Foster, Robertson etc
-
@Machpants said in Foster:
@Victor-Meldrew said in Foster:
@reprobate said in Foster:
@Victor-Meldrew said in All Blacks v Pumas 1:
@Joans-Town-Jones said in All Blacks v Pumas 1:
Razor seems to get players playing well for him?
So does the bloke who coaches the Bodmin 2nd XV. Doesn't mean those players would succeed at 6N level....
So what, Foster's coaching is fine but we just don't have the cattle to beat Argentina at home all of a sudden?
Nope. Nothing to do with coaching. But everything go do with their being big differences between playerd performing at Test level and a lower level.
Gotcha coaches don't matter, I hope NZR see this and sack the lot, save us a lot of money for keeping our players here.
The players could coach themselves a lot better than the man heading this carnage we are watching.
-
@Chris remember when Gatland said anyone could coach the ABs....
But agree, one of our better performances of the year (low bar I know) was the week when our coach wasnt physically at training and the senior players had a larger role in test prep....
So, I think Gatland was wrong, anyone cant coach the ABs, but maybe nobody is better than anybody
-
But some people do not want to see it for various reasons.Just like the NZR board something in common there Denial.
Yeah, including Mo'unga and (I believe) Whitelock who endorsed Foster publicly just now. Those guys are clearly in denial as well.
Foster should have gone months ago, probably at the end of last year. He's only the symptom, he should go, but our problems do not start and finish with the head coach.
The broom should start with the Board, sweep through the CEO and upper management, and head coaching. Hell, we need to look at how Super is preparing players for international rugby, because I think as that quality has fallen off, so has the SH international game.
From here, NH comps look superior, and spit out players who come back and dominate or look very good.
-
@taniwharugby said in Foster:
@Chris remember when Gatland said anyone could coach the ABs....
But agree, one of our better performances of the year (low bar I know) was the week when our coach wasnt physically at training and the senior players had a larger role in test prep....
So, I think Gatland was wrong, anyone cant coach the ABs, but maybe nobody is better than anybody
Agreed
-
Yeah, including Mo'unga and (I believe) Whitelock who endorsed Foster publicly just now. Those guys are clearly in denial as well.
This bit is a worry because there is a lot of players in denial who have come out supporting foster,
Savea,Havilli,Cane,Retallick,Beauden Barrett,Smith have all either in live interview's or in print have backed Foster. -
Yeah, including Mo'unga and (I believe) Whitelock who endorsed Foster publicly just now. Those guys are clearly in denial as well.
This bit is a worry because there is a lot of players in denial who have come out supporting foster,
Savea,Havilli,Cane,Retallick,Beauden Barrett,Smith have all either in live interview's or in print have backed Foster.Did they all actually just say the support him or that he is the best option for AB head coach?
-
@nostrildamus said in Foster:
Yeah, including Mo'unga and (I believe) Whitelock who endorsed Foster publicly just now. Those guys are clearly in denial as well.
This bit is a worry because there is a lot of players in denial who have come out supporting foster,
Savea,Havilli,Cane,Retallick,Beauden Barrett,Smith have all either in live interview's or in print have backed Foster.Did they all actually just say the support him or that he is the best option for AB head coach?
Differing comments.He is their coach,They support him those sort of comments,Pretty much the same as Savea all towing the party line.
Its pretty hard to come out in the media and say he is a poor coach and they have no faith in him.
AB career probably gone.
My take on it is there is a split in that camp anyway for and against Foster,
If some peoples comments on here are on the mark that the senior players didn't follow the game plan Foster and Schmidt put down then it shows no Faith in that gameplan -
If people really think the whole squad is behind Foster then why are they not following game plans as some people on here have alluded to.
Why is the team not gelling and disconnected, because not everyone is on the same page, some don't believe in the plans and tactics if they did everyone would buy into and execute it and we would be playing better.
Because we look like deer in the headlights, disjointed,not connecting in attack or defence and panicky, all down to not believing in what they are sent out to do.Everything then breaks down and we fall apart going away from tactics and the so called game plan and we get the mess we have now on the field.
-
@nostrildamus said in Foster:
Most worrying to me from the above would be if the NZR won't appoint Robertson because it would cost too much to use a big broom.
As long as the current coaches aren't appointed beyond next year's RWC it shouldn't be a huge expense. But this means making a firm decision as to who they want moving forward. If Robertson (and it should be) then find out soon what coaching team he wants. But I can see what an issue this creates. The current coaches know they are history after next year ...
-
@taniwharugby said in Foster:
@Crucial what hands off?
We used to have clinics subscribing to Crons scrummaging practices across nz in order to get everyone on the same page...which has both benefits and drawbacks.
Still doesn't absolve the coaches from needing to recognise areas of weakness they might see in our game atbthe top and seek a collaborative way to address this at super level and lower
I mean a CEO of a big company is still responsible for how things happen on the ground floor, maybe not directly, but still along with board must be responsible for the employees.
