Is Umaga doing a good job?
-
@kiwimurph I thought Bryce Woodward was Fulltime as his assistant?
-
2 full time coaches (Lam & Woodward), everyone else was part time.
Now there is 4 full time plus a mental skills coach. Similar to what the other teams had during Lams time.
-
Do we think Tana could actually play Reiko at 13 without upsetting the AB crowd? and re Moala I wonder if Tana thinks he's the best of a few poor options, so better to have him and his 'experience/potential' on the field rather than get slated for a playing a less experienced guy in that role.
Goes back to the curse of 1st 5 for me. Black and then Perofeta getting injured has totally fucked their initial plans. I get that you have to be able to change plans but while Gatland isn't terrible, he isn't driving the team around - and if he is trying Moala and co don't seem to be listening.
-
They should get Tom Coventry in the mix he would be a hell of an addition. Did great with the magpies and chiefs and has done well at NH.
The blues although at times are shocking are also up against it being in the NZ conference. They could have a resonable season and due to the structure still not make the playoffs as you can't get 5 NZ teams in the draw. The last 2 seasons they have been 1 win out of being in the top 8 on points (but still missing out due to other NZ teams).
They weren't great on the weekend but were also one not straight lineout away from a potential win. That hookers 2 throws at the end were both not straight even though the ref only called the last one not straight.
Not really a blues fan and understand mediocrity isn't accepted in NZ rugby but as a kiwi living in Brisbane I am this week listening to Reds fans in RM Williams boots telling me what a good ground out win the reds had after scoring no tries at their home ground against an average opponent.
I for one would rather support a Blues than Reds side.
-
It is possibly the biggest misconception about the new format, that it is not possible to have 5 NZ teams in the finals. Not just the conferences have changed, also the rules around who qualifies for the finals! This is from the SANZAAR website:
Finals Series
Quarter-final Hosts (4 teams)- Three Conference winners
- Best Wildcard team – (based on tournament points) regardless of Conference
Quarter-final Wildcard spots (4 teams)
- Four next best Wildcard teams (based on tournament points) regardless of Conference
So NZ will have one conference winner, and the remaining four teams can claim wildcard spots.
Obviously, it will be difficult, because we have the most difficult conference for winning national derbies, but if teams manage to win (almost) all of their games v non-NZ competition, it should be possible. -
@stargazer said in Is Umaga doing a good job?:
It is possibly the biggest misconception about the new format, that it is not possible to have 5 NZ teams in the finals. Not just the conferences have changed, also the rules around who qualifies for the finals! This is from the SANZAAR website:
Finals Series
Quarter-final Hosts (4 teams)- Three Conference winners
- Best Wildcard team – (based on tournament points) regardless of Conference
Quarter-final Wildcard spots (4 teams)
- Four next best Wildcard teams (based on tournament points) regardless of Conference
So NZ will have one conference winner, and the remaining four teams can claim wildcard spots.
Obviously, it will be difficult, because we have the most difficult conference for winning national derbies, but if teams manage to win (almost) all of their games v non-NZ competition, it should be possible.Technically, yes all 5 teams could make it, and despite all the wrist slitting going on north of the Bombays the Blues were a win and a BP away from making that happen last year (and the players should have shot themselves after failing to turn up against the Sunwolves). Along the way any number of favourable calls or luck in their favour could have seen them make the finals.
However, last year was also very freakish in the weakness of 2/3s of the comp teams. The win ratio from all non NZ teams apart from the Lions and Stormers was pathetic with one conference failing to produce a single team with a +50% record. That doesn't happen often.
Minimum threshold to even cross your fingers on other results is probably 43 points, so 9 wins plus 7 BPs or preferably 10 wins plus whatever BPs you will pick up along the way without thinking about them too much (3 or 4 seems to be a natural accumulation).
That means that you need to win 2 derbies minimum (if winning all non conference games). Drop a non conference game and you have to add another in conference win to the target.
So really, you need to win nearly all non conference games and probably 3 of your 4 home 'in conference' ones.
The flip side of all NZ teams doing that and getting through is that, apart from the conference winner, the NZ teams win likely all just scrape in.
Obviously any NZ win the Blues get is a loss for another NZ team.
-
@crucial said in Is Umaga doing a good job?:
@stargazer said in Is Umaga doing a good job?:
It is possibly the biggest misconception about the new format, that it is not possible to have 5 NZ teams in the finals. Not just the conferences have changed, also the rules around who qualifies for the finals! This is from the SANZAAR website:
Finals Series
Quarter-final Hosts (4 teams)- Three Conference winners
- Best Wildcard team – (based on tournament points) regardless of Conference
Quarter-final Wildcard spots (4 teams)
- Four next best Wildcard teams (based on tournament points) regardless of Conference
So NZ will have one conference winner, and the remaining four teams can claim wildcard spots.
