Foster, Robertson etc
-
@Victor-Meldrew said in Foster:
@DaGrubster said in Foster:
Even great AB sides put in poor performances. Most of the time they would still win though!
5 wins out of the last 11 is not too hot in my book.
It's the direction that's important and what we've seen in the last 4-5 games it's a team which has completely transformed itself from the rabble that was Ireland 2 & 3.
Long way to go, but the omens are way, way better than they were a few months back.
Changing coaching seems to have worked then,I wonder how better we would have been if Foster had gone as well,The assistants seem to be turning it around not the HC.
You can't have it both ways and argue the Head Coach takes the blame when things go wrong, and then argue he can't take any credit when things go well.
-
The Team was lost prior to Schmidt and Ryan. Now the backs are attacking with purpose, our set piece is looking a lot better.
Once again you're arguing a Head Coach (good or bad) doesn't have much impact on team performance. Which, given the way some on here fetishize Roberston as an AB Head Coach, is a bit illogical - if not weird.
-
@Victor-Meldrew said in Foster:
The Team was lost prior to Schmidt and Ryan. Now the backs are attacking with purpose, our set piece is looking a lot better.
Once again you're arguing a Head Coach (good or bad) doesn't have much impact on team performance. Which, given the way some on here fetishize Roberston as an AB Head Coach, is a bit illogical - if not weird.
Just because one head coach has fuck all impact now new assistants have been forced on him, does not mean all head coaches do nothing.
I'm not saying I totally agree, but it's not weird. Foster is an ineffective head coach, and his team shit as an abs team ever had been. But now he's been forced to move away from his choices as assistants, the abs are improving.
-
@Victor-Meldrew said in Foster:
@DaGrubster said in Foster:
Even great AB sides put in poor performances. Most of the time they would still win though!
5 wins out of the last 11 is not too hot in my book.
It's the direction that's important and what we've seen in the last 4-5 games it's a team which has completely transformed itself from the rabble that was Ireland 2 & 3.
Long way to go, but the omens are way, way better than they were a few months back.
Changing coaching seems to have worked then,I wonder how better we would have been if Foster had gone as well,The assistants seem to be turning it around not the HC.
I have a slightly different view.
Foster's biggest failing hasn't been his coaching ability it has been his loyalty/determination to fix underperformance by giving more chances than he should. That's been at player and coach level. I guess that's his nature.
When his hand is forced (even Sami T coming into the squad last year) he does a pretty good job of making things work in his area.
All the praise toward the backs from last night is being heaped on the players but it was Foster that took what he saw last week and gave them a totally different plan than we have seen recently to make the most of their talents.
He gets there in the end. Just wish that the journey didn't have so many wrong turns and dead ends.Was it Foster who did that or Schmidt with the backs and Ryan with the forwards.
Foster has done jack all. Schmidt with the backs and Ryan with the forwards.
Fact or opinion?
Facts bro. The Team was lost prior to Schmidt and Ryan. Now the backs are attacking with purpose, our set piece is looking a lot better. And let's not get started on the pathetic replacement strategy run by Foster.
You don't seem to understand the words "facts" nor "opinion".
-
Will Jordan went through a half dozen matches were he looked like he was making up the numbers.
To be honest, I reckon this is just fern mythology promoted by a couple of "influencers" that a bunch of people have bought into.
Will didn't play the first Ireland test - he had covid.
Second test he came off the bench for 30 minutes. ESPN stats show we made three line-breaks in that game - Will made two and George Bower made the other. He also scored a try that may or may not have been one of his line breaks - my memory is that it was a 30 metre run from a long Mo'unga pass that didn't involve a linebreak. His 30-minute ESPN stats compare pretty favourably with those for Leicester and Sevu!
https://www.espn.co.uk/rugby/playerstats?gameId=595443&league=289234
Ireland 3 - Well, here's Will making up the numbers....
Dan reckons that was pretty much all he did, but his ESPN stats are again way better than Sevu's (or Rieko's for that matter).
https://www.espn.co.uk/rugby/playerstats?gameId=595444&league=289234
Boks I I think he had probably his worst game in black, so I'm not going to argue that.
Australia I I have already debunked the bollocks that he was poor (other than the obvious Samu tackle) and am happy to further debate with anyone willing to put in the effort to re-watch.