I am a bit lost here and not sure if you are arguing the same as me.
As far as I know if the AB coaches want to provide more direction to the Super coaches they would seek approval for the approach through the CEO (and possibly board) as the Super coaches report directly to NZR, not via the ABs.
I am agreeing that there needs to be a re-think in how to deal with this environment of "Super-light" in the light that is isn't preparing players enough for the current test environment.
I also think that the responsibility lies partly with the AB coaches as they should be making this case to NZR and with NZR who should be directing it to be such.
Your scrum example is probably an outlier. I don't want to see Super teams all playing the same way but I think there is room to say something like 'our 10s need to be bringing more control of territory into their game ' -
If people really think the whole squad is behind Foster then why are they not following game plans as some people on here have alluded to.
Because key players are panicking and going to what works for them at other levels out of instinct.
Is that a case of trying to change a leopard's spots or a case of not having the ability to get them to change? Probably a bit of both I would say.
Couple that with a situation of not having depth in options and you get stuck between using a gameplan that the players can play instinctively (but you know won't win) and trying to change them (but you know they won't change).
Finding a winning game using the talent available is the golden ticket. A limited but effective plan with limited players is better than trying to change players that struggle to play your plan.
I think they recognise that, hence things like a preference for Frizzel over Ioane or Havili over RTS but in the key area of playmakers they don't trust Perofeta, haven't selected DMac and don't seem to have searched high and low for a controlling 10. -
@Victor-Meldrew said in Foster:
@Joans-Town-Jones said in All Blacks v Pumas 1:
They look a million $ in the red and black
Big difference between Super Rugby and Test Rugby though.
Indeed. I guess when super form is being touted as reason for selecting player x y and z, that should be ignored too…
-
@nostrildamus said in Foster:
Most worrying to me from the above would be if the NZR won't appoint Robertson because it would cost too much to use a big broom.
As long as the current coaches aren't appointed beyond next year's RWC it shouldn't be a huge expense. But this means making a firm decision as to who they want moving forward. If Robertson (and it should be) then find out soon what coaching team he wants. But I can see what an issue this creates. The current coaches know they are history after next year ...
a bit hard on Jason Ryan and Joe Schmidt!
-
@nostrildamus said in Foster:
@nostrildamus said in Foster:
Most worrying to me from the above would be if the NZR won't appoint Robertson because it would cost too much to use a big broom.
As long as the current coaches aren't appointed beyond next year's RWC it shouldn't be a huge expense. But this means making a firm decision as to who they want moving forward. If Robertson (and it should be) then find out soon what coaching team he wants. But I can see what an issue this creates. The current coaches know they are history after next year ...
a bit hard on Jason Ryan and Joe Schmidt!
How long were they appointed for. Robertson would very likely want Ryan but maybe not Schmidt
-
@nostrildamus said in Foster:
@nostrildamus said in Foster:
Most worrying to me from the above would be if the NZR won't appoint Robertson because it would cost too much to use a big broom.
As long as the current coaches aren't appointed beyond next year's RWC it shouldn't be a huge expense. But this means making a firm decision as to who they want moving forward. If Robertson (and it should be) then find out soon what coaching team he wants. But I can see what an issue this creates. The current coaches know they are history after next year ...
a bit hard on Jason Ryan and Joe Schmidt!
How long were they appointed for. Robertson would very likely want Ryan but maybe not Schmidt
No way they would have anything longer than foster.
Then again this is NZR...
-
@mariner4life said in Foster:
the problem with looking at Super rugby as a player provider and only looking at the Crusaders is
20% of our pro players are at the Highlanders, a team that went 4-10 in a comp containing MP, Drua, Force and Rebels
Another 20% are at the Canes who at least managed 8 wins.
The Chiefs have another 20% and they somehow went 10-4 without a decent outside back, a decent 10, and losing ALB.The fact is, compared to 15 years ago, the standard of player you had to be to get a Super rugby contract has fallen dramatically.
This in no way absolves the current head coach, who is obviously fucked.
Who said anything about looking at the Crusaders only? The point is being made is simply, the players from the Crusaders go from being champions in red in black to looking like they've never seen a rugby ball in the ABs. If we don't select from Super Rugby, where do we select from?
-
@Joans-Town-Jones said in Foster:
@mariner4life said in Foster:
the problem with looking at Super rugby as a player provider and only looking at the Crusaders is
20% of our pro players are at the Highlanders, a team that went 4-10 in a comp containing MP, Drua, Force and Rebels
Another 20% are at the Canes who at least managed 8 wins.
The Chiefs have another 20% and they somehow went 10-4 without a decent outside back, a decent 10, and losing ALB.The fact is, compared to 15 years ago, the standard of player you had to be to get a Super rugby contract has fallen dramatically.
