Foster, Robertson etc
-
@Victor-Meldrew said in Foster, Robertson etc:
@kiwi_expat said in Foster, Robertson etc:
Weren't you one of the few on here trying to claim previous coaches did worse despite Foster's record being the worst of the professional-era?
I've consistently said Foster inherited big problems which needed time to fix and that would have impacted any coach, but also that he wasn't the man to fix them and should have gone after Ireland III.
But you are missing the point that Foster was central to creating those problems in the first place.
It's well documented that Foster's role was expanded in the last 2-3 years of his Hansen tenure. Foster was given authority over game-plan, strategy, co-ordinating training sessions -- and this coincided with the All Black's decline over Hansen's last few years.
Hansen said it himself that in his final year Foster was effectively running most things as Hansen had transitioned into a much less hands-on role, moving into the background at that stage.
And 2019 was a dire year, that's what happens when you entrust underqualified mates to influential positions.
-
@kiwi_expat said in Foster, Robertson etc:
@Victor-Meldrew said in Foster, Robertson etc:
@kiwi_expat said in Foster, Robertson etc:
Weren't you one of the few on here trying to claim previous coaches did worse despite Foster's record being the worst of the professional-era?
I've consistently said Foster inherited big problems which needed time to fix and that would have impacted any coach, but also that he wasn't the man to fix them and should have gone after Ireland III.
But you are missing the point that Foster was central to creating those problems in the first place.
So The Head Coach isn't responsible for causing problems then?
It's well documented that Foster's role was expanded in the last 2-3 years of his Hansen tenure. Foster was given authority over game-plan, strategy, co-ordinating training sessions -- and this coincided with the All Black's decline over Hansen's last few years.
Apparently not....
Hansen said it himself that in his final year Foster was effectively running most things as Hansen had transitioned into a much less hands-on role, moving into the background at that stage.
Oh wait....so now the Head Coach (Hansen) IS responsible
And 2019 was a dire year, that's what happens when you entrust underqualified mates to influential positions.
Yep. The Mighty All Blacks would smash anyone if only they'd pick your bloke as Coach.
-
@Victor-Meldrew said in Foster, Robertson etc:
@nostrildamus said in Foster, Robertson etc:
Now we don't know if there is a process, if people are genuinely interviewed and the whole process is a farce.
The only way the public would know - and to stop media speculation and conspiracy theories - would be if NZR made the whole process public. They aren't going to do that any more than any other business organisation. That doesn't mean their PR & People Management shouldn't be critiqued though.
No. As I said above, they made parts of the process public knowledge in 2019. They didn't even tell people they were interviewing this year until they are halfway through or possibly finished!
I'm not asking peope who failed to be selected as AB coach then should be named now, or even if the public should know who is applying. I'm just suggesting some consistency would be preferable for most concerned (and I don't know why the NZR are acting as they do but perhaps they have their reasons).
Consistency in what? Genuine question. If you're talking about clarity on picking the new coach, I'd agree. But perhaps they have made a conscious decision not to respond in light of previous media frenzies?
Consistency with 2019. Yes they may be more secretive now than 2019 for reasons I don't know about.
If you think the 2019/2020 process is the same as it is now, or this current process is superior, bully for you. But I don't see any discernible progress and it being a free country I'm voicing my opinion.
Absolutely. And NZR has a similar right to run their employment processes in a way they feel is best. Personally, I think the way they have handled Foster and tried to hang him out to dry has been appalling - probably other coaches too
Yes here I agree with you, he feels aggrieved, and perhaps was given private messages from NZR, I don't know why else he would change his mind from wanting to nominate himself to stepping down regardless at the end of the RWC. I don't think he would have spoken out unless he believed there was something going on to undermine him personally.
It doesn't seem to be a process that is creating much good feeling. Perhaps they have their reasons but they're not sharing them. -
Gonna put this thread on ignore…
-
@nostrildamus said in Foster, Robertson etc:
@Victor-Meldrew said in Foster, Robertson etc:
@nostrildamus said in Foster, Robertson etc:
Now we don't know if there is a process, if people are genuinely interviewed and the whole process is a farce.
