Foster, Robertson etc
-
Stuff understands the player feedback on Plumtree and Mooar had been consistent for a couple of years, without action from the NZ Rugby board.
@KiwiMurph that sort of info doesn’t fall off the back of a truck. So Stuff obviously has a sauce that is willingly to stitch up the assistants…
-
@KiwiMurph said in Foster:
It would be very interesting to find out what Plumtree and Mooar think about the whole thing.
Getting thrown under the bus and having your replacements be held up as saviours of your teflon coated ex boss can’t be the most enjoyable experience.
Proof is in the pudding surely. Players said they weren’t up to it. Head coach said they weren’t up to it. Replacements were.
I’d lay low if I was them and pretend they were victims of a refocusAnd his record says Foster “isn’t up to it”.
But he survived partly by knifing his assistants. ie shifting the blame onto them.I doubt Mooar or Plumtree thought they weren’t up to it. It would be interesting to know what their opinions of the situation are. Very unlikely we find out any time soon though. Maybe it will be in a auto biography one day.
Obviously the sample size is small but looking at the Boks game there has already been improvements in the forwards (Plumtree's area) and the backs attack (I believe was Mooar's area?) plus this
Stuff understands the player feedback on Plumtree and Mooar had been consistent for a couple of years, without action from the NZ Rugby board.Yeah, Im not suggesting that these guys were doing a good job. Just wondering whether they are happy to cop the majority of the blame and get sacked while Foster dodges the bullets and survives.
Were they not working to Fosters plans? If so why did he keep them there for so long in the face of poor reviews from players? -
-
@ACT-Crusader said in Foster:
Stuff understands the player feedback on Plumtree and Mooar had been consistent for a couple of years, without action from the NZ Rugby board.
@KiwiMurph that sort of info doesn’t fall off the back of a truck. So Stuff obviously has a sauce that is willingly to stitch up the assistants…
There was action from the NZR board. It’s just that the action was to extend their contracts 2 years. What a mess.
-
@ACT-Crusader said in Foster:
here we go .....
2014 NPC semi, Nick Briant stitched us up…
I think that was Kieron Fonotia's finest hour. He had a young Jack Goodhue on toast.
We'd smashed your boys in ChCh earlier that year as well.
A coulda/shoulda won season. Tom Marshall didn't hear the final whistle in the round robin vs Taranaki, when all we needed to do was kick it out to win. He didn't, they turned it over, scored, won and got a home final on the strength of it.
-
-
@KiwiMurph said in Foster:
It would be very interesting to find out what Plumtree and Mooar think about the whole thing.
Getting thrown under the bus and having your replacements be held up as saviours of your teflon coated ex boss can’t be the most enjoyable experience.
Proof is in the pudding surely. Players said they weren’t up to it. Head coach said they weren’t up to it. Replacements were.
I’d lay low if I was them and pretend they were victims of a refocusAnd his record says Foster “isn’t up to it”.
But he survived partly by knifing his assistants. ie shifting the blame onto them.I doubt Mooar or Plumtree thought they weren’t up to it. It would be interesting to know what their opinions of the situation are. Very unlikely we find out any time soon though. Maybe it will be in a auto biography one day.
Obviously the sample size is small but looking at the Boks game there has already been improvements in the forwards (Plumtree's area) and the backs attack (I believe was Mooar's area?) plus this
Stuff understands the player feedback on Plumtree and Mooar had been consistent for a couple of years, without action from the NZ Rugby board.Yeah, Im not suggesting that these guys were doing a good job. Just wondering whether they are happy to cop the majority of the blame and get sacked while Foster dodges the bullets and survives.
Were they not working to Fosters plans? If so why did he keep them there for so long in the face of poor reviews from players?Have they really copped the blame though? Foster was copping all the blame but has saved himself by finally being willing to make changes, and in doing so, got a good win.
Most will see that they were replaced by better options not as the cause. -
@ACT-Crusader said in Foster:
here we go .....
2014 NPC semi, Nick Briant stitched us up…
I think that was Kieron Fonotia's finest hour. He had a young Jack Goodhue on toast.
We'd smashed your boys in ChCh earlier that year as well.
