Foster, Robertson etc
-
@taniwharugby said in Foster, Robertson etc:
@ploughboy is he coming off contract? You'd think Japan wouldn't be keen to let him go, and Japan must be almost home to him now?
But agree, I do hope they are reaching out to guys like him as well, I mean imagine if we could get him and Razr on the same team
Would be good but suspect egos may get in the way?
-
@Dan54 said in Foster, Robertson etc:
@taniwharugby said in Foster, Robertson etc:
@ploughboy is he coming off contract? You'd think Japan wouldn't be keen to let him go, and Japan must be almost home to him now?
But agree, I do hope they are reaching out to guys like him as well, I mean imagine if we could get him and Razr on the same team
Would be good but suspect egos may get in the way?
Both JJ and Razor want to be HC and won't accept an assistant role. So is international experience with Japan more telling than 6 SR titles with the Crusaders? There are no guarantees with either option. But considering one of Razor's lieutenants is already doing well in the AB setup I agree with Gatland that Razor has earned his opportunity
-
-
@booboo said in Foster, Robertson etc:
@Windows97 said in Foster, Robertson etc:
However simply speaking it is quite an interesting paradox.
"Give me the 23 best rugby players in New Zealand and I will give you the world cup!!"
"Very good Mr Roberston/Joseph, and of course we'll give you the best coach's in NZ to work with as well".
"Heavens No!! I only want to work with these specific people and couldn't care less about the skills, talents or ability of any other coach".
Whilst of course the above is facetious one mark of a "good coach" is that they can get the best players in the country and form them into the best team. It would seem a little bit odd that they wouldn't take a similar approach with the coaching team. Get the best coach's there are and make them into the best team.
A coach may have differing opinions as to who is the best 23.
Not talking specifics, but attitude and ability to work within a given team is part of what makes up "the best".
….and what province/SR franchise they come from….
-
@nzzp said in Foster, Robertson etc:
@canefan said in Foster, Robertson etc:
So is international experience with Japan more telling than 6 SR titles with the Crusaders?
I'd say that 3-4 titles and 2-3 years coaching Japan would be better than either.
I don’t think any of that really weighs significantly on the decision because you can spin any “success” however you like.
I think in todays environment and dealing with young men mainly in their 20s, it’s the interpersonal skills, vision, and how you will respond in the face of challenging circumstances. Oh and can you get behind a cause or three so as to not ruffle the corporates when they decide to….
-
Asked by Stuff if he acknowledged traditional timelines had changed around the appointment process, Robinson indicated wheels were already turning in that area. NZ Rugby has traditionally not looked at the role until after the global tournament. “We acknowledge that is part of the deliberation we’re going through, recognising previous processes around appointments versus what’s happening in the international environment, and learnings from the last appointment process as well. “(Changing timelines) has been acknowledged, and discussions we’re having with all our talent across the board would signal that as well. We’re keeping a close eye on what’s happening internationally. We feel a lot of sympathy for what’s happening in England and Wales around some really good people ... and at the same time we have to be aware of what that means for our talent too. “We are keeping a very close eye on that.” Stuff wondered if his message to the public wasn’t, “relax, we’ve got this”? ”I wouldn’t quite frame it like that,” he responded. “We acknowledge it’s an incredibly important appointment for the organisation, and we’re putting a lot of effort into it and taking it onboard seriously and at the same time we feel like we’re having all the relevant conversations at the moment.” Dame Patsy was asked her view on the process, and exhibited a nifty sidestep as she indicated it was not something for her to get involved in at this stage. “Believe me, we’re on it,” added the incoming chair with somewhat of a nod and a wink. -
@KiwiMurph said in Foster, Robertson etc:
Asked by Stuff if he acknowledged traditional timelines had changed around the appointment process, Robinson indicated wheels were already turning in that area. NZ Rugby has traditionally not looked at the role until after the global tournament. “We acknowledge that is part of the deliberation we’re going through, recognising previous processes around appointments versus what’s happening in the international environment, and learnings from the last appointment process as well. “(Changing timelines) has been acknowledged, and discussions we’re having with all our talent across the board would signal that as well. We’re keeping a close eye on what’s happening internationally. We feel a lot of sympathy for what’s happening in England and Wales around some really good people ... and at the same time we have to be aware of what that means for our talent too. “We are keeping a very close eye on that.” Stuff wondered if his message to the public wasn’t, “relax, we’ve got this”? ”I wouldn’t quite frame it like that,” he responded. “We acknowledge it’s an incredibly important appointment for the organisation, and we’re putting a lot of effort into it and taking it onboard seriously and at the same time we feel like we’re having all the relevant conversations at the moment.” Dame Patsy was asked her view on the process, and exhibited a nifty sidestep as she indicated it was not something for her to get involved in at this stage. “Believe me, we’re on it,” added the incoming chair with somewhat of a nod and a wink.Talking to Wayne Pivac
-
@Chris said in Foster, Robertson etc:
@Crucial said in Foster, Robertson etc:
@Windows97 said in Foster, Robertson etc:
However simply speaking it is quite an interesting paradox.
