Has Hansen gone stale?
-
@chester-draws Even if I don't agree with some selections there has been more consistency with Hansen, Foster and Fox as AB selectors than there was under Henry, Hansen and Smith. The latter group had a history of axing some players after a poor performance, but often lesser performing players were still retained. I'd put most of that on Henry based on the evidence across both tenures.
All coaches tend to show loyalty to their players and back themselves to get the best out of them if they aren't in the best form. In the current setup Hansen must have the final say on the forward selections with some input from Cron. I doubt Foster and Fox are the main reason behind the non-selection of Akira.
-
@chester-draws no I am not saying the selections have gotten worse. I am saying the way you described the Chiefs (I presume you were describing them) under Foster, is similar to the way people have described the recent ABs at various times.
-
A two year extension for Hansen with the announcement with the guarantee of retirement at the conclusion is best outcome for all parties IMO.
That window gives overseas candidates an opportunity to get their affairs in order and to be available while giving promising domestic candidates a more experience.
If 2019 goes pear shaped they can (and should) make wholesale changes to the support staff. If NZ goes this route Australia would be well advised to synchronize their coaching appointment to the same cycle as NZ.
-
-
-
@rotated Poorly constructed joke on the idea that the ABs choked (let alone like dogs) in 95 rather than got beaten by a team with the irresistible force of history (and Suzie) on its side, a superior pack and the one defence in the tournament that could keep the ABs tryless.
-
@smuts said in Has Hansen gone stale?:
@rotated Poorly constructed joke on the idea that the ABs choked (let alone like dogs) in 95 rather than got beaten by a team with the irresistible force of history (and Suzie) on its side, a superior pack and the one defence in the tournament that could keep the ABs tryless.
By a drop goal. In extra time
Don't be needy smuts
-
@mariner4life said in Has Hansen gone stale?:
By a drop goal. In extra time
against players that were vomiting on the sidelines.
Whether they were poisoned is a different matter, but they were sick (for whatever reason).
-
-
2007, 99 & 2003 in that order are RWCs I care not to remember.
1991 we were never good enough, 1995 we were, but didnt.
1995 will sadly always have an asterix for Kiwi fans - illness, of which is undisputed.
1995 will be remembered by other fans as Kiwis claiming a conspiracy of poisoning. -
-
@smuts said in Has Hansen gone stale?:
@rotated Poorly constructed joke on the idea that the ABs choked (let alone like dogs) in 95 rather than got beaten by a team with the irresistible force of history (and Suzie) on its side, a superior pack and the one defence in the tournament that could keep the ABs tryless.
Ah I see the choking like dogs line was canefan’s contribution thus the confusion.
1999 is the only one I’d even begin to consider as a choke and even there it was more a case of the team being understimulated rather than overstimulated and freezing.
-
@mariner4life You're sort of underlining my (admittedly weak) joke.
The ABs didn't choke. They were beaten. And yes, it was bloody close. But injury time drop goals likely wouldn't have been necessary if Bevan hadn't kept them in it by disallowing Kruger's clear try and calling Small back for a forward pass that wasn't.
-
-
-
@rotated Listen, I got as much mileage out of the choking bit as anyone, but I'm not sure its fair on either the ABs or their opponents. I'd argue that 1999 game was just one of those miraculous things, where the French just suddenly remembered how to create space.