I shall do some further review on Boks II and the two Argentine tests in due course, but for all I was quite surprised to watch the games and then read the Fern's assessment of Will's efforts.
-
@Machpants said in Foster:
@Victor-Meldrew said in Foster:
The Team was lost prior to Schmidt and Ryan. Now the backs are attacking with purpose, our set piece is looking a lot better.
Once again you're arguing a Head Coach (good or bad) doesn't have much impact on team performance. Which, given the way some on here fetishize Roberston as an AB Head Coach, is a bit illogical - if not weird.
Just because one head coach has fuck all impact now new assistants have been forced on him, does not mean all head coaches do nothing.
I'm not saying I totally agree, but it's not weird. Foster is an ineffective head coach, and his team shit as an abs team ever had been. But now he's been forced to move away from his choices as assistants, the abs are improving.
Sorry, but it's incredibly weird thinking to say a head coach has no impact on results and in the same breath argue a new Head Coach will improve things.
-
@Chris-B I really rate WJ, but seeing him in Argentina 2 he looked way worse than Reece would have been - slow, disinterested and just not firing.
A highlights package doesn't show some of the low effort plays around the field. The Fern seems to have disintegrated into provincial bias wiht poor AB performances, but I'd take Reece over Will based on this year's work.
-
@nzzp I will assess that game in due course.
After my re-watch of Aus 1 I'm taking no-one's word on Will's performances.
You're right about the disintegration into provincial bias this week though. Everyone pumping their favourites and rubbishing their non-favourites.
Will did score a nice try, though!
-
He looks like he's a confidence player and the bounce of the ball just hasn't gone his way in recent games. He's lethal with a bit of space but IMO the AB's 11-13-14 play hasn't been all that good and he's suffering from that. His defence itself has been OK but he's maybe stood out as the whole defensive structure hasn't been good.
I did think he poss. needed a rest but Foster and co have stuck with him and from what little I saw of Saturday's game, he looked better.
-
You're right about the disintegration into provincial bias this week though. Everyone pumping their favourites and rubbishing their non-favourites.
Not this week - it's been building for a while. Folk seem keener on their player playing than the ABs winning. It's not great.
I miss the bad old days where the team was locked in, with no selection controversy and we spanked everyone all the time. This uncertainty and flawed players feels ... weird.
-
You're right about the disintegration into provincial bias this week though. Everyone pumping their favourites and rubbishing their non-favourites.
Not this week - it's been building for a while. Folk seem keener on their player playing than the ABs winning. It's not great.
I miss the bad old days where the team was locked in, with no selection controversy and we spanked everyone all the time. This uncertainty and flawed players feels ... weird.
Ahh the good old days,A lot changes under Fozzie.
-
You're right about the disintegration into provincial bias this week though. Everyone pumping their favourites and rubbishing their non-favourites.
Not this week - it's been building for a while. Folk seem keener on their player playing than the ABs winning. It's not great.
Most positions are locked in now?
The fern mostly agrees on the right forwards, 9, 10...then it gets messy.
I blame Akira. Reading only the fern one would think he was 2 totally different playersI miss the bad old days where the team was locked in, with no selection controversy and we spanked everyone all the time. This uncertainty and flawed players feels ... weird.
-
@Victor-Meldrew said in Foster:
@Machpants said in Foster:
@Victor-Meldrew said in Foster:
The Team was lost prior to Schmidt and Ryan. Now the backs are attacking with purpose, our set piece is looking a lot better.
Once again you're arguing a Head Coach (good or bad) doesn't have much impact on team performance. Which, given the way some on here fetishize Roberston as an AB Head Coach, is a bit illogical - if not weird.
Just because one head coach has fuck all impact now new assistants have been forced on him, does not mean all head coaches do nothing.
I'm not saying I totally agree, but it's not weird. Foster is an ineffective head coach, and his team shit as an abs team ever had been. But now he's been forced to move away from his choices as assistants, the abs are improving.
Sorry, but it's incredibly weird thinking to say a head coach has no impact on results and in the same breath argue a new Head Coach will improve things.
So you've never had a boss that was totally ineffective and things were run by underlings? I have, and it worked pretty well as the deputies were smart and just cracked on. But I've also had many bosses that were awesome, and that was always a much better situation.
-
@Victor-Meldrew said in Foster:
@DaGrubster said in Foster:
Even great AB sides put in poor performances. Most of the time they would still win though!