"Give me the 23 best rugby players in New Zealand and I will give you the world cup!!"
"Very good Mr Roberston/Joseph, and of course we'll give you the best coach's in NZ to work with as well".
"Heavens No!! I only want to work with these specific people and couldn't care less about the skills, talents or ability of any other coach".
Whilst of course the above is facetious one mark of a "good coach" is that they can get the best players in the country and form them into the best team. It would seem a little bit odd that they wouldn't take a similar approach with the coaching team. Get the best coach's there are and make them into the best team.
There's no paradox. Coaches have different methods and philosophies. It stands to reason that they won't necessarily all work well together. Same does apply to players in some circumstances. eg the three best loose forwards in the country may not create the best loose combination.
Then you get coaches that are best at being head and those that can assist.
Last thing we want is another Hart/Wyllie scenario.To have a vision were you want to go and get results a mission statement driven by One HC works the best IMO.
Teamwork and working together is way, way more important than who's in charge. Ask Eddie Jones.
The coach of a national sports team will need a plan to get where he/she wants to go (i.e. get the best out of his players) but I find lot of vision statement stuff complete bollocks.
-
@Kiwiwomble said in Foster, Robertson etc:
@Victor-Meldrew almost certainly, personally i dont think its out of line for the top job, an assistant doesn't get a say on who the head coach is....but a head coach gets a say on the assitant
Neither do I if that style and culture produces the desired results. Just commenting that NZR take personal characteristics into account.
-
@Victor-Meldrew said in Foster, Robertson etc:
@Chris said in Foster, Robertson etc:
@Crucial said in Foster, Robertson etc:
@Windows97 said in Foster, Robertson etc:
However simply speaking it is quite an interesting paradox.
"Give me the 23 best rugby players in New Zealand and I will give you the world cup!!"
"Very good Mr Roberston/Joseph, and of course we'll give you the best coach's in NZ to work with as well".
"Heavens No!! I only want to work with these specific people and couldn't care less about the skills, talents or ability of any other coach".
Whilst of course the above is facetious one mark of a "good coach" is that they can get the best players in the country and form them into the best team. It would seem a little bit odd that they wouldn't take a similar approach with the coaching team. Get the best coach's there are and make them into the best team.
There's no paradox. Coaches have different methods and philosophies. It stands to reason that they won't necessarily all work well together. Same does apply to players in some circumstances. eg the three best loose forwards in the country may not create the best loose combination.
Then you get coaches that are best at being head and those that can assist.
Last thing we want is another Hart/Wyllie scenario.To have a vision were you want to go and get results a mission statement driven by One HC works the best IMO.
The coach of a national sports team will need a plan to get where he/she wants to go (i.e. get the best out of his players) but I find lot of vision statement stuff complete bollocks.
Interestingly, this is what I hear what makes Razr such a good leader/manager, plus the people he surrounds himself with, he leaves no stone un turned in his quest...he might not even be a great coach per se, but its his preparation and ability to get the best of his team that sets him apart.
-
@Victor-Meldrew said in Foster, Robertson etc:
@Chris said in Foster, Robertson etc:
@Crucial said in Foster, Robertson etc:
@Windows97 said in Foster, Robertson etc:
However simply speaking it is quite an interesting paradox.
"Give me the 23 best rugby players in New Zealand and I will give you the world cup!!"
"Very good Mr Roberston/Joseph, and of course we'll give you the best coach's in NZ to work with as well".
"Heavens No!! I only want to work with these specific people and couldn't care less about the skills, talents or ability of any other coach".
Whilst of course the above is facetious one mark of a "good coach" is that they can get the best players in the country and form them into the best team. It would seem a little bit odd that they wouldn't take a similar approach with the coaching team. Get the best coach's there are and make them into the best team.
