Foster, Robertson etc
-
Let's move on from the Cantab bullshit. Both ways. It really does get tiresome.
-
@Crazy-Horse said in Foster:
Let's move on from the Cantab bullshit. Both ways. It really does get tiresome.
Normally I agree but I think it’s a relevant arc on the Foster thread given what’s been said.
-
can we agree it is getting harder to assess the international quality/level of many ABs these days regardless of super rugby franchise?
-
@MajorRage said in Foster:
@Joans-Town-Jones said in Foster:
Your argument, Champ.
Let me break this down for you. Try to not to get too upset that my post isn't going to be gushing every single thing Cantab, ok?
Here is your original post:
Who said anything about looking at the Crusaders only? The point is being made is simply, the players from the Crusaders go from being champions in red in black to looking like they've never seen a rugby ball in the ABs. If we don't select from Super Rugby, where do we select from?
This is your view, not mine. I don't even necessarily agree with it. I think Scott Barrett is currently playing the best rugby of his life. I'm in the pro Richie over Beauden camp as I think he has the ability to control a game better (as seen in Joburg). I think Havili is struggling with his combination with Ioane, but I like him as a player, generally. Where I do agree with you, are players like Taylor & Leicester. But I don't put either of the blame here on Foster. As I think Taylor is just looking that little bit past it now & Leicester looked a bit out of his depth. Hence, I said ....
Then they are mentally weak and not able the take the step up to test rugby. Super rugby is their natural ceiling.
Happened to plenty of players before.
Perhaps mentally weak was a poor choice of words, but I do believe for both of these players this is their current ceiling. I hope I'm wrong, I really do.
There's not 23 players in NZ that can make the step up? I get one or two but we're talking about an entire squad. If they are mentally weak, what's the common denominator?
No, you were talking about an entire squad. Not me. This assertion was absurd from the get go. It's clear at this stage you had your back up because I wasn't completely gushing about everything Cantab & I also suspected you think I'm a fan of Foster & hence anti-Razor, so I wrote this:
I've been pretty clear all the way through my thoughts on Fosters appointment.
However, if players are awesome under Robertson, but shit under Foster, I struggle to put that entire blame at Foster, given that he is the coach at the higher level of rugby.
We have many problems at the moment, of which Foster is bearing the brunt of them all. Reality is that if Cantab's can't play good underneath him, then he shouldn't select them.
Get it now? Problem was with selection, not the players. I've never once said I agree with your, frankly ridiculous, sweeping statement that the entire squad is awesome under Robertson, but shit under Foster. so now lets look at your last post:
Interesting the decline in AB rugby started late 2016, was in fast forward in 2019 and is now in overdrive but its only the Cantabs that are playing shit under Foster and not for a proven winning coach.
Who said only the Cantab's were playing shit? Was that you? It certainly wasn't me.
So, the solution is to select players underperforming from teams with less of a record and hope they stand up?
No, the solution is to select the best team and put them on the park. This may shock you a bit, but not 100% of the All Blacks should be Cantab's. On the flip side, it's certainly not 0% either.
Its clear as fucken day late era Hansen and Foster have fucked this team into oblivion. As the head fucking coach it is your responsibility to get the team to gel. 3 fucking years of this depressing shit. And it hasn't hit the bottom yet. We still have Japan, Scotland and the Bled to lose. But sure, thats on the Cantabs.
Don't agree with this entirely, but it's certainly the closest we'll come to agreeing on anything, it seems.
Finally ... if you have issues with editing (many do) then instead of deleting, you can click the 3 dots on the bottom right of the post & change to Edit. I've removed your deleted posts as a series of deleted posts suggests that you've completely lost your shit about something and had to be moderated.
And you, completely missed the entire fucking point. I'm not gushing over the Cantabs. What I'm saying and many others have said is WHY THE FUCK ARE THE CANTABS UNDER ROBERSTON LOOK $$$$$ WHEN UNDER FOZZIE THEY LOOK LIKE DOG SHIT? Surely, if you have a side that is winning everything, a large selection of your team will be selected from that side.