Obviously, it will be difficult, because we have the most difficult conference for winning national derbies, but if teams manage to win (almost) all of their games v non-NZ competition, it should be possible.Technically, yes all 5 teams could make it, and despite all the wrist slitting going on north of the Bombays the Blues were a win and a BP away from making that happen last year (and the players should have shot themselves after failing to turn up against the Sunwolves). Along the way any number of favourable calls or luck in their favour could have seen them make the finals.
However, last year was also very freakish in the weakness of 2/3s of the comp teams. The win ratio from all non NZ teams apart from the Lions and Stormers was pathetic with one conference failing to produce a single team with a +50% record. That doesn't happen often.
Minimum threshold to even cross your fingers on other results is probably 43 points, so 9 wins plus 7 BPs or preferably 10 wins plus whatever BPs you will pick up along the way without thinking about them too much (3 or 4 seems to be a natural accumulation).
That means that you need to win 2 derbies minimum (if winning all non conference games). Drop a non conference game and you have to add another in conference win to the target.
So really, you need to win nearly all non conference games and probably 3 of your 4 home 'in conference' ones.
The flip side of all NZ teams doing that and getting through is that, apart from the conference winner, the NZ teams win likely all just scrape in.
Obviously any NZ win the Blues get is a loss for another NZ team.
Under the 2016 and 2017 format, only a maximum of 4 NZ franchises could reach the finals (conference winner and a maximum of 3 wild cards). And yes, as I already indicated, it will be difficult also under the current format.
-
@stargazer said in Is Umaga doing a good job?:
@crucial said in Is Umaga doing a good job?:
@stargazer said in Is Umaga doing a good job?:
It is possibly the biggest misconception about the new format, that it is not possible to have 5 NZ teams in the finals. Not just the conferences have changed, also the rules around who qualifies for the finals! This is from the SANZAAR website:
Finals Series
Quarter-final Hosts (4 teams)- Three Conference winners
- Best Wildcard team – (based on tournament points) regardless of Conference
Quarter-final Wildcard spots (4 teams)
- Four next best Wildcard teams (based on tournament points) regardless of Conference
So NZ will have one conference winner, and the remaining four teams can claim wildcard spots.
Obviously, it will be difficult, because we have the most difficult conference for winning national derbies, but if teams manage to win (almost) all of their games v non-NZ competition, it should be possible.Technically, yes all 5 teams could make it, and despite all the wrist slitting going on north of the Bombays the Blues were a win and a BP away from making that happen last year (and the players should have shot themselves after failing to turn up against the Sunwolves). Along the way any number of favourable calls or luck in their favour could have seen them make the finals.
However, last year was also very freakish in the weakness of 2/3s of the comp teams. The win ratio from all non NZ teams apart from the Lions and Stormers was pathetic with one conference failing to produce a single team with a +50% record. That doesn't happen often.
Minimum threshold to even cross your fingers on other results is probably 43 points, so 9 wins plus 7 BPs or preferably 10 wins plus whatever BPs you will pick up along the way without thinking about them too much (3 or 4 seems to be a natural accumulation).
That means that you need to win 2 derbies minimum (if winning all non conference games). Drop a non conference game and you have to add another in conference win to the target.
So really, you need to win nearly all non conference games and probably 3 of your 4 home 'in conference' ones.
The flip side of all NZ teams doing that and getting through is that, apart from the conference winner, the NZ teams win likely all just scrape in.
Obviously any NZ win the Blues get is a loss for another NZ team.
Under the 2016 and 2017 format, only a maximum of 4 NZ franchises could reach the finals (conference winner and a maximum of 3 wild cards). And yes, as I already indicated, it will be difficult also under the current format.
Cheers, forgot that. But still comparatively speaking the season performance by the Blues was fringe qualifying.
-
From Nigel Yalden
Good morning & welcome to another edition of "When Rugby Geeks Get Bored". I've taken a look scoring by quarters numbers for the Blues during recent NZ derbies. Now rather than going all the way back to the start of their poor run against other kiwi franchises, I've chosen just to go with the games beginning 2016, which is when Tana Umaga took over as Blues coach. This is the same as what I did last year with the Warriors in the NRL, though I've chosen to added possession stats for this as well (am trying to get territory stats too but they are proving a bit tougher to locate & then disseminate) PS Team of the Week should be ready for you later this afternoon - cheers heaps NY
-
So what do we take from Nigel's stats? That they're unfit and fall off games? That when the pressure comes on they resort to individualism and headless play where their errors are punished?
-
@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.