There's no paradox. Coaches have different methods and philosophies. It stands to reason that they won't necessarily all work well together. Same does apply to players in some circumstances. eg the three best loose forwards in the country may not create the best loose combination.
Then you get coaches that are best at being head and those that can assist.
Last thing we want is another Hart/Wyllie scenario.To have a vision were you want to go and get results a mission statement driven by One HC works the best IMO.
Teamwork and working together is way, way more important than who's in charge. Ask Eddie Jones.
The coach of a national sports team will need a plan to get where he/she wants to go (i.e. get the best out of his players) but I find lot of vision statement stuff complete bollocks.
Well if you were in the coaching profession as I am
It is my paid job 7 days a week, The first thing you have to put together and deliver is a mission statement, or you will not even get an interview.
So you are way out of touch with how coaches are interviewed and selected.
No mission statement no job. -
@Chris said in Foster, Robertson etc:
@Victor-Meldrew said in Foster, Robertson etc:
@Chris said in Foster, Robertson etc:
@Crucial said in Foster, Robertson etc:
@Windows97 said in Foster, Robertson etc:
However simply speaking it is quite an interesting paradox.
"Give me the 23 best rugby players in New Zealand and I will give you the world cup!!"
"Very good Mr Roberston/Joseph, and of course we'll give you the best coach's in NZ to work with as well".
"Heavens No!! I only want to work with these specific people and couldn't care less about the skills, talents or ability of any other coach".
Whilst of course the above is facetious one mark of a "good coach" is that they can get the best players in the country and form them into the best team. It would seem a little bit odd that they wouldn't take a similar approach with the coaching team. Get the best coach's there are and make them into the best team.
There's no paradox. Coaches have different methods and philosophies. It stands to reason that they won't necessarily all work well together. Same does apply to players in some circumstances. eg the three best loose forwards in the country may not create the best loose combination.
Then you get coaches that are best at being head and those that can assist.
Last thing we want is another Hart/Wyllie scenario.To have a vision were you want to go and get results a mission statement driven by One HC works the best IMO.
Teamwork and working together is way, way more important than who's in charge. Ask Eddie Jones.
The coach of a national sports team will need a plan to get where he/she wants to go (i.e. get the best out of his players) but I find lot of vision statement stuff complete bollocks.
Well if you were in the coaching profession as I am
It is my paid job 7 days a week, The first thing you have to put together and deliver is a mission statement, or you will not even get an interview.
So you are way out of touch with how coaches are interviewed and selected.
No mission statement no job.
And it is a mission statement not vision statement,
That is we’re you put you plans,values etc in to. -
@Chris said in Foster, Robertson etc:
@Chris said in Foster, Robertson etc:
@Victor-Meldrew said in Foster, Robertson etc:
@Chris said in Foster, Robertson etc:
@Crucial said in Foster, Robertson etc:
@Windows97 said in Foster, Robertson etc:
However simply speaking it is quite an interesting paradox.
"Give me the 23 best rugby players in New Zealand and I will give you the world cup!!"
"Very good Mr Roberston/Joseph, and of course we'll give you the best coach's in NZ to work with as well".
"Heavens No!! I only want to work with these specific people and couldn't care less about the skills, talents or ability of any other coach".
Whilst of course the above is facetious one mark of a "good coach" is that they can get the best players in the country and form them into the best team. It would seem a little bit odd that they wouldn't take a similar approach with the coaching team. Get the best coach's there are and make them into the best team.
There's no paradox. Coaches have different methods and philosophies. It stands to reason that they won't necessarily all work well together. Same does apply to players in some circumstances. eg the three best loose forwards in the country may not create the best loose combination.
Then you get coaches that are best at being head and those that can assist.
Last thing we want is another Hart/Wyllie scenario.To have a vision were you want to go and get results a mission statement driven by One HC works the best IMO.
Teamwork and working together is way, way more important than who's in charge. Ask Eddie Jones.
The coach of a national sports team will need a plan to get where he/she wants to go (i.e. get the best out of his players) but I find lot of vision statement stuff complete bollocks.
Well if you were in the coaching profession as I am
It is my paid job 7 days a week, The first thing you have to put together and deliver is a mission statement, or you will not even get an interview.
So you are way out of touch with how coaches are interviewed and selected.
No mission statement no job.
And it is a mission statement not vision statement,
That is we’re you put you plans,values etc in to.I hope you don't coach people how to respond to posts on forums?
