Foster, Robertson etc
-
Well, there's a pretty strong argument to be made that the assistant coaches are at least as important, if not more important than the head coach, and it was pretty clear Foster's assistants were not much chop at the top level.
When you bring Ryan and Schimdt into the fold our coaching team takes on a completely different look. Ryan has already made a difference in the forwards by simplifying things - it always looked to me the ABs were trying to be too clever for our own good, so that's a big step in the right direction.
TBH I'm OK with this decision, the players get some continuity with a coach they clearly respect, and the coaching team gets a big shake up at the same time.
That's not to say I think Foster is a great coach, and we'd probably have been better off with Robertson if he was given the job when they extended Foster's contract, but at the end of the day bringing him in now would have caused a fair bit of disruption close to the RWC.
It's hard to take too much from one win, but that was one hell of a win against the odds and gives the team plenty to build on moving forward.
-
@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.
โI 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.โThink 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.
โI 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.โThink 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.
That's zero, zip, nada to do Foster and Robinson patting each other on the shoulder.
On the article, I agree. Terrible optics. They should have told the complainers to fuck right off for being sexist fluffybunnies. Why shouldn't men celebrate IWD?
-
One win and suddenly the "learnings" have been learned? You guys crack me up!
Foster has learned nothing. We will be back to players out of position, favourites never dropped, a backline relying on individual brilliance etc.
If he capable of more he would have learned it years -- decades -- ago.
If he cared about results he would have shown a lot more humility after his last couple of years with the Chiefs. And then his recent losses. But no, he thinks all is going sweet! He's utterly deluded.
And the results will remain lackluster as long as he remains anything but pure figurehead.
-
What I find incredible is that he got 8 years at the Chiefs. Is he a fลฏcking hypnotist or something? Him and effing Mark Hammett.
-
@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
I'm going to very politely suggest that if Foster wins RWC2023 from where he was a month ago and NZR says "goodbye", the meltdown on the Fern will make the RWC2007 Quarter Final thread look like an Eskimo's day out in a dry ice factory.
-
@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?
Probably both and because Foster recognises the importance of team strength? The strong internal support he gets isn't an accident.
-
@Chester-Draws said in Foster:
One win and suddenly the "learnings" have been learned? You guys crack me up!
Foster has learned nothing. We will be back to players out of position, favourites never dropped, a backline relying on individual brilliance etc.
If he capable of more he would have learned it years -- decades -- ago.
If he cared about results he would have shown a lot more humility after his last couple of years with the Chiefs. And then his recent losses. But no, he thinks all is going sweet! He's utterly deluded.
And the results will remain lackluster as long as he remains anything but pure figurehead.
-
@Chester-Draws said in Foster:
One win and suddenly the "learnings" have been learned? You guys crack me up!
Who are you guys? Who has said the above?
Foster has learned nothing. We will be back to players out of position, favourites never dropped, a backline relying on individual brilliance etc.
Did he tell you this? Or are you just speculating?
If he capable of more he would have learned it years -- decades -- ago.
If he cared about results he would have shown a lot more humility after his last couple of years with the Chiefs. And then his recent losses. But no, he thinks all is going sweet! He's utterly deluded.
You think Foster doesn't care about the results & he think's all is going sweet? And then you call HIM deluded?
And the results will remain lackluster as long as he remains anything but pure figurehead.
Ae you suggesting it's ok for him to be head coach as long as he has nothing to do with the team?
I'm fucking grumpy today for a number of reasons and the shit on this thread isn't helping. If you've got something new to offer, then cool. But we are what, 3k posts into recycling the same crap over and over again with people inventing arguments / point of view to fight against.
If you've nothing new to add, fuck off to another thread.
-
As John Hart said today - One of Foster's main mistakes was sticking with Mooar and Plumtree even after the players raised concerns about them following the end of year tour. He strikes me as a conservative, stubborn and loyal guy that needs a bomb under him before he will change.
-
As John Hart said today - One of Foster's main mistakes was sticking with Mooar and Plumtree even after the players raised concerns about them following the end of year tour. He strikes me as a conservative, stubborn and loyal guy that needs a bomb under him before he will change.
Perhaps making him feel comfortable up to the RWC isn't the best strategy then. Maybe Fozz needs an atmosphere of constant concern....
-
Or in summary.
Shit attracts flies.
Flowers attract bees.
Or if anyone actually remembers up to Rennie taking over team, you couldn't pick players from wherever you wanted. They had (or a real high percentage) had to come from your own franchise area. The year Rennie tool over it was open slather, hence the likes of Brodie, Aaron Cruden , Scott Waldren , Hika Reid etc coming in from outside area. I think it was about then that teams dropped the Waikato, Wellington etc from the beginning of franchise names? Not on anyway degenerating Rennie (who I like regardless of his results in Aus) or upping Foster etc, just a real convenient fact that seems to be slipped under carpet at times. Chiefs region weren't absolutely
-
Or in summary.
Shit attracts flies.
Flowers attract bees.
Or if anyone actually remembers up to Rennie taking over team, you couldn't pick players from wherever you wanted. They had (or a real high percentage) had to come from your own franchise area. The year Rennie tool over it was open slather, hence the likes of Brodie, Aaron Cruden , Scott Waldren , Hika Reid etc coming in from outside area. I think it was about then that teams dropped the Waikato, Wellington etc from the beginning of franchise names? Not on anyway degenerating Rennie (who I like regardless of his results in Aus) or upping Foster etc, just a real convenient fact that seems to be slipped under carpet at times. Chiefs region weren't absolutely
I understand your point but I think the grumping at the time was more that even within the franchise boundaries the Foster years (for whatever reason) gave precedence to players signed for Waikato. The BOP Mafia in particular were very vocal about it.
Yes Rennie was able to tap into the resources that other franchises had ignored, particularly the Canes with HB but his did so with a plan and that was to select honest workers over flashy stars, give them an opportunity and set them to work. -
this thread says there are loads more posts since I last logged in, but when I scan over them, it doesnt look like any new ones....
-
@taniwharugby said in Foster:
this thread says there are loads more posts since I last logged in, but when I scan over them, it doesnt look like any new ones....
and it's taken 3k posts for you to realise this?
-
@Crucial says the man with 1k of those posts
-
