Foster, Robertson etc
-
@Victor-Meldrew You could have posted that earlier and saved me wading through 350 posts to catch up on this thread.
A thread I had avoided as I assumed it would be same same.
It was.
-
@Victor-Meldrew yeah Schmidt had signalled his intentions to step away from Ireland and coaching for a period post 2019 didn't he, but I believe Fozzie still approached him, Brown and maybe another to form his team.
-
@taniwharugby said in Foster:
@Victor-Meldrew yeah Schmidt had signalled his intentions to step away from Ireland and coaching for a period post 2019 didn't he, but I believe Fozzie still approached him, Brown and maybe another to form his team.
Yep and I believe NZR did too, well according to Hansen.
-
@Rapido I wasn't in favour of Fozzies appointment, but given NZR's mismanagement think the outcome is the best, pragmatic result.
However without wanting to denigrate Razor's achievements or up Fosters this is the Chiefs team that made the 2009 Final
CHIEFS:
FB 15 Mils Muliaina
RW 14 Lelia Masaga
CT 13 Richard Kahui
SF 12 Callum Bruce
LW 11 Dwayne Sweeney
FF 10 Stephen Donald
HB 9 Toby Morland
N8 8 Sione Lauaki
OF 7 Tanerau Latimer
BF 6 Liam Messam
RL 5 Kevin O'Neill
LL 4 Craig Clarke
TP 3 James McGougan
HK 2 Aled de Malmanche
LP 1 Sona Taumalolo
Substitutions:
HK 16 Hika Elliot
LP 17 Joe Savage
RL 18 Toby Lynn
LF 19 Serge Lilo
HB 20 David Bason
FF 21 Mike Delany
RW 22 Sosene AnesiYou could argue he did bloody well to even get them there. Not a shite squad but not the cattle Robertson's had to work with either. The 2009 Bulls were also on a different level to any of the sides Sharky's Crusaders have faced.
-
You could argue he did bloody well to even get them there. Not a shite squad but not the cattle Robertson's had to work with either. The 2009 Bulls were also on a different level to any of the sides Sharky's Crusaders have faced.
Yeah, this is where my BOP Mafia streak will come out, and undermine any of my serious points .....
Gotta ask why that squad was so weak. The Chiefs didn't appear to be treated as a serious team of the best talent in the franchise (with drafts to strengthen). It was team that divided rather than united it's franchise support base. A tool to drive playing and coaching talent away from their franchsie partners to retain Waikato's hegemony in their pond rather than Chiefs supremecy in their hemisphere. After 5 years of that treatment it looked like that 2009 squad ...
That old franchise ownership model with the NPC base being major shareholder, or whatever it was. You could say these guys were change makerss. They catalysed the change in franchise ownership, by being so cynically & myopically bad at seeing the greater good.
What was Foster's role in that, assuming the main culprit was the Waikato & Chiefs dual CEO, who I can't remember his name.
Anyway. It all seems so familiar. A fanbase divided. A CEO despised, a coach above his level & not even close to being the best coach in his catchment. Only thing missing is the Glen Jackson's, Colin Bourke's, Vern Cotter's and Joe Schmidt going overseas to gleeful cackles of the CEO as he weaken his near-enemy/partners. Only corresponding modern example would be Laumapae?
-
-
To wind myself back from the conspiracy theory stuff ...
I my time being a rugby fan (since 1982). The succesful All Black coaches were the boring picks. The ones who were also absolutely dominant at NPC (and/or Super 12) level.
Alex Wylie
John Hart
Graham Henry
??? Scott Robertson ???The outliers were Steve Hansen & Brian Lochore.
Hansen - Based on so little head coach experience, but he was assistants at big and successful teams (All Blacks, Canterbury, Crusaders). We had out doubts on here. But, turned out good.
I guess the successful 'funky' pick based on head coaching experience was Brian Lochore. Based on getting huge results from limited talent. But, that isn't really the job description for an All Black coach. That should get you good attention from Scotland or Italy.
Mitchell, Mains - their eras were fun. But ..... based on too short a history, flashes in pan, not dominance, not base don years of winning games they were expected to win.
Smith. Wasn't fun. He found his niche eventually.
Rope, and someone earlier (Watson). I'm too young then to comment. But Rope's teams were quite dominant in 83 , actually 84 away to Aus was a bit ropey (ha, ha, no pun intended). I have no idea of their provincial records or even what provinces they were from.
-
You could argue he did bloody well to even get them there. Not a shite squad but not the cattle Robertson's had to work with either. The 2009 Bulls were also on a different level to any of the sides Sharky's Crusaders have faced.
Yeah, this is where my BOP Mafia streak will come out, and undermine any of my serious points .....
Gotta ask why that squad was so weak. The Chiefs didn't appear to be treated as a serious team of the best talent in the franchise (with drafts to strengthen). It was team that divided rather than united it's franchise support base. A tool to drive playing and coaching talent away from their franchsie partners to retain Waikato's hegemony in their pond rather than Chiefs supremecy in their hemisphere. After 5 years of that treatment it looked like that 2009 squad ...
The old franchise ownership model with the NC base being major shareholder, or whatever it was.
What was Foster's role in that, assuming the main culprit was the Waikato & Cheifs dual CEO, who I can't remember his name.
Anyway. It all seems so familiar. A fanbase divided. A CEO despised, a coach above his level & not the close to the best coach in his catchment. Only thing missing is the Glen Jackson's, Colin Bourke's, Vern Cotter's and Joe Schmidt going overseas to gleeful cackles of the CEO. Only corresponding modern example would be Laumapae?