-
@Nepia said in Foster, Robertson etc:
@Chris said in Foster, Robertson etc:
@Chris said in Foster, Robertson etc:
@Victor-Meldrew said in Foster, Robertson etc:
@Chris said in Foster, Robertson etc:
@Crucial said in Foster, Robertson etc:
@Windows97 said in Foster, Robertson etc:
However simply speaking it is quite an interesting paradox.
"Give me the 23 best rugby players in New Zealand and I will give you the world cup!!"
"Very good Mr Roberston/Joseph, and of course we'll give you the best coach's in NZ to work with as well".
"Heavens No!! I only want to work with these specific people and couldn't care less about the skills, talents or ability of any other coach".
Whilst of course the above is facetious one mark of a "good coach" is that they can get the best players in the country and form them into the best team. It would seem a little bit odd that they wouldn't take a similar approach with the coaching team. Get the best coach's there are and make them into the best team.
There's no paradox. Coaches have different methods and philosophies. It stands to reason that they won't necessarily all work well together. Same does apply to players in some circumstances. eg the three best loose forwards in the country may not create the best loose combination.
Then you get coaches that are best at being head and those that can assist.
Last thing we want is another Hart/Wyllie scenario.To have a vision were you want to go and get results a mission statement driven by One HC works the best IMO.
Teamwork and working together is way, way more important than who's in charge. Ask Eddie Jones.
The coach of a national sports team will need a plan to get where he/she wants to go (i.e. get the best out of his players) but I find lot of vision statement stuff complete bollocks.
Well if you were in the coaching profession as I am
It is my paid job 7 days a week, The first thing you have to put together and deliver is a mission statement, or you will not even get an interview.
So you are way out of touch with how coaches are interviewed and selected.
No mission statement no job.
And it is a mission statement not vision statement,
That is we’re you put you plans,values etc in to.I hope you don't coach people how to respond to posts on forums?
No I don’t need too,
Just how to play and get to their eventual goals.
I am actually running a coaching session now believe it or not.
Using my coaching app coaches eye for video anlaysis. -
@Chris said in Foster, Robertson etc:
@Nepia said in Foster, Robertson etc:
@Chris said in Foster, Robertson etc:
@Chris said in Foster, Robertson etc:
@Victor-Meldrew said in Foster, Robertson etc:
@Chris said in Foster, Robertson etc:
@Crucial said in Foster, Robertson etc:
@Windows97 said in Foster, Robertson etc:
However simply speaking it is quite an interesting paradox.
"Give me the 23 best rugby players in New Zealand and I will give you the world cup!!"
"Very good Mr Roberston/Joseph, and of course we'll give you the best coach's in NZ to work with as well".
"Heavens No!! I only want to work with these specific people and couldn't care less about the skills, talents or ability of any other coach".
Whilst of course the above is facetious one mark of a "good coach" is that they can get the best players in the country and form them into the best team. It would seem a little bit odd that they wouldn't take a similar approach with the coaching team. Get the best coach's there are and make them into the best team.
There's no paradox. Coaches have different methods and philosophies. It stands to reason that they won't necessarily all work well together. Same does apply to players in some circumstances. eg the three best loose forwards in the country may not create the best loose combination.
Then you get coaches that are best at being head and those that can assist.
Last thing we want is another Hart/Wyllie scenario.To have a vision were you want to go and get results a mission statement driven by One HC works the best IMO.
Teamwork and working together is way, way more important than who's in charge. Ask Eddie Jones.
The coach of a national sports team will need a plan to get where he/she wants to go (i.e. get the best out of his players) but I find lot of vision statement stuff complete bollocks.
Well if you were in the coaching profession as I am
It is my paid job 7 days a week, The first thing you have to put together and deliver is a mission statement, or you will not even get an interview.
So you are way out of touch with how coaches are interviewed and selected.
No mission statement no job.
And it is a mission statement not vision statement,
That is we’re you put you plans,values etc in to.I hope you don't coach people how to respond to posts on forums?
No I don’t need too,
Just how to play and get to their eventual goals.
I am actually running a coaching session now believe it or not.
Using my coaching app coaches eye for video anlaysis.Tsf had a rebrand?
