Foster, Robertson etc
-
@nostrildamus said in Foster:
@Dan54 still a better reason than being a friend of the previous coach.
Christ on a bike, the mental hoops you have to jump through to expect that Foster brings nothing to the table and that Wayne Smith and Steve Hansen had him in the room because they were mates is ridiculous.
I hate defending Foster, he should have gone last year, but it's cheap and shallow to just say 'he's mates with the previous coach'. He was a continuity candidate, and frankly it was not unreasonable to appoint. Risky from the cheap seats, but you could see why they did it. Foster hasn't worked out as a head coach, but he clearly brings a lot to the table - Hansen, Smith and all the current senior players seem to rate him.
also, I just threw up in my mouth a bit.
Really, though, Hansen should have stepped down in 2017, Foster screws the pooch in 18 and 19, and then we get a merit-based selection in 2020. NZR's governance over the last 4 (and arguably 6) years has been awful.
-
@nostrildamus said in Foster:
@Dan54 still a better reason than being a friend of the previous coach.
Christ on a bike, the mental hoops you have to jump through to expect that Foster brings nothing to the table and that Wayne Smith and Steve Hansen had him in the room because they were mates is ridiculous.
I hate defending Foster, he should have gone last year, but it's cheap and shallow to just say 'he's mates with the previous coach'. He was a continuity candidate, and frankly it was not unreasonable to appoint. Risky from the cheap seats, but you could see why they did it. Foster hasn't worked out as a head coach, but he clearly brings a lot to the table - Hansen, Smith and all the current senior players seem to rate him.
also, I just threw up in my mouth a bit.
Really, though, Hansen should have stepped down in 2017, Foster screws the pooch in 18 and 19, and then we get a merit-based selection in 2020. NZR's governance over the last 4 (and arguably 6) years has been awful.
I hate defending Foster, he should have gone last year, but it's cheap and shallow to just say 'he's mates with the previous coach'.--I didn't actually say that. But I definitely left it open. So, ok.
What I meant and should have written is, success at a lower level has to be a consideration. And then as an example I wanted to compare it to the criteria they used for Foster. But the only thing I know for a fact that he keeps getting selected is the then coaches* picked him and liked him. He probably interviews well too.
I would like to know what criteria they use, I just don't know what the criteria is.So you think on a Foster thread I shouldn't use him as a comparison or phrase it differently? Ok. But I am still defending Deans here (because that was a cheap and shallow reference) as frankly, he gets some stick here and I still don't know what exactly he did wrong apart from coaching the Wallabies (and beating the All Blacks). That was my point.
*Edit: And senior ABs. Ok that is a good one.
-
@nostrildamus said in Foster:
But I am still defending Deans here (because that was a cheap and shallow reference) as frankly, he gets some stick here and I still don't know what exactly he did wrong apart from coaching the Wallabies (and beating the All Blacks). That was my point.
I'm with you on Deans. Good coach - and you saw how he managed to coax the best out of the Wobbles, despite the political snake pit that is Australian Rugby
-
@nostrildamus I not dissing Deans, I think he was a good coachm especially at Super level, was merely pointing success at lower level shouldn't alway be used as the barometer of a coach. Rassie Erasmus had no great sucess at lower levels same as Eddie Jones, sometimes slightly different skills needed. I alway thought Deans big weakness in coaching was his selection of players, and perhaps what counted against him at higher level. Regardless Deans said he could take Aussie higher up in the world, and farwhatever reason he didn't (a bit like Rennie at this stage)
-
He probably interviews well too.
Thank goodness for him the interview is not a process because after one what cliches could he rely on?
-
I would have happily had Deans as AB coach and certainly ahead of Foster.
-
@nostrildamus said in Foster:
But I am still defending Deans here (because that was a cheap and shallow reference) as frankly, he gets some stick here and I still don't know what exactly he did wrong apart from coaching the Wallabies (and beating the All Blacks). That was my point.
I'm with you on Deans. Good coach - and you saw how he managed to coax the best out of the Wobbles, despite the political snake pit that is Australian Rugby
In addition do they really have the talent pool that we "supposedly" have? Does Rennie before some of the fern want to throw him under the bus?
-
Probably a lot of timing involved with looking good as a coach . Not talking about any coach in particular, just generalising .
But moving into the right job at the right time taking over the right group of players and vica versa can make or break you .
-
-
It is hard to pinpoint the problem with this current group. The talent is there, they try their hearts out, they have good support, but what happens on the pitch is just not good enough or ruthless enough to get the job done IMO (consistently win against top-tier opposition and win the World Cup). Here is my theory and I think Carlos sees it as well. It seems that the ABs camp has become too comfortable and isolated. They are the "AB family". That absolute ruthlessness and desire to get that 1 or 2 % to get over the line is not there anymore. If they don't play well, and there are few consequences. Once upon a time one bad performance and you were out of the team, possibly forever. Now we have players still there that can be terribly off the pace (Sam Cane is the classic example). Go away to Japan, no worries, you are automatically back despite not showing you are better than others. They are consistently answering their critics by saying they only worry about what is happening inside the camp, etc, etc. Not all bad things of course, maybe it is even a sign of the times and I am a grump, but just maybe it has led to inadequate performances.