As for the editing, I did try and edit you moron but for some fucking reason it kept including the last sentence of your quote. If you have a little pissy over some editing issues the you've got some shit going on somewhere else.
-
@Joans-Town-Jones said in Foster:
And you, completely missed the entire fucking point. I'm not gushing over the Cantabs. What I'm saying and many others have said is WHY THE FUCK ARE THE CANTABS UNDER ROBERSTON LOOK $$$$$ WHEN UNDER FOZZIE THEY LOOK LIKE DOG SHIT? Surely, if you have a side that is winning everything, a large selection of your team will be selected from that side.
I disagree with you.
For a start you are gushing. Secondly, I don’t agree with your blanket statement and have pointed out some examples with reasoning. Typing with caps isn’t a rebuttal or discussion.
As for the editing, I did try and edit you moron but for some fucking reason it kept including the last sentence of your quote. If you have a little pissy over some editing issues the you've got some shit going on somewhere else.
You usually this abusive to people trying to help you out?
-
@Victor-Meldrew said in Foster:
@Joans-Town-Jones said in Foster:
@Victor-Meldrew said in Foster:
@Joans-Town-Jones said in Foster:
@Victor-Meldrew said in Foster:
@Joans-Town-Jones said in Foster:
its only the Cantabs that are playing shit under Foster and not for a proven winning coach.
If you're talking about Robertson, he's yet to prove himself at Test level. In reality, his coaching skills at Test level haven't even been evaluated as he hasn't taken an Assistant role in a Test side.
So, the solution is to select players underperforming from teams with less of a record and hope they stand up?
No. We select players who can make the step up to Test level. It doesn't matter which team they are from or how well that team has performed. That's why Aaron Smith and not Bryn Hall is first choice 9 and why Ma'a kept getting selected.
As the head fucking coach it is your responsibility to get the team to gel.
Agreed. But that requires players who can actually perform at Test level. Whether they are great under coach X or Y or not at SR level is irrelevant.
Are we that dense we can dismiss Razor based on the fact he's won nothing at test level despite his 80% winning record elsewhere? We're willing him to go to another powerhouse first?
How is pointing out Robertson has zero Test experience and Test Rugby is at higher level than Super Rugby dismissing Robertson?
So we select players who can make the step up. How do you know they can make the step up when they haven't played test footy?
You pick players on form and if they can't make the step up to Test level you drop them. What team they come from and who coaches that team, has fuck all to do with ability to perform at Test level.
If the coach keeps selecting players on form and then fail to make the step up, and continues to select players that fail to make the step up, maybe the coach is the issue. Brodie Retalick, Sam Whitelock, Beauden Barrett, Sam Cane, Aaron Smith et al have been in the side for 10 years and are shadows of their former selves. It's not just one or two who aren't performing, it's the entire squad consistently.
Which has bugger-all to do with your theory that because Crusaders players are great at Super level, the only reason they're not world-beaters at Test level is down to Foster.
"How is pointing out Robertson has zero Test experience and Test Rugby is at higher level than Super Rugby dismissing Robertson?"
That's exactly what you're doing. Because he has zero test experience, he cannot be considered for the ABs.
Complete horseshit. I've argued that after Ireland III NZR should have considered replacing Foster with Robertson.
The whole basis of your argument is if the players can't make the step up they should be dropped.
Yes. That's how selecting the best players for a team works.
The issue is the whole squad collectively aren't stepping up.
Which (again) has bugger-all to do with your blaming Foster for the inability of Crusaders players to make the step up to Test level from Super level.
If you want more Crusaders in the AB's or Robertson as Head Coach then fine, but ignoring facts doesn't strengthen your case.
The facts are, Foster has a shit record and players under an 80% winning coach are currently running at 25% over the last 8 tests. I'm not advocating for more Cantabs in the team, again, another fabricated point made up by you. Foster can't get any of the squad to play consistent, cohesive winning rugby. But what you want is to sack the entire squad because they are all playing shit. Now, is it they all can't make the step up or, maybe, just maybe the head coach who was part of the decline of AB rugby under Hansen is without answers and is responsible for getting this team to work and win?