The only way the public would know - and to stop media speculation and conspiracy theories - would be if NZR made the whole process public. They aren't going to do that any more than any other business organisation. That doesn't mean their PR & People Management shouldn't be critiqued though.
No. As I said above, they made parts of the process public knowledge in 2019. They didn't even tell people they were interviewing this year until they are halfway through or possibly finished!
Where do you get this from? Halfway through? Finished? You are taking rumours as facts it seems.
And why do they need to make the process public ? Because they did in the past and have been roundly criticised on it ever since?
-
@Crucial said in Foster, Robertson etc:
@kiwi_expat said in Foster, Robertson etc:
@Crucial The Irish side we beat 42-16 in the 1st test while Schmidt filled-in for Foster & wasn't involved in the other 2 tests, just a coincidence?
Same Irish side though. One good enough to adjust after the first test and not allow the same game.
You have to at least give the opposing teams credit for beating us. Otherwise it is plain arrogance.
There is no denying that certain teams that have not previously been much chop are currently very good.Although we dropped massively, so did the Irish adjust and improve or was it more we shat the bed in T2 and T3?
I actually think it was a bit of both.
-
@taniwharugby said in Foster, Robertson etc:
@Crucial said in Foster, Robertson etc:
@kiwi_expat said in Foster, Robertson etc:
@Crucial The Irish side we beat 42-16 in the 1st test while Schmidt filled-in for Foster & wasn't involved in the other 2 tests, just a coincidence?
Same Irish side though. One good enough to adjust after the first test and not allow the same game.
You have to at least give the opposing teams credit for beating us. Otherwise it is plain arrogance.
There is no denying that certain teams that have not previously been much chop are currently very good.Although we dropped massively, so did the Irish adjust and improve or was it more we shat the bed in T2 and T3?
I actually think it was a bit of both.
They brought a different picture and we weren’t ready for it.
2nd test was also marred by the loss of Ardie from an officials fuck up and obviously the weird red card.
The result was a loss but don’t forget we had two “tries” disallowed and played a long time with 14
Not excuse but we are talking performance here not results. IMO we performed well enough to win that game but moments denied us.
3rd test we did shit the bed and that one is on the coaches/players/preparation/selections -
@kiwi_expat said in Foster, Robertson etc:
@Victor-Meldrew said in Foster, Robertson etc:
@kiwi_expat said in Foster, Robertson etc:
Weren't you one of the few on here trying to claim previous coaches did worse despite Foster's record being the worst of the professional-era?
I've consistently said Foster inherited big problems which needed time to fix and that would have impacted any coach, but also that he wasn't the man to fix them and should have gone after Ireland III.
But you are missing the point that Foster was central to creating those problems in the first place.
It's well documented that Foster's role was expanded in the last 2-3 years of his Hansen tenure. Foster was given authority over game-plan, strategy, co-ordinating training sessions -- and this coincided with the All Black's decline over Hansen's last few years.
Hansen said it himself that in his final year Foster was effectively running most things as Hansen had transitioned into a much less hands-on role, moving into the background at that stage.
And 2019 was a dire year, that's what happens when you entrust underqualified mates to influential positions.
I really must read Hansen's book again, I know I getting on a bit, but certainly don't recall him saying that Foster took over all these things in coaching group, I must of missed it. I will reread it when I get homto NZ, I sure i must of forgotten some part of it, or you have a vivid imagination.
-
@Dan54 said in Foster, Robertson etc:
@kiwi_expat said in Foster, Robertson etc:
@Victor-Meldrew said in Foster, Robertson etc:
@kiwi_expat said in Foster, Robertson etc:
Weren't you one of the few on here trying to claim previous coaches did worse despite Foster's record being the worst of the professional-era?
I've consistently said Foster inherited big problems which needed time to fix and that would have impacted any coach, but also that he wasn't the man to fix them and should have gone after Ireland III.
But you are missing the point that Foster was central to creating those problems in the first place.
It's well documented that Foster's role was expanded in the last 2-3 years of his Hansen tenure. Foster was given authority over game-plan, strategy, co-ordinating training sessions -- and this coincided with the All Black's decline over Hansen's last few years.