A coulda/shoulda won season. Tom Marshall didn't hear the final whistle in the round robin vs Taranaki, when all we needed to do was kick it out to win. He didn't, they turned it over, scored, won and got a home final on the strength of it.
It was a very good final. The best I’d seen the likes of Marty McKenzie and Chris Smylie play. I think Naki still had the Irish Maori halfback still playing for them too.
But we digress.
-
@KiwiMurph said in Foster:
It would be very interesting to find out what Plumtree and Mooar think about the whole thing.
Getting thrown under the bus and having your replacements be held up as saviours of your teflon coated ex boss can’t be the most enjoyable experience.
Proof is in the pudding surely. Players said they weren’t up to it. Head coach said they weren’t up to it. Replacements were.
I’d lay low if I was them and pretend they were victims of a refocusAnd his record says Foster “isn’t up to it”.
But he survived partly by knifing his assistants. ie shifting the blame onto them.I doubt Mooar or Plumtree thought they weren’t up to it. It would be interesting to know what their opinions of the situation are. Very unlikely we find out any time soon though. Maybe it will be in a auto biography one day.
Obviously the sample size is small but looking at the Boks game there has already been improvements in the forwards (Plumtree's area) and the backs attack (I believe was Mooar's area?) plus this
Stuff understands the player feedback on Plumtree and Mooar had been consistent for a couple of years, without action from the NZ Rugby board.Yeah, Im not suggesting that these guys were doing a good job. Just wondering whether they are happy to cop the majority of the blame and get sacked while Foster dodges the bullets and survives.
Were they not working to Fosters plans? If so why did he keep them there for so long in the face of poor reviews from players?Have they really copped the blame though? Foster was copping all the blame but has saved himself by finally being willing to make changes, and in doing so, got a good win.
Most will see that they were replaced by better options not as the cause.Of course they have. You said yourself that the players and head coach said they weren’t up to it and they have been sacked for poor performance. I don’t see how else that can be interpreted.
This wasn’t just some simple upgrade to better options. -
@KiwiMurph said in Foster:
It would be very interesting to find out what Plumtree and Mooar think about the whole thing.
Getting thrown under the bus and having your replacements be held up as saviours of your teflon coated ex boss can’t be the most enjoyable experience.
Proof is in the pudding surely. Players said they weren’t up to it. Head coach said they weren’t up to it. Replacements were.
I’d lay low if I was them and pretend they were victims of a refocusAnd his record says Foster “isn’t up to it”.
But he survived partly by knifing his assistants. ie shifting the blame onto them.I doubt Mooar or Plumtree thought they weren’t up to it. It would be interesting to know what their opinions of the situation are. Very unlikely we find out any time soon though. Maybe it will be in a auto biography one day.
Obviously the sample size is small but looking at the Boks game there has already been improvements in the forwards (Plumtree's area) and the backs attack (I believe was Mooar's area?) plus this
Stuff understands the player feedback on Plumtree and Mooar had been consistent for a couple of years, without action from the NZ Rugby board.Yeah, Im not suggesting that these guys were doing a good job. Just wondering whether they are happy to cop the majority of the blame and get sacked while Foster dodges the bullets and survives.
Were they not working to Fosters plans? If so why did he keep them there for so long in the face of poor reviews from players?Have they really copped the blame though? Foster was copping all the blame but has saved himself by finally being willing to make changes, and in doing so, got a good win.
Most will see that they were replaced by better options not as the cause.Of course they have. You said yourself that the players and head coach said they weren’t up to it and they have been sacked for poor performance. I don’t see how else that can be interpreted.
This wasn’t just some simple upgrade to better options.Umm, no I didn't ...
I'm not exonerating Foster for anything here, just pointing out that these guys contributed to the problems, the players called it out and the head coach supported them as long as he could without losing his own job. Not sure why they are being painted as victims here.
-
and new players all ready to be put into place.
That would have created some HR issues I'd assume as the amount of compensation a player gets is tied to them making the AB squad. New boss comes in and ditches some of the players mid competition. Maybe at the least NZ rugby would have to pay out any players dumped mid RC the full rate?
-
and new players all ready to be put into place.
That would have created some HR issues I'd assume as the amount of compensation a player gets is tied to them making the AB squad. New boss comes in and ditches some of the players mid competition. Maybe at the least NZ rugby would have to pay out any players dumped mid RC the full rate?