-
@MajorRage said in Foster:
@Joans-Town-Jones said in Foster:
And you, completely missed the entire fucking point. I'm not gushing over the Cantabs. What I'm saying and many others have said is WHY THE FUCK ARE THE CANTABS UNDER ROBERSTON LOOK $$$$$ WHEN UNDER FOZZIE THEY LOOK LIKE DOG SHIT? Surely, if you have a side that is winning everything, a large selection of your team will be selected from that side.
I disagree with you.
For a start you are gushing. Secondly, I don’t agree with your blanket statement and have pointed out some examples with reasoning. Typing with caps isn’t a rebuttal or discussion.
As for the editing, I did try and edit you moron but for some fucking reason it kept including the last sentence of your quote. If you have a little pissy over some editing issues the you've got some shit going on somewhere else.
You usually this abusive to people trying to help you out?
Na, you just being an argumentative prick.
-
@Joans-Town-Jones said in Foster:
@Victor-Meldrew said in Foster:
@Joans-Town-Jones said in Foster:
@Victor-Meldrew said in Foster:
@Joans-Town-Jones said in Foster:
@Victor-Meldrew said in Foster:
@Joans-Town-Jones said in Foster:
its only the Cantabs that are playing shit under Foster and not for a proven winning coach.
If you're talking about Robertson, he's yet to prove himself at Test level. In reality, his coaching skills at Test level haven't even been evaluated as he hasn't taken an Assistant role in a Test side.
So, the solution is to select players underperforming from teams with less of a record and hope they stand up?
No. We select players who can make the step up to Test level. It doesn't matter which team they are from or how well that team has performed. That's why Aaron Smith and not Bryn Hall is first choice 9 and why Ma'a kept getting selected.
As the head fucking coach it is your responsibility to get the team to gel.
Agreed. But that requires players who can actually perform at Test level. Whether they are great under coach X or Y or not at SR level is irrelevant.
Are we that dense we can dismiss Razor based on the fact he's won nothing at test level despite his 80% winning record elsewhere? We're willing him to go to another powerhouse first?
How is pointing out Robertson has zero Test experience and Test Rugby is at higher level than Super Rugby dismissing Robertson?
So we select players who can make the step up. How do you know they can make the step up when they haven't played test footy?
You pick players on form and if they can't make the step up to Test level you drop them. What team they come from and who coaches that team, has fuck all to do with ability to perform at Test level.
If the coach keeps selecting players on form and then fail to make the step up, and continues to select players that fail to make the step up, maybe the coach is the issue. Brodie Retalick, Sam Whitelock, Beauden Barrett, Sam Cane, Aaron Smith et al have been in the side for 10 years and are shadows of their former selves. It's not just one or two who aren't performing, it's the entire squad consistently.
Which has bugger-all to do with your theory that because Crusaders players are great at Super level, the only reason they're not world-beaters at Test level is down to Foster.
"How is pointing out Robertson has zero Test experience and Test Rugby is at higher level than Super Rugby dismissing Robertson?"
That's exactly what you're doing. Because he has zero test experience, he cannot be considered for the ABs.
Complete horseshit. I've argued that after Ireland III NZR should have considered replacing Foster with Robertson.
The whole basis of your argument is if the players can't make the step up they should be dropped.
Yes. That's how selecting the best players for a team works.
The issue is the whole squad collectively aren't stepping up.
Which (again) has bugger-all to do with your blaming Foster for the inability of Crusaders players to make the step up to Test level from Super level.
If you want more Crusaders in the AB's or Robertson as Head Coach then fine, but ignoring facts doesn't strengthen your case.
The facts are, Foster has a shit record and players under an 80% winning coach are currently running at 25% over the last 8 tests. I'm not advocating for more Cantabs in the team, again, another fabricated point made up by you. Foster can't get any of the squad to play consistent, cohesive winning rugby. But what you want is to sack the entire squad because they are all playing shit. Now, is it they all can't make the step up or, maybe, just maybe the head coach who was part of the decline of AB rugby under Hansen is without answers and is responsible for getting this team to work and win?