-
@Bones said in Foster, Robertson etc:
@Chris said in Foster, Robertson etc:
@Nepia said in Foster, Robertson etc:
@Chris said in Foster, Robertson etc:
@Chris said in Foster, Robertson etc:
@Victor-Meldrew said in Foster, Robertson etc:
@Chris said in Foster, Robertson etc:
@Crucial said in Foster, Robertson etc:
@Windows97 said in Foster, Robertson etc:
However simply speaking it is quite an interesting paradox.
"Give me the 23 best rugby players in New Zealand and I will give you the world cup!!"
"Very good Mr Roberston/Joseph, and of course we'll give you the best coach's in NZ to work with as well".
"Heavens No!! I only want to work with these specific people and couldn't care less about the skills, talents or ability of any other coach".
Whilst of course the above is facetious one mark of a "good coach" is that they can get the best players in the country and form them into the best team. It would seem a little bit odd that they wouldn't take a similar approach with the coaching team. Get the best coach's there are and make them into the best team.
There's no paradox. Coaches have different methods and philosophies. It stands to reason that they won't necessarily all work well together. Same does apply to players in some circumstances. eg the three best loose forwards in the country may not create the best loose combination.
Then you get coaches that are best at being head and those that can assist.
Last thing we want is another Hart/Wyllie scenario.To have a vision were you want to go and get results a mission statement driven by One HC works the best IMO.
Teamwork and working together is way, way more important than who's in charge. Ask Eddie Jones.
The coach of a national sports team will need a plan to get where he/she wants to go (i.e. get the best out of his players) but I find lot of vision statement stuff complete bollocks.
Well if you were in the coaching profession as I am
It is my paid job 7 days a week, The first thing you have to put together and deliver is a mission statement, or you will not even get an interview.
So you are way out of touch with how coaches are interviewed and selected.
No mission statement no job.
And it is a mission statement not vision statement,
That is we’re you put you plans,values etc in to.I hope you don't coach people how to respond to posts on forums?
No I don’t need too,
Just how to play and get to their eventual goals.
I am actually running a coaching session now believe it or not.
Using my coaching app coaches eye for video anlaysis.Tsf had a rebrand?
I am not talking about your fantasies.
Coaches eye look it up American base app used by coaches here in Australia. -
@Chris said in Foster, Robertson etc:
@Bones said in Foster, Robertson etc:
@Chris said in Foster, Robertson etc:
@Nepia said in Foster, Robertson etc:
@Chris said in Foster, Robertson etc:
@Chris said in Foster, Robertson etc:
@Victor-Meldrew said in Foster, Robertson etc:
@Chris said in Foster, Robertson etc:
@Crucial said in Foster, Robertson etc:
@Windows97 said in Foster, Robertson etc:
However simply speaking it is quite an interesting paradox.
"Give me the 23 best rugby players in New Zealand and I will give you the world cup!!"
"Very good Mr Roberston/Joseph, and of course we'll give you the best coach's in NZ to work with as well".
"Heavens No!! I only want to work with these specific people and couldn't care less about the skills, talents or ability of any other coach".
Whilst of course the above is facetious one mark of a "good coach" is that they can get the best players in the country and form them into the best team. It would seem a little bit odd that they wouldn't take a similar approach with the coaching team. Get the best coach's there are and make them into the best team.
There's no paradox. Coaches have different methods and philosophies. It stands to reason that they won't necessarily all work well together. Same does apply to players in some circumstances. eg the three best loose forwards in the country may not create the best loose combination.
Then you get coaches that are best at being head and those that can assist.
Last thing we want is another Hart/Wyllie scenario.To have a vision were you want to go and get results a mission statement driven by One HC works the best IMO.
Teamwork and working together is way, way more important than who's in charge. Ask Eddie Jones.
The coach of a national sports team will need a plan to get where he/she wants to go (i.e. get the best out of his players) but I find lot of vision statement stuff complete bollocks.
Well if you were in the coaching profession as I am
It is my paid job 7 days a week, The first thing you have to put together and deliver is a mission statement, or you will not even get an interview.
So you are way out of touch with how coaches are interviewed and selected.
No mission statement no job.
And it is a mission statement not vision statement,
That is we’re you put you plans,values etc in to.I hope you don't coach people how to respond to posts on forums?
No I don’t need too,
Just how to play and get to their eventual goals.
I am actually running a coaching session now believe it or not.
Using my coaching app coaches eye for video anlaysis.Tsf had a rebrand?
I am not talking about your fantasies.
Coaches eye look it up American base app used by coaches here in Australia.Very cool man
Stuff
