Is Umaga doing a good job?
-
@antipodean That the Blues have poor second half adjustments/gameplans and that the Blues have poor bench impact (it used to be the likes of Prattley, now it's the likes of Apasai).
-
Yeah, I’m not sure how to interpret that either. Territory would help, but it’s still s but too general.
Anyway, the key period appears to be the third quarter.
That could be fitness, as they give up the points there, which can’t be clawed back when the subs come on.
It could also be that other teams work them out (or have coaches that work them out), so that during the period after half time, their weaknesses are exploited, and the blues give up enough points that they get pushed out of games.
-
Good point about the quality of subs.
-
@gt12 not to mention some that seem pre-determined for no reason other than to use the bench.
Prime example was Parsons (who I've never really been a fan of) was playing bloody well, seemed to be still full of energy, was subbed for Apasai (did he go off before or after Pulu?)
You need some of your senior players (like Parsons) who need to play 80 unless injured or can clearly see they are fucked (which oddly I think he did a few seasons back, I remember Moulds sitting on the bench week after week) as they are the ones who can help close out the final quarter
-
Spot on! Other teams shut them down after half time. They kick a lot of penalties in third quarter, but can't score tries, while opposition scores plenty. This suggests a problem in their own coaching advice at halftime, compared to what opponents take from the break.
-
@duluth said in Is Umaga doing a good job?:
@nzzp said in Is Umaga doing a good job?:
Pat Lam copped a load of shit
The organisation changed a lot in Kirwans first year. They loosened their wallet and hired full time support coaches. The max two players outside the region limit was removed. Also they moved from the old training facilities that the players hated and thought was a dump etc etc
I would've liked to have seen Lam have the same advantages that Kirwan and Umaga have had.. but the changes happened too late for him.
Now I would like to see a non-celebrity coach have an opportunity after those improvements
Do you think if they had full time assistants they wouldn't have faxed through a Finals team sheet with Lachie Munro on the wing?
The assistant thing is tricky - Cheika ran with two part time assistants for a long period at international level. Deans made no demands and did not recruit his own assistants in 2008 with the Wallabies - famously he solely requested Lam himself as an assistant if he were the AB coach. Both had all the leverage to appoint brighter minds, but didn't see it as important. Many coaches don't when their ego gets in the way.
The failure to identify that you need as many people in the room smarter than yourself as possible is a key skill in the modern coaching game.
Don't think Umaga has done poorly in that respect - but the NZ conference is so brutal you almost need an assistant who could take your job tomorrow sitting in the co-pilot seat (not unlike Plumtree today) to keep up. Blues aren't there in that respect.
-
@rotated said in Is Umaga doing a good job?:
Do you think if they had full time assistants they wouldn't have faxed through a Finals team sheet with Lachie Munro on the wing?
I mentioned another major issue being the silly selection restrictions. The vast majority of the squad had to come from within the region.
Harbour & Northland being at historic lows and Mark Anscombe's odd Auckland selections (Berquist, Morland, Ward etc) really limited who could be selected at the Blues.
Lam rejected Munro at NPC level and then had very little choice but to pick him at SR level. It was madness.Kirwan and Umaga have not had that restriction
-
@gt12 I wouldn’t think it’s that hard to interpret. Plain and simple the second half performances of the Blues have generally been shocking. I’ve watched all of those Blues games from those stats and from my armchair the biggest issue has been their inability to keep the defensive intensity. That would be a combination of fitness, leadership, sub quality and tactics.
They haven’t struggled to put points on per se, but they give up far to many because they seem to go passive.
The game against the Chiefs week was a good example of that.
The game against the Landers however was a genuine 50/50 and probably one of the better performances from the Blues.
-
@duluth said in Is Umaga doing a good job?:
@rotated said in Is Umaga doing a good job?:
Do you think if they had full time assistants they wouldn't have faxed through a Finals team sheet with Lachie Munro on the wing?
I mentioned another major issue being the silly selection restrictions. The vast majority of the squad had to come from within the region.
Harbour & Northland being at historic lows and Mark Anscombe's odd Auckland selections (Berquist, Morland, Ward etc) really limited who could be selected at the Blues.
Lam rejected Munro at NPC level and then had very little choice but to pick him at SR level. It was madness.Kirwan and Umaga have not had that restriction
Fair call and the deference to selections from within the catchment - particularly being handcuffed to selections from Northland like Munro - was something that lasted for far too long. Still would have played Stowers or literally any other person with first class experience on the wing in that fixture.
Also while Kirwan and Umaga don't have those constraints they certainly didn't have two out of catchment players the class of Nonu and Weepu gifted on their doorstep like in 2012 when we entered as competition favourites and finished 4-12. So swings and roundabouts - the general consensus at the time was never Lam never had the cattle.
Your call for a non-celebrity coach is the right one - no more ABs please.
-
@rotated seriously pal, let it go, the Blues were never 'handcuffed' to anyone, even if they signed him for 3 seasons, they could still do what they did to Anscombe.
I know you have always claimed any Northland player is a 'token' player to appease our supposed powerhouse voting base within the Blues franchise.
-
@rotated said in Is Umaga doing a good job?:
Deans made no demands and did not recruit his own assistants in 2008 with the Wallabies - famously he solely requested Lam himself as an assistant if he were the AB coach. Both had all the leverage to appoint brighter minds, but didn't see it as important. Many coaches don't when their ego gets in the way.
I've always thought that was a bit of bollocks, really.
Henry had an obvious advantage in that he could easily say he'd stick with Smith and Hansen. Unless Robbie had sounded out potential assistants - and that wouldn't necessarily be an obvious thing to have done, since he wasn't yet appointed - he wasn't really in a position to say "these are the guys I'm going to conscript".