Jeez, that's some mixture of irrelevance. horseshit and putting words into my mouth.
But let's come back to your original point - which is when Crusaders players who excel at Super Rugby level (you mentioned Crusaders players) can't repeat that form at Test Test level, it has fuck all to do Test rugby being at a higher level, but is all down to Foster.
Not only is that argument wrong, it is a mind-blowingly wrong and pretty pointless to debate.
-
@Joans-Town-Jones *you're
-
@Victor-Meldrew said in Foster:
@Joans-Town-Jones said in Foster:
@Victor-Meldrew said in Foster:
@Joans-Town-Jones said in Foster:
@Victor-Meldrew said in Foster:
@Joans-Town-Jones said in Foster:
@Victor-Meldrew said in Foster:
@Joans-Town-Jones said in Foster:
its only the Cantabs that are playing shit under Foster and not for a proven winning coach.
If you're talking about Robertson, he's yet to prove himself at Test level. In reality, his coaching skills at Test level haven't even been evaluated as he hasn't taken an Assistant role in a Test side.
So, the solution is to select players underperforming from teams with less of a record and hope they stand up?
No. We select players who can make the step up to Test level. It doesn't matter which team they are from or how well that team has performed. That's why Aaron Smith and not Bryn Hall is first choice 9 and why Ma'a kept getting selected.
As the head fucking coach it is your responsibility to get the team to gel.
Agreed. But that requires players who can actually perform at Test level. Whether they are great under coach X or Y or not at SR level is irrelevant.
Are we that dense we can dismiss Razor based on the fact he's won nothing at test level despite his 80% winning record elsewhere? We're willing him to go to another powerhouse first?
How is pointing out Robertson has zero Test experience and Test Rugby is at higher level than Super Rugby dismissing Robertson?
So we select players who can make the step up. How do you know they can make the step up when they haven't played test footy?
You pick players on form and if they can't make the step up to Test level you drop them. What team they come from and who coaches that team, has fuck all to do with ability to perform at Test level.
If the coach keeps selecting players on form and then fail to make the step up, and continues to select players that fail to make the step up, maybe the coach is the issue. Brodie Retalick, Sam Whitelock, Beauden Barrett, Sam Cane, Aaron Smith et al have been in the side for 10 years and are shadows of their former selves. It's not just one or two who aren't performing, it's the entire squad consistently.
Which has bugger-all to do with your theory that because Crusaders players are great at Super level, the only reason they're not world-beaters at Test level is down to Foster.
"How is pointing out Robertson has zero Test experience and Test Rugby is at higher level than Super Rugby dismissing Robertson?"
That's exactly what you're doing. Because he has zero test experience, he cannot be considered for the ABs.
Complete horseshit. I've argued that after Ireland III NZR should have considered replacing Foster with Robertson.
The whole basis of your argument is if the players can't make the step up they should be dropped.
Yes. That's how selecting the best players for a team works.
The issue is the whole squad collectively aren't stepping up.
Which (again) has bugger-all to do with your blaming Foster for the inability of Crusaders players to make the step up to Test level from Super level.
If you want more Crusaders in the AB's or Robertson as Head Coach then fine, but ignoring facts doesn't strengthen your case.
The facts are, Foster has a shit record and players under an 80% winning coach are currently running at 25% over the last 8 tests. I'm not advocating for more Cantabs in the team, again, another fabricated point made up by you. Foster can't get any of the squad to play consistent, cohesive winning rugby. But what you want is to sack the entire squad because they are all playing shit. Now, is it they all can't make the step up or, maybe, just maybe the head coach who was part of the decline of AB rugby under Hansen is without answers and is responsible for getting this team to work and win?
Jeez, that's some mixture of irrelevance. horseshit and putting words into my mouth.
But let's come back to your original point - which is when Crusaders players who excel at Super Rugby level (you mentioned Crusaders players) can't repeat that form at Test Test level, it has fuck all to do Test rugby being at a higher level, but is all down to Foster.
