming out on top.That’s opinion right there….
So Ireland aren't playing the best they ever have? And France aren't on one of their highs among their lows?
Both France and Ireland win games of rugby and have so over many years. That’s all that matters. And it would be folly for an AB team (coaches, players etc) to think otherwise when preparing for them.
-
@ACT-Crusader said in Foster:
@ACT-Crusader said in Foster:
@Crucial Possibly my view is one dimensional and yours and others are more nuanced. But the bottom line is the score board which, despite what the players or past players or coaches or Foster have to say, shows failure. Sometimes what is obvious and in front of our faces is more real than what a thousand words can say.
So if bottom line is scoreboard and we had played weaker teams than we did and won does that make things OK?
Fact (not excuse) is that we have had to adjust quickly at a time where we have had to play three teams that are on a high, two of which aren't usually that good and play them all at their home grounds as well. All at a time when we are looking for new players that can play the type of game that will beat them. Were we (Foster) smart enough to see them coming? Nope. But the key is making those adjustments and coming out on top.That’s opinion right there….
So Ireland aren't playing the best they ever have? And France aren't on one of their highs among their lows?
Both France and Ireland win games of rugby and have so over many years. That’s all that matters. And it would be folly for an AB team (coaches, players etc) to think otherwise when preparing for them.
That's not what I am saying and I think you understand that. No team is taken lightly just that the job is hand is more difficult to change when everyone in your calendar is on a high. Often we have only had one, sometimes two other teams to really worry about. The others we can take selection punts with.
-
@WillieTheWaiter I agree. Hate to say it but screw the players. Their feelings towards Foster are not important. Maybe the relationship is too cozy and a new coach would kick them out of their comfort zone. So they install a new coach will they spit out the dummy and refuse to play? They are professionals. If a change in coach is warranted they will need to adapt.
I thought the best time to move Foster on was after Ireland 3 and while I would never want the AB's to lose, a loss on Saturday would have at least lanced the boil. But the reality is that not only did they win, they won with character in a really pressured situation and the players went out of their way to strongly support Foster. That's made any decision on Foster's future a potential minefield.
The AB's aren't a group of rugby-playing drones or indentured servants you can dismiss as irrelevant when you want to make drastic changes to improve scoreboard results. They are the people at the sharp end who actually do the important scoring stuff on the field - not the coaches, not NZR and certainly not the media critics and commentators.
I think we all agree NZR has handled things badly and will likely kick the can down the road for a few more games in the hope things improve, but telling the best players in the country their views are irrelevant and they can simply bugger off isn't the way to improve on-field performance
-
So if bottom line is scoreboard and we had played weaker teams than we did and won does that make things OK?
Of cause not. That would be silly. We never judge our success based on playing Fiji Or Tonga.
Fact (not excuse) is that we have had to adjust quickly at a time where we have had to play three teams that are on a high, two of which aren't usually that good and play them all at their home grounds as well. All at a time when we are looking for new players that can play the type of game that will beat them. Were we (Foster) smart enough to see them coming? Nope. But the key is making those adjustments and coming out on top.
So he deserves credit for making an adjustment, later rather than sooner. Or was this forced on him. It begs the question why he did not understand the problem we were having with the pack three years ago or even more since he’s been involved with the ABs longer. That was the source of our problems. You agree that he was not smart enough so what is changed to say that he can lead us moving forward? One game?
Also what about his substitutions yesterday. I thought RM was having a pretty useful game and not sure why he had to bring on BB who could have lost the game for us. He subbed for Clark right and hard to tell but I assume Jordie went to wing? Perhaps it was a dual role but I still don’t understand it. Doubt it was because RM was fatigued so why change something that was working?
To a lesser extent, because it was late in the game, why was Rico subbed? He obviously looked pissed at the decision and rightly so. Why did not ST play every game of the Irish series? This is questioning his ability to coach and his decision making. Maybe there are reasons that this simpleton does not understand :-).
-
@WillieTheWaiter said in Foster:
But. Mark Robinson has also showed and is showing himself to be a poor executive. So, I have no idea what will happen. But I have little doubt if the can is kicked down the road, based on hope his new assistants can drag him upwards - rather than his proven body of work - we will probably just be back here in about December, and then if kicked further, again back here in abut about July.
got a work colleague who has a mate who works in a large venture capitalist firm in the UK.
He was telling him they had a big session set up in London where they were presenting an investment plan to Robinson - (had a few interesting ideas such as setting up was a structure where 'marquee' players would be loaned to teams around the world.. )
anyway, this session - full of some pretty senior execs with global involvement in multiple sports.. Robinson turned up 30 mins late and walked in wearing shorts and a t shirt..
he just seems to miss the mark as the leader of a supposed world leading sports organisation - I really feel like there needs to be some overseas experience brought into NZR from maybe another 'larger' sport to help grow the brand. I know that firm mentioned above were pretty scathing of the AB's social media game.. and you certainly wouldn't say their comms team isn't anything more than average..
Time to stop promoting from within and spread the net a bit widerYou got a colleague who has a mate who work in a large venture capitalist firm??
That is the best opening sentence for ignoring a post I have ever read lol.
Bit like my cousin who knows the the friend of the sister of Sam whitelock or someone???
-
@Stargazer said in Foster:
About players backing Foster. Maybe that's because he's a nice guy and a good backs coach, and not necessarily about him being a good head coach?
Surely the players are only ones that can tell you the reasons, and asking us in a forum is not really sensible. I think to get any answers we are better to listen to players and what they say, and not just try and make their words meet our thoughts?
I actually assume the players are saying what they think, as I have no reason to assume they are liars.
I have seen nothing to indicate that Razor would want to work with or without Foster, but suspect you may have to work through some egos etc to get there. (only a guess) -
So he deserves credit for making an adjustment, later rather than sooner. Or was this forced on him. It begs the question why he did not understand the problem we were having with the pack three years ago or even more since he’s been involved with the ABs longer. That was the source of our problems.
Maybe he did/does understand but, like other struggling coaches, was met whole raft of issues outside of his control: retirements from the AB team that existed when he first joined the coaching staff, injuries, talent not being nurtured (Akira), poor development planning (see 12/13). Another coach may have done better. Who knows?
You agree that he was not smart enough so what is changed to say that he can lead us moving forward? One game?
Some of the players he's developed are starting to come right (see Conrad Smith's comments) fresh eyes on the coaching team, players returning from injury. But I agree 100% with you that one game is not enough to show the corner has been turned. We'e been here before.
-
Also what about his substitutions yesterday. I thought RM was having a pretty useful game and not sure why he had to bring on BB who could have lost the game for us. He subbed for Clark right and hard to tell but I assume Jordie went to wing? Perhaps it was a dual role but I still don’t understand it. Doubt it was because RM was fatigued so why change something that was working?
To a lesser extent, because it was late in the game, why was Rico subbed? He obviously looked pissed at the decision and rightly so.I thought they did a fairly clever bit of subbing. Made a much better job of it than the Red Card debacle against Ireland.
When BB was YCd there was a tactical sub of Tupaea for Cane. Tupaea was strong enough to pack at blindside in the scrum and hold that side (I think Ardie went to open and Akira to 8 ) QT looked like he had practicised there in a contingency role.
This also meant that QT could use his fresh pace to cover the back and 'be everywhere'.
As soon as BB came back, someone else had to go and it was Rieko for Vai'i meaning QT could go full time into the backs and Scooter to 6 (which proved very effective)
Yes, it seemed odd that it was Rieko instead of Havili but at that stage I guess that the feeling was that we needed exit options not wings.BTW Mounga stayed on all game.
-