5 wins out of the last 11 is not too hot in my book.
It's the direction that's important and what we've seen in the last 4-5 games it's a team which has completely transformed itself from the rabble that was Ireland 2 & 3.
Long way to go, but the omens are way, way better than they were a few months back.
Changing coaching seems to have worked then,I wonder how better we would have been if Foster had gone as well,The assistants seem to be turning it around not the HC.
I have a slightly different view.
Foster's biggest failing hasn't been his coaching ability it has been his loyalty/determination to fix underperformance by giving more chances than he should. That's been at player and coach level. I guess that's his nature.
When his hand is forced (even Sami T coming into the squad last year) he does a pretty good job of making things work in his area.
All the praise toward the backs from last night is being heaped on the players but it was Foster that took what he saw last week and gave them a totally different plan than we have seen recently to make the most of their talents.
He gets there in the end. Just wish that the journey didn't have so many wrong turns and dead ends.Was it Foster who did that or Schmidt with the backs and Ryan with the forwards.
Foster has done jack all. Schmidt with the backs and Ryan with the forwards.
Fact or opinion?
Facts bro. The Team was lost prior to Schmidt and Ryan. Now the backs are attacking with purpose, our set piece is looking a lot better. And let's not get started on the pathetic replacement strategy run by Foster.
You don't seem to understand the words "facts" nor "opinion".
Thank you for the Englush lesson.
But you need to get off the Fizz fanboy train as you lack brutal honesty. Before Schmidt and Ryan were brought in the team had no strategy, we had a clueless bench strategy and we were plummeting down the rankings.
Maybe in your world where everyone gets a prize and that's ok. But this is not the participation award or who try's the hardest. You tell me the stats before Schmidt.and Ryan were brought on board or is maths not your strong suit?
You do your own analysis. I'll leave it right there English Teacher. -
Yep! I have never seen an ABs outfit more clueless or mismanaged than at the start of this season. They were clueless on the field and the selections were just baffling. I have seen average AB teams (on paper) complete and they have always been in the fight regardless! This was the first time the ABs looked like a disorganized rabble, and to be honest, it was a big shock! That is 100% on Foster!
The changes have worked but they have been forced upon Foster under adversity. Cripes, he is a stubborn bugger. Loyal to a fault and hanging on to all the things that made the ABs great during the golden period and that includes some players! Anyway, he is still there regardless and will be til 2023, therefore all you can do is shut up and support the lads. -
@Victor-Meldrew said in Foster:
@DaGrubster said in Foster:
Even great AB sides put in poor performances. Most of the time they would still win though!
5 wins out of the last 11 is not too hot in my book.
It's the direction that's important and what we've seen in the last 4-5 games it's a team which has completely transformed itself from the rabble that was Ireland 2 & 3.
Long way to go, but the omens are way, way better than they were a few months back.
Changing coaching seems to have worked then,I wonder how better we would have been if Foster had gone as well,The assistants seem to be turning it around not the HC.
I have a slightly different view.
Foster's biggest failing hasn't been his coaching ability it has been his loyalty/determination to fix underperformance by giving more chances than he should. That's been at player and coach level. I guess that's his nature.
When his hand is forced (even Sami T coming into the squad last year) he does a pretty good job of making things work in his area.
All the praise toward the backs from last night is being heaped on the players but it was Foster that took what he saw last week and gave them a totally different plan than we have seen recently to make the most of their talents.
He gets there in the end. Just wish that the journey didn't have so many wrong turns and dead ends.Was it Foster who did that or Schmidt with the backs and Ryan with the forwards.
Foster has done jack all. Schmidt with the backs and Ryan with the forwards.
Fact or opinion?
Facts bro. The Team was lost prior to Schmidt and Ryan. Now the backs are attacking with purpose, our set piece is looking a lot better. And let's not get started on the pathetic replacement strategy run by Foster.
You don't seem to understand the words "facts" nor "opinion".
Thank you for the Englush lesson.
But you need to get off the Fizz fanboy train as you lack brutal honesty. Before Schmidt and Ryan were brought in the team had no strategy, we had a clueless bench strategy and we were plummeting down the rankings.
Maybe in your world where everyone gets a prize and that's ok. But this is not the participation award or who try's the hardest. You tell me the stats before Schmidt.and Ryan were brought on board or is maths not your strong suit?