Not only is that argument wrong, it is a mind-blowingly wrong and pretty pointless to debate.
Would it make it easier for your weak heart if I said the Super final making Blues players can't replicate their form at test level? For someone who thinks Robertson should have replaced Foster, you're defending his inability to galvanise the squad into a winning team. You're simply saying the 30 odd players in the squad can't make the step up therefore the entire squad should be dropped. OK, so name your 30 odd replacements who under Foster will make the step up and win the RWC next year.
-
@MajorRage I bet you enjoyed rubbing one out to that.
-
@Joans-Town-Jones said in Foster:
@Victor-Meldrew said in Foster:
@Joans-Town-Jones said in Foster:
@Victor-Meldrew said in Foster:
@Joans-Town-Jones said in Foster:
@Victor-Meldrew said in Foster:
@Joans-Town-Jones said in Foster:
@Victor-Meldrew said in Foster:
@Joans-Town-Jones said in Foster:
its only the Cantabs that are playing shit under Foster and not for a proven winning coach.
If you're talking about Robertson, he's yet to prove himself at Test level. In reality, his coaching skills at Test level haven't even been evaluated as he hasn't taken an Assistant role in a Test side.
So, the solution is to select players underperforming from teams with less of a record and hope they stand up?
No. We select players who can make the step up to Test level. It doesn't matter which team they are from or how well that team has performed. That's why Aaron Smith and not Bryn Hall is first choice 9 and why Ma'a kept getting selected.
As the head fucking coach it is your responsibility to get the team to gel.
Agreed. But that requires players who can actually perform at Test level. Whether they are great under coach X or Y or not at SR level is irrelevant.
Are we that dense we can dismiss Razor based on the fact he's won nothing at test level despite his 80% winning record elsewhere? We're willing him to go to another powerhouse first?
How is pointing out Robertson has zero Test experience and Test Rugby is at higher level than Super Rugby dismissing Robertson?
So we select players who can make the step up. How do you know they can make the step up when they haven't played test footy?
You pick players on form and if they can't make the step up to Test level you drop them. What team they come from and who coaches that team, has fuck all to do with ability to perform at Test level.
If the coach keeps selecting players on form and then fail to make the step up, and continues to select players that fail to make the step up, maybe the coach is the issue. Brodie Retalick, Sam Whitelock, Beauden Barrett, Sam Cane, Aaron Smith et al have been in the side for 10 years and are shadows of their former selves. It's not just one or two who aren't performing, it's the entire squad consistently.
Which has bugger-all to do with your theory that because Crusaders players are great at Super level, the only reason they're not world-beaters at Test level is down to Foster.
"How is pointing out Robertson has zero Test experience and Test Rugby is at higher level than Super Rugby dismissing Robertson?"
That's exactly what you're doing. Because he has zero test experience, he cannot be considered for the ABs.
Complete horseshit. I've argued that after Ireland III NZR should have considered replacing Foster with Robertson.
The whole basis of your argument is if the players can't make the step up they should be dropped.
Yes. That's how selecting the best players for a team works.
The issue is the whole squad collectively aren't stepping up.
Which (again) has bugger-all to do with your blaming Foster for the inability of Crusaders players to make the step up to Test level from Super level.
If you want more Crusaders in the AB's or Robertson as Head Coach then fine, but ignoring facts doesn't strengthen your case.
The facts are, Foster has a shit record and players under an 80% winning coach are currently running at 25% over the last 8 tests. I'm not advocating for more Cantabs in the team, again, another fabricated point made up by you. Foster can't get any of the squad to play consistent, cohesive winning rugby. But what you want is to sack the entire squad because they are all playing shit. Now, is it they all can't make the step up or, maybe, just maybe the head coach who was part of the decline of AB rugby under Hansen is without answers and is responsible for getting this team to work and win?
Jeez, that's some mixture of irrelevance. horseshit and putting words into my mouth.
But let's come back to your original point - which is when Crusaders players who excel at Super Rugby level (you mentioned Crusaders players) can't repeat that form at Test Test level, it has fuck all to do Test rugby being at a higher level, but is all down to Foster.