Hansen said it himself that in his final year Foster was effectively running most things as Hansen had transitioned into a much less hands-on role, moving into the background at that stage.
And 2019 was a dire year, that's what happens when you entrust underqualified mates to influential positions.
I really must read Hansen's book again, I know I getting on a bit, but certainly don't recall him saying that Foster took over all these things in coaching group, I must of missed it. I will reread it when I get homto NZ, I sure i must of forgotten some part of it, or you have a vivid imagination.
I’m really confused now. Was Foster running the show or just an assistant with no decent record?
Which one is it? -
@Crucial said in Foster, Robertson etc:
@Dan54 said in Foster, Robertson etc:
@kiwi_expat said in Foster, Robertson etc:
@Victor-Meldrew said in Foster, Robertson etc:
@kiwi_expat said in Foster, Robertson etc:
Weren't you one of the few on here trying to claim previous coaches did worse despite Foster's record being the worst of the professional-era?
I've consistently said Foster inherited big problems which needed time to fix and that would have impacted any coach, but also that he wasn't the man to fix them and should have gone after Ireland III.
But you are missing the point that Foster was central to creating those problems in the first place.
It's well documented that Foster's role was expanded in the last 2-3 years of his Hansen tenure. Foster was given authority over game-plan, strategy, co-ordinating training sessions -- and this coincided with the All Black's decline over Hansen's last few years.
Hansen said it himself that in his final year Foster was effectively running most things as Hansen had transitioned into a much less hands-on role, moving into the background at that stage.
And 2019 was a dire year, that's what happens when you entrust underqualified mates to influential positions.
I really must read Hansen's book again, I know I getting on a bit, but certainly don't recall him saying that Foster took over all these things in coaching group, I must of missed it. I will reread it when I get homto NZ, I sure i must of forgotten some part of it, or you have a vivid imagination.
I’m really confused now. Was Foster running the show or just an assistant with no decent record?
> Which one is it?Don't be daft. We all know if we'd beaten England and got to the final and/or won it, it would be despite Foster. Foster's only ever involved when things go badly.
-
@Crucial said in Foster, Robertson etc:
@taniwharugby said in Foster, Robertson etc:
@Crucial said in Foster, Robertson etc:
@kiwi_expat said in Foster, Robertson etc:
@Crucial The Irish side we beat 42-16 in the 1st test while Schmidt filled-in for Foster & wasn't involved in the other 2 tests, just a coincidence?
Same Irish side though. One good enough to adjust after the first test and not allow the same game.
You have to at least give the opposing teams credit for beating us. Otherwise it is plain arrogance.
There is no denying that certain teams that have not previously been much chop are currently very good.Although we dropped massively, so did the Irish adjust and improve or was it more we shat the bed in T2 and T3?
I actually think it was a bit of both.
They brought a different picture and we weren’t ready for it.
2nd test was also marred by the loss of Ardie from an officials fuck up and obviously the weird red card.
The result was a loss but don’t forget we had two “tries” disallowed and played a long time with 14
Not excuse but we are talking performance here not results. IMO we performed well enough to win that game but moments denied us.
3rd test we did shit the bed and that one is on the coaches/players/preparation/selectionsAlso the warning signs were very evident in the first test. I remember the Irish making ground at will and from memory they crossed our line a number of times for no reward The score flattered us. A few posters pointed it out at the time.
-
@nostrildamus said in Foster, Robertson etc:
No. As I said above, they made parts of the process public knowledge in 2019. They didn't even tell people they were interviewing this year until they are halfway through or possibly finished!
I can understand that. May be poor PR, but it is a sensible approach to keep cards close to the chest after 2019.
-
@Crazy-Horse said in Foster, Robertson etc:
@Crucial said in Foster, Robertson etc:
@taniwharugby said in Foster, Robertson etc:
@Crucial said in Foster, Robertson etc:
@kiwi_expat said in Foster, Robertson etc:
@Crucial The Irish side we beat 42-16 in the 1st test while Schmidt filled-in for Foster & wasn't involved in the other 2 tests, just a coincidence?