That was the Super Rugby environment and thinking of the time though. It was thought that the big advantage the Crusaders held was basically that they were a one province team that supplemented their gaps with outside poaches.
Other teams tried to follow what they thought was a blueprint. Auckland ignored NH, Northland (and for a while CM) as much as they could. Wellington the same with HB, Poo and Naki.
I'm not condoning it at all but pointing out the context of the thinking of the time where players were 'encouraged' to move to the franchise owning province or have a more difficult selection path. When combined with an NPC that became not only lopsided to franchise unions but kept some provinces down by not allowing them to keep their players the whole place was a shitshow.
BOP were probably one of the more obviously affected provinces but CM, HB, NH were all victims as well.
Not necessarily a Foster thing. -
@chchfanatic said in Foster:
@Tim he definitely wanted the job. And was offered it last week. Then shafted this week.
I hope these fuckers don't scare a good one away. I think they hoped Fozz lost in Joburg and when he didn't they dithered and decided to keep him on
-
@Machpants said in Foster:
@chchfanatic said in Foster:
@Crucial yes your answer is exactly right.
So not shafted, just not eventuated. That, at least, is good management. No use firing Foster if there is no one to take over. And if he didn't get the offer, just a sounding, then no foul. Obviously NZR and Board are a bunch of rugby hating buffoons, by deciding one good game (plus 2 good quarters) out of 7 is a good thing, but at least in this case it was good management.
Good management 2.0 would be to leave Razor in little doubt he is next can off the rank, win lose or draw post RWC23. It will be a minor miracle of we win, and not something to build a foundation for the next 4 years on
-
@Machpants said in Foster:
@chchfanatic said in Foster:
@Crucial yes your answer is exactly right.
So not shafted, just not eventuated. That, at least, is good management. No use firing Foster if there is no one to take over. And if he didn't get the offer, just a sounding, then no foul. Obviously NZR and Board are a bunch of rugby hating buffoons, by deciding one good game (plus 2 good quarters) out of 7 is a good thing, but at least in this case it was good management.
Good management 2.0 would be to leave Razor in little doubt he is next can off the rank, win lose or draw post RWC23. It will be a minor miracle of we win, and not something to build a foundation for the next 4 years on
lol this take fucking cracks me up
yes, you won the biggest prize in our game, but you are shit so fuck off. Only AB fans man...
-
@mariner4life if he guided us to the win, you'd think he wouldnt be keen for another tilt anyway, but in his head he'd be like this on the way out to NZR & most of NZ
-
@mariner4life said in Foster:
@Machpants said in Foster:
@chchfanatic said in Foster:
@Crucial yes your answer is exactly right.
So not shafted, just not eventuated. That, at least, is good management. No use firing Foster if there is no one to take over. And if he didn't get the offer, just a sounding, then no foul. Obviously NZR and Board are a bunch of rugby hating buffoons, by deciding one good game (plus 2 good quarters) out of 7 is a good thing, but at least in this case it was good management.
Good management 2.0 would be to leave Razor in little doubt he is next can off the rank, win lose or draw post RWC23. It will be a minor miracle of we win, and not something to build a foundation for the next 4 years on
lol this take fucking cracks me up
yes, you won the biggest prize in our game, but you are shit so fuck off. Only AB fans man...
Bet the house on it man... đ¸đ¸đ¸ But yeah it sounds funny when you read it back
-
@Bones I thought that was Foster being really kind to Robinson who has been the main guy fucking things up at head office. I think Foster is a good guy and deeply cares about his players and peers, just don't rate him on the coaching side of things so much. I'd much rather interpret it as genuine than contrived or staged.
Maybe it was Foster reminding Robinson who the boss is... now that his job is secure of course!
-
@Victor-Meldrew said in Foster:
Pretty Happy that Schmidt and Ryan will have a big influence going forward. At least they can see from the outside how shit it has been and make changes. The key is Foster listening and letting them make the necesarry changes.
Schmidt's involvement is Foster's idea. He's been trying to bring him on board for two years.
@Victor-Meldrew Because he understands his limitations or because he is a great eye for talent?
-
@Victor-Meldrew said in Foster:
@nostrildamus said in Foster:
I just think it could have been managed better, especially given Robinson called Foster his good friend earlier and the chair gave his "absolute backing and support" to both in the same sentence.
âI want to absolutely emphasise going forward that both Ian as head coach and Mark as chief executive have the board's absolute backing and support.âThink you're hearing ghosts in the attic.
no attic so it nust be your imaginung.
including any notion the NZR are good at optics
'Pretty poor': All Blacks criticised over 'tone deaf' International Women's Day post
New Zealand Rugby were swift to issue and apology after a truly heinous attempt to acknowledge International Women's Day. Read more here.
-
@nostrildamus said in Foster:
@Victor-Meldrew said in Foster:
@nostrildamus said in Foster:
I just think it could have been managed better, especially given Robinson called Foster his good friend earlier and the chair gave his "absolute backing and support" to both in the same sentence.
âI want to absolutely emphasise going forward that both Ian as head coach and Mark as chief executive have the board's absolute backing and support.âThink you're hearing ghosts in the attic.
no attic so it nust be ykur imaginung.
includibg any notion the NZR are good at optics
'Pretty poor': All Blacks criticised over 'tone deaf' International Women's Day post
New Zealand Rugby were swift to issue and apology after a truly heinous attempt to acknowledge International Women's Day. Read more here.
"Truly heinous attempt". FFS