This in no way absolves the current head coach, who is obviously fucked.
Who said anything about looking at the Crusaders only? The point is being made is simply, the players from the Crusaders go from being champions in red in black to looking like they've never seen a rugby ball in the ABs. If we don't select from Super Rugby, where do we select from?
Maybe the mentality is all wrong, they have overachieved in the Crusader environment so they feel they deserve the black jersey. Your average Aussie Super Rugby player goes into sixth gear when he pulls on his green and gold jersey and I suspect same for the Argies when they play for their country
-
@Joans-Town-Jones said in Foster:
@mariner4life said in Foster:
the problem with looking at Super rugby as a player provider and only looking at the Crusaders is
20% of our pro players are at the Highlanders, a team that went 4-10 in a comp containing MP, Drua, Force and Rebels
Another 20% are at the Canes who at least managed 8 wins.
The Chiefs have another 20% and they somehow went 10-4 without a decent outside back, a decent 10, and losing ALB.The fact is, compared to 15 years ago, the standard of player you had to be to get a Super rugby contract has fallen dramatically.
This in no way absolves the current head coach, who is obviously fucked.
Who said anything about looking at the Crusaders only? The point is being made is simply, the players from the Crusaders go from being champions in red in black to looking like they've never seen a rugby ball in the ABs. If we don't select from Super Rugby, where do we select from?
Maybe the mentality is all wrong, they have overachieved in the Crusader environment so they feel they deserve the black jersey.
I find that hard to believe.
-
@taniwharugby said in Foster:
@Victor-Meldrew I think that coach of the National side needs to work with the Super coaches, working how to best prep players for the step up, while the super coach balances this with his aspirations or winning the comp.
The fact that our front row forwards circa 2015 were pretty much the envy of the world, where had had skillful players that were strong at thier core roles...ffd a few years and our skills started to drop off, as did our scrum dominance, ffd more years, losing the regular games with SA Super teams and now we are selecting guys who we are told are thier for scrummaging, and they do little else, and even at scrum time arent much cop so we are injecting young players again with skillsets we used to have in abundance.
Fozzie has been part of the set up for what, a decade now...he is at the pointy end of things, in terms of seeing the game change, innovation, yet in his time he hasnt managed to notice the decline in these other skills so crucial to the modern game, along with a slide in the core skills of props too, and help look to rectify it down the chain, until it has become such a big problem.
That 'hands off' approach to Super served us well in the past as it brought different ideas into the mix. I'm not so sure that under the current Super structure that it works as well.
A balance between the two would be good. Something like directing Super coaches to set plans within a range (eg an emphasis on rush defence) so that things aren't new when you reach the ABsI'd rather it was more of a focus on skills, rather than game plans. I.e. feedback comes through from the AB head coaches that there is a general lack of skill under the high ball so Super coaches, academy coaches etc all know areas were they can improve their players to help them get high honours. I believe something like this must have happened after 2009, when all of the sudden we back 3 players at all levels who were comfortable under the high ball.
-
@taniwharugby said in Foster:
@Victor-Meldrew I think that coach of the National side needs to work with the Super coaches, working how to best prep players for the step up, while the super coach balances this with his aspirations or winning the comp.
The fact that our front row forwards circa 2015 were pretty much the envy of the world, where had had skillful players that were strong at thier core roles...ffd a few years and our skills started to drop off, as did our scrum dominance, ffd more years, losing the regular games with SA Super teams and now we are selecting guys who we are told are thier for scrummaging, and they do little else, and even at scrum time arent much cop so we are injecting young players again with skillsets we used to have in abundance.
Fozzie has been part of the set up for what, a decade now...he is at the pointy end of things, in terms of seeing the game change, innovation, yet in his time he hasnt managed to notice the decline in these other skills so crucial to the modern game, along with a slide in the core skills of props too, and help look to rectify it down the chain, until it has become such a big problem.
That 'hands off' approach to Super served us well in the past as it brought different ideas into the mix. I'm not so sure that under the current Super structure that it works as well.
A balance between the two would be good. Something like directing Super coaches to set plans within a range (eg an emphasis on rush defence) so that things aren't new when you reach the ABsI'd rather it was more of a focus on skills, rather than game plans. I.e. feedback comes through from the AB head coaches that there is a general lack of skill under the high ball so Super coaches, academy coaches etc all know areas were they can improve their players to help them get high honours. I believe something like this must have happened after 2009, when all of the sudden we back 3 players at all levels who were comfortable under the high ball.
Mick the kick seems to have been criminally underrated. Our team has been on a downhill with respect to skills (and especially kicking) since he left.
The other point that brings up is that the best coaches for this AB team may not be kiwis. We need the best in the world and a non kiwi coach / asst. coach may be a needed addition.