Same Irish side though. One good enough to adjust after the first test and not allow the same game.
You have to at least give the opposing teams credit for beating us. Otherwise it is plain arrogance.
There is no denying that certain teams that have not previously been much chop are currently very good.Although we dropped massively, so did the Irish adjust and improve or was it more we shat the bed in T2 and T3?
I actually think it was a bit of both.
They brought a different picture and we weren’t ready for it.
2nd test was also marred by the loss of Ardie from an officials fuck up and obviously the weird red card.
The result was a loss but don’t forget we had two “tries” disallowed and played a long time with 14
Not excuse but we are talking performance here not results. IMO we performed well enough to win that game but moments denied us.
3rd test we did shit the bed and that one is on the coaches/players/preparation/selectionsAlso the warning signs were very evident in the first test. I remember the Irish making ground at will and from memory they crossed our line a number of times for no reward The score flattered us. A few posters pointed it out at the time.
There was a lot of complacency after that game and I expected a backlash in the next Test. The 3rd Test showed we just didn't have a clue, didn't learn and hadn't moved forward much since 2018/9. We had deep problems and needed a change.
To paraphrase the late, great Irish No.8 Moss Keane: "The second Test was even. The Third Test was even worse"
-
Watching the AB7s at the moment and a likely unpopular scenario occurred to me.
I have been quite critical of the AB7s coaching and direction and tactics etc. it was not obvious what they were trying to do to get better and they looked to have slipped well of their pedestal.
The team kept telling us that they knew what to work on and it needed to come together. It was little things not anything major or new.
Low and behold that has happened and currently even with new blood being introduced the other teams are looking very ordinary. We just smashed a Samoa team that has been a thorn in our side for a while.
The parallel is that Fosters side also went through the same disruption and pain. We can’t see what the vision is and where the “new style” will improve things. We are critical of the coaches and senior players. They are telling us that they know what they are trying to do but haven’t got there yet.
Is it just possible that they might get where they are aiming by the RWC? That they know exactly the bits they aren’t achieving and are getting the puzzle pieces together.
The obvious missing piece remaining is at 6. -
@Crucial said in Foster, Robertson etc:
Watching the AB7s at the moment and a likely unpopular scenario occurred to me.
I have been quite critical of the AB7s coaching and direction and tactics etc. it was not obvious what they were trying to do to get better and they looked to have slipped well of their pedestal.
The team kept telling us that they knew what to work on and it needed to come together. It was little things not anything major or new.
Low and behold that has happened and currently even with new blood being introduced the other teams are looking very ordinary. We just smashed a Samoa team that has been a thorn in our side for a while.
The parallel is that Fosters side also went through the same disruption and pain. We can’t see what the vision is and where the “new style” will improve things. We are critical of the coaches and senior players. They are telling us that they know what they are trying to do but haven’t got there yet.
Is it just possible that they might get where they are aiming by the RWC? That they know exactly the bits they aren’t achieving and are getting the puzzle pieces together.
The obvious missing piece remaining is at 6.and 10, and possibly 15, and arguably 13.
-
@Victor-Meldrew said in Foster, Robertson etc:
@nostrildamus said in Foster, Robertson etc:
No. As I said above, they made parts of the process public knowledge in 2019. They didn't even tell people they were interviewing this year until they are halfway through or possibly finished!
I can understand that. May be poor PR, but it is a sensible approach to keep cards close to the chest after 2019.
I don't see anything to show it is sensible.
Foster seems to have been in the dark, Robertson may have been in the dark, this secrecy seems to have created anger and confusion amongst coaches let alone the public. If they found the best candidates, interviewed them in the best way, and chose the best, yes this is a good approach then. But nobody seems to know. Yet.
I just hope if they did shortlist and talk to candidates, their shortlisting was optimal. It would be tragic if they overlooked a fantastic bolter or someone genuinely excellent but they didn't know that such an outstanding candidate for the head coach was available. . -
This post is deleted!
-
This post is deleted!
-
This post is deleted!
-
Fair point. But equally I can see merit in making a decision on selecting timing and approach in secret, though, and they aren't responsible for media speculation.