Hence I really think a "clean out" is what the ABs have needed since 2019. -
@Old-Samurai-Jack said in Foster:
Hence I really think a "clean out" is what the ABs have needed since 2019.
I like the idea of a clean out.. problem is who do you bring in? (assuming you're talking players not coaches..)
-
@Old-Samurai-Jack said in Foster:
Hence I really think a "clean out" is what the ABs have needed since 2019.
Arguably pre-2019. Kieran Read was a shadow of his former (extraordinary) self in 18 and 19, but perservered with.
-
@Old-Samurai-Jack said in Foster:
It is hard to pinpoint the problem with this current group. The talent is there, they try their hearts out, they have good support, but what happens on the pitch is just not good enough or ruthless enough to get the job done IMO (consistently win against top-tier opposition and win the World Cup). Here is my theory and I think Carlos sees it as well. It seems that the ABs camp has become too comfortable and isolated. They are the "AB family". That absolute ruthlessness and desire to get that 1 or 2 % to get over the line is not there anymore. If they don't play well, and there are few consequences. Once upon a time one bad performance and you were out of the team, possibly forever. Now we have players still there that can be terribly off the pace (Sam Cane is the classic example). Go away to Japan, no worries, you are automatically back despite not showing you are better than others. They are consistently answering their critics by saying they only worry about what is happening inside the camp, etc, etc. Not all bad things of course, maybe it is even a sign of the times and I am a grump, but just maybe it has led to inadequate performances.
Hence I really think a "clean out" is what the ABs have needed since 2019.A lot to agree with there.
I think I missed Carlos’ comments, anyone link easily?
-
I'd have to say that from the heights of 2011, which you could argue was our best All Black team ever that our current day All Blacks are literally results and history-wise the worst All Black team we've ever had.
The decline has been remarkable.
The asleep at the wheel, don't worry it will come right even when it doesn't approach has been literally a marvel to behold.
-
@Windows97 said in Foster:
The asleep at the wheel, don't worry it will come right even when it doesn't approach has been literally a marvel to behold.
it has exposed the sycophancy of modern rugby media though ... there is a lot of glitter being sprayed on turds these days
-
@Windows97 said in Foster:
I'd have to say that from the heights of 2011, which you could argue was our best All Black team ever that our current day All Blacks are literally results and history-wise the worst All Black team we've ever had.
The decline has been remarkable.
The asleep at the wheel, don't worry it will come right even when it doesn't approach has been literally a marvel to behold.
You obviously haven't reached your 50th birthday yet.
-
@nostrildamus I not dissing Deans, I think he was a good coachm especially at Super level, was merely pointing success at lower level shouldn't alway be used as the barometer of a coach. Rassie Erasmus had no great sucess at lower levels same as Eddie Jones, sometimes slightly different skills needed. I alway thought Deans big weakness in coaching was his selection of players, and perhaps what counted against him at higher level. Regardless Deans said he could take Aussie higher up in the world, and farwhatever reason he didn't (a bit like Rennie at this stage)
Eddie as coach had plenty of lower-level success, he's won club titles with Randwick, Suntory & the Brumbies.
Rassie won a few Currie Cup titles, a Pro14 title with Munster & presided over the Stormers most successful period in Super Rugby history.
-
@kiwi_expat said in Foster:
@nostrildamus I not dissing Deans, I think he was a good coachm especially at Super level, was merely pointing success at lower level shouldn't alway be used as the barometer of a coach. Rassie Erasmus had no great sucess at lower levels same as Eddie Jones, sometimes slightly different skills needed. I alway thought Deans big weakness in coaching was his selection of players, and perhaps what counted against him at higher level. Regardless Deans said he could take Aussie higher up in the world, and farwhatever reason he didn't (a bit like Rennie at this stage)
Eddie as coach had plenty of lower-level success, he's won club titles with Randwick, Suntory & the Brumbies.
Rassie won a few Currie Cup titles, a Pro14 title with Munster & presided over the Stormers most successful period in Super Rugby history.
Yep forgat about Rassies currie cup, but he was only runner up with Munster in Pro 14 wasn't he? And Stormers didn't win with him did they. not sure they ever won super rugby title. I must be getting old . But regardless I still say lower level success doesn't always lead to higher up stuff, and wonder if Deans wouldn't have been better to get some experience up north before trying international coaching, which I am sure you agree is a pretty different beast to test stuff. This is not to say anyone should or shouldn't coach ABs, but I much prefer someone who has coached in a wider range of teams. Just an opinion I have had for quite sometime, quite different skills, selecting is as important as coaching ability, and perhaps man management (I believe a weakness of Deans and Mitchell).
If I thought about it you kind of proved my point, Rassie and Eddie learnt their trade in a few different team? But I can also where people can say success is enough with same team, I always liked Joseph (he had coached in a few places also) as he took Clan from bottom of pile to winning title, -
@WillieTheWaiter Wouldn't throw the baby out with the bathwater. I think they have most of the right players. More about new management and a "cultural shift".