I think he meant coaches and new assistants.
But in any event, the ABs can name a new squad whenever they want I would’ve thought.
The Wallabies just did for the Saffa tests.
-
@ACT-Crusader said in Foster:
and new players all ready to be put into place.
That would have created some HR issues I'd assume as the amount of compensation a player gets is tied to them making the AB squad. New boss comes in and ditches some of the players mid competition. Maybe at the least NZ rugby would have to pay out any players dumped mid RC the full rate?
I think he meant coaches and new assistants.
But in any event, the ABs can name a new squad whenever they want I would’ve thought.
The Wallabies just did for the Saffa tests.
Ah right, I thought he meant the actual players.
I thought the ABs name the squad for the RC and that carries on through (aside from injury replacements and additions) and I assume that would be part of the players agreement (but I'm just speculating).
-
@chchfanatic said in Foster:
@Crucial yes your answer is exactly right.
I also heard that on the Wednesday before test everything was in place, severance pays organized, press conferences, and new players all ready to be put into place.
And then we won with a pretty bloody good performance. Screwed all the plans up.
We can just hope that NZRU have told Razor that post RWC you have the keys, 4 years, do your thing. I don't think we'll win the RWC, whoever is coaching, so it may be a good think that Razor gets a new canvass to work on, and 4 seasons to do it.
If it's 4 seasons we need to see a review period every year or two, mainly on the coaching quality but also on the factors impacting results. Let's not have a repeat of the last few months.
-
@Victor-Meldrew or maybe some kpis tied to, um, winning? Winning is surely everything in that job.
As I have said a few times, and this is the thread for repeating things, I can kinda understand Fozzie.being re-signed last year, although the timing was piss poor.
So when he re-signed, he should have had some kpis around the EOYT, the home Irish series, Bledisloe and TRC.
If I had been setting KPIs I reckon I'd have put 1 of the French or Irish tests as a must
I'd have had win home series vs Ireland, must win, could have gone further and added maintain unbeaten record in NZ, but think that would have been a tad too far (even if most would expect that)
If we dug into TRC, I'd actually have been fine with 1/2 v SA.
Bledisloe is must win
TRC result, 2nd or betterBut hey, that's just my view of what should have happened, cos where we are now, is talking about HOW we lose, not the fact that we win.
-
@taniwharugby said in Foster:
@Victor-Meldrew or maybe some kpis tied to, um, winning?
As I have said a few times, and this is the thread for repeating things, I can kinda understand Fozzie.being re-signed last year, although the timing was piss poor.
So when he re-signed, he should have had some kpis around the EOYT, the home Irish series, Bledisloe and TRC.
If I had been setting KPIs I reckon I'd have put 1 of the French or Irish tests as a must
I'd have had win home series vs Ireland, must win, could have gone further and added maintain unbeaten record in NZ, but think that would have been a tad too far (even if most would expect that)
If we dug into TRC, I'd actually have been fine with 1/2 v SA.
Bledisloe is must win
TRC result, 2nd or betterBut hey, that's just my view of what should have happened
The only problem I have with that is I think a results-based measure is a bit too simplistic and it doesn't take into account of the quality of opposition, AB player pool, injuries etc. You'd potentially be dumping any new-ish coach after one poor tournament or home series, which no-one wants - well, apart from a few loons and fair-weather fans.
I see the reviews as an opportunity to look not only at the coaching quality and whether he's been over-promoted, over-hyped, needs increased support or is put on notice, but also take into account the wider picture on things like player development, coaching pool available, skills in certain positions, weaknesses etc. The former has obvious confidentiality issues but there's no reason why the latter can't be as open as possible and would be a good thing.
-
@Victor-Meldrew yeah of course, it certainly isnt quite that simple, but this is running the bestest and winningest rugby team in the history of rugby, and you have no kpis around winning?
What other things can you genuinely measure him on?
New players bought in? Easy to do if winning doesn't matter.
How you play? Very subjective, and then cards can influence this.
PLayer disipline, probably one we could look at, but we know how fickle they can be anywaySure, winning isn't everything, but for the AB coach, it damn well should be a very important, large peice of the puzzle.
