Foster, Robertson etc
-
@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.
-
@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.
Umm, yeah you did.
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 refocus -
-
@Chester-Draws said in Foster:
@MajorRage said in Foster:
Foster has learned nothing. We will be back to players out of position, favourites never dropped, a backline relying on individual brilliance etc.
Did he tell you this? Or are you just speculating?
You think after two decades, the one win will change who he is and how he works?
So that's all that happened then. Nothing changed and he got a win. Not changes in the assistant coaches, not changes in the personnel. None of that existed. Right.
Foster has played players out of their natural position for three years now. He has always had locked in favourites. His game plans have always involved very little structure (the players said as much only a couple of weeks ago). There's no need to speculate. It is who he is.
Changes only occur when forced on him.
Well, we finally agree on something.
I suppose he cares about the results, but I also believe he thinks that the bad ones are not his fault. He certainly refuses to take any substantial blame for them. Losses seem to just wash off him.
You suppose he care about the results? I think it's somewhat stronger than that! I'm quite far from the he doesn't care bandwagon. I just think he's a bit out of his depth.
He's head coach who is willing to take the applause after a good win, and use it to keep his job, but not happy to take the blame after a bad loss.
Foster's record includes multiple times where his teams have been truly dreadful. But he keeps turning up for the next year. He doesn't seem to link his results to his coaching.
Thats the downside of arrogance / ego. As I alluded to earlier on this thread, I'd almost demand a certain level of it for the AB coach. The last thing you want as AB coach is somebody whose unsure of themselves.
Which is why I place almost all of this blame on the NZRU head honcho's, instead of Foster. He should never have been appointed in the first place. Never.
-
@taniwharugby said in Foster:
@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?
For sure. I should have made that clearer. Just don't think it's the only measure. I'd like to see the reviews as more holistic than win ratio or even performance and look at things such as likely future issues to be addressed
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 anywayOn the overall trajectory of the team probably, which could be a mix of hard and softer measure - wins, cards & discipline, player input, dealing with injuries, adapting to new rules, player pool.
Sure, winning isn't everything, but for the AB coach, it damn well should be a very important, large peice of the puzzle.
Heretic.....
But you're right and it's also making sure we are ahead of the curve where possible and continue to win. -
Don’t think that is the case Dan. I think that happened much earlier than that.
I do remember watching Retallick in 2012 for the Chiefs thinking how bloody good this young unknown lock and get him into the ABs now!!
😎 #scout -
@DaGrubster said in Foster:
Don’t think that is the case Dan. I think that happened much earlier than that.
I do remember watching Retallick in 2012 for the Chiefs thinking how bloody good this young unknown lock and get him into the ABs now!!
😎 #scoutHey Grubs, passed on your message to prodigal son too mate. I think you will find the year Rennie took over was when the change of players took place. Cruden moved to Chiefs, you could have outsiders that noone else wanted but home franchises got first pick of players uo until than. I actually remember Marty Holah talking about it in a programm I saw him on , when talking about history of Super teams in NZ. I think 2011 Chiefs has Tana who had come back from France and was tied up with Counties. I know I thought with Retallick how the hell did the Canes not get him signed up!!
-
@Dan54 Pretty simple really, he played for Hawkes Bay so was never going to be picked against the behemoths like Mark Reddish and Jeremy Thrush and there probably would have been another "no name" or two from Wellington tucked away in the Hurricanes too.
-
@Kruse There aren't many Rugby coaches from anywhere aged between 40 and 55 with anything like Razor's track record of success. Rassie Erasmus, Andy Farrell & Fabien Galthie are probably the closest. He's a outstanding coach who will win many more trophies before he's done.
-
Well done to Plumtree. Not sitting around but back to work. And a good chance to show what he can do as an unpaid assistant coach
-
@Kruse There aren't many Rugby coaches from anywhere aged between 40 and 55 with anything like Razor's track record of success. Rassie Erasmus, Andy Farrell & Fabien Galthie are probably the closest. He's a outstanding coach who will win many more trophies before he's done.
Actually Razor leaves the others for dead, none of them were really hell of a successful as coaches below Test level, they did ok, but certainly weren't coaches that made a name as coches at that level. Razor has won heaps more titles, the other ones have won at highest level though. I would suggest that Rod MacQueen would leave them all behind?