Not only is that argument wrong, it is a mind-blowingly wrong and pretty pointless to debate.
Would it make it easier for your weak heart if I said the Super final making Blues players can't replicate their form at test level? For someone who thinks Robertson should have replaced Foster, you're defending his inability to galvanise the squad into a winning team. You're simply saying the 30 odd players in the squad can't make the step up therefore the entire squad should be dropped. OK, so name your 30 odd replacements who under Foster will make the step up and win the RWC next year.
No, no, no & no.
-
He's such a nice guy, don't fear losing, or your position on the team, I guess
'If you play under fear then you restrict your options'
Ian Foster has suggested that although the All Blacks selectors have made no changes to the starting XV from the side that suffered a historic defeat to Argentina last weekend, that doesn't mean there's no accountability.
-
This post is deleted!
-
@Machpants said in Foster:
He's such a nice guy, don't fear losing, or your position on the team, I guess
'If you play under fear then you restrict your options'
Ian Foster has suggested that although the All Blacks selectors have made no changes to the starting XV from the side that suffered a historic defeat to Argentina last weekend, that doesn't mean there's no accountability.
Did you link to the right article?
In the one you posted, the "fear" Foster is talking about fear of losing/things going wrong during the game and how it's cramping the team's on-field play. Actually made sense to me.
-
@Victor-Meldrew said in Foster:
@Machpants said in Foster:
He's such a nice guy, don't fear losing, or your position on the team, I guess
'If you play under fear then you restrict your options'
Ian Foster has suggested that although the All Blacks selectors have made no changes to the starting XV from the side that suffered a historic defeat to Argentina last weekend, that doesn't mean there's no accountability.
Did you link to the right article?
In the one you posted, the "fear" Foster is talking about fear of losing/things going wrong during the game and how it's cramping the team's on-field play. Actually made sense to me.
Yeah fear of losing is what has made the ABs have such high standards over many years, McCaw, Fitzpatrick, etc all talked about the fear of losing is what pushed their excellence. Now it's too scarey so they lose?
-
@Machpants IMO, it isnt really a fear of losing, more the desire to win that seperates those at the top...might seem semantics but I think it is quite a different shift in mindset.
You see it in plenty of sports where teams or individuals start well, but end up trying not to lose the game, rather than keep pressing on to win.
But I do think right now, you get the sense these guys are trying not to lose games rather than trying to win them.
-
@taniwharugby said in Foster:
@Machpants IMO, it isnt really a fear of losing, more the desire to win that seperates those at the top...might seem semantics but I think it is quite a different shift in mindset.
You see it in plenty of sports where teams or individuals start well, but end up trying not to lose the game, rather than keep pressing on to win.
>
But I do think right now, you get the sense these guys are trying not to lose games rather than trying to win them.Maybe, but the fear of losing and tarnishing legacy is gone. I think there is no real care for that, the players just don't know about it. After the 2013 come back all the player's then talked about the loss of the unblemished record versus Irealnd. Now they're like 'oh we've never lost to Ireland/Puma/Scotland before?'
The bolded bit makes me LOL cos that's SMith's accusation against the Puma
-
@Machpants said in Foster:
@taniwharugby said in Foster:
@Machpants IMO, it isnt really a fear of losing, more the desire to win that seperates those at the top...might seem semantics but I think it is quite a different shift in mindset.
You see it in plenty of sports where teams or individuals start well, but end up trying not to lose the game, rather than keep pressing on to win.
>
But I do think right now, you get the sense these guys are trying not to lose games rather than trying to win them.Maybe, but the fear of losing and tarnishing legacy is gone. I think there is no real care for that, the players just don't know about it. After the 2013 come back all the player's then talked about the loss of the unblemished record versus Irealnd. Now they're like 'oh we've never lost to Ireland/Puma/Scotland before?'
The bolded bit makes me LOL cos that's SMith's accusation against the Puma
Oh, I thought it was the All Blacks bestest player and captain in waiting when informed about losing to Ireland in New Zealand.