You do your own analysis. I'll leave it right there English Teacher.Kinda curious as to why you think I'm on the "Fizz fanboy train", or support ANY of what you're arguing against.
I was just semi-jokingly pointing out a nonsensical post.
And - thanks - you've gone full-blown lunatic, and doubled down. -
@Victor-Meldrew said in Foster:
@Machpants said in Foster:
@Victor-Meldrew said in Foster:
The Team was lost prior to Schmidt and Ryan. Now the backs are attacking with purpose, our set piece is looking a lot better.
Once again you're arguing a Head Coach (good or bad) doesn't have much impact on team performance. Which, given the way some on here fetishize Roberston as an AB Head Coach, is a bit illogical - if not weird.
Just because one head coach has fuck all impact now new assistants have been forced on him, does not mean all head coaches do nothing.
I'm not saying I totally agree, but it's not weird. Foster is an ineffective head coach, and his team shit as an abs team ever had been. But now he's been forced to move away from his choices as assistants, the abs are improving.
Sorry, but it's incredibly weird thinking to say a head coach has no impact on results and in the same breath argue a new Head Coach will improve things.
Peter De Villiers as Boks coach (2008-2011) - it was well known that he couldn't coach for shit & the assistants did essentially all the coaching for him. Foster appears much the same.
-
@Victor-Meldrew said in Foster:
@Machpants said in Foster:
@Victor-Meldrew said in Foster:
The Team was lost prior to Schmidt and Ryan. Now the backs are attacking with purpose, our set piece is looking a lot better.
Once again you're arguing a Head Coach (good or bad) doesn't have much impact on team performance. Which, given the way some on here fetishize Roberston as an AB Head Coach, is a bit illogical - if not weird.
Just because one head coach has fuck all impact now new assistants have been forced on him, does not mean all head coaches do nothing.
I'm not saying I totally agree, but it's not weird. Foster is an ineffective head coach, and his team shit as an abs team ever had been. But now he's been forced to move away from his choices as assistants, the abs are improving.
Sorry, but it's incredibly weird thinking to say a head coach has no impact on results and in the same breath argue a new Head Coach will improve things.
Peter De Villiers as Boks coach (2008-2011) - it was well known that he couldn't coach for shit & the assistants did essentially all the coaching for him. Foster appears much the same.
De Villiers started out OK and the Boks faded badly in 2010-11. So if you are saying his assistants did all the work, you're arguing De Villiers wasn't to blame for those latter poor results either, and his assistants should have carried the can.
Which is a bonkers argument when you look at it.
-
@Victor-Meldrew said in Foster:
@Victor-Meldrew said in Foster:
@Machpants said in Foster:
@Victor-Meldrew said in Foster:
The Team was lost prior to Schmidt and Ryan. Now the backs are attacking with purpose, our set piece is looking a lot better.
Once again you're arguing a Head Coach (good or bad) doesn't have much impact on team performance. Which, given the way some on here fetishize Roberston as an AB Head Coach, is a bit illogical - if not weird.
Just because one head coach has fuck all impact now new assistants have been forced on him, does not mean all head coaches do nothing.
I'm not saying I totally agree, but it's not weird. Foster is an ineffective head coach, and his team shit as an abs team ever had been. But now he's been forced to move away from his choices as assistants, the abs are improving.
Sorry, but it's incredibly weird thinking to say a head coach has no impact on results and in the same breath argue a new Head Coach will improve things.
Peter De Villiers as Boks coach (2008-2011) - it was well known that he couldn't coach for shit & the assistants did essentially all the coaching for him. Foster appears much the same.
De Villiers started out OK and the Boks faded badly in 2010-11. So if you are saying his assistants did all the work, you're arguing De Villiers wasn't to blame for those latter poor results either, and his assistants should have carried the can.
Which is a bonkers argument when you look at it.
Even the players admitted that assistants Gary Gold and Dick Muir were ultimately responsible for the success of that era and De Villiers was rather useless as a coach.
-
@Victor-Meldrew said in Foster:
@Victor-Meldrew said in Foster:
@Machpants said in Foster:
@Victor-Meldrew said in Foster:
The Team was lost prior to Schmidt and Ryan. Now the backs are attacking with purpose, our set piece is looking a lot better.
Once again you're arguing a Head Coach (good or bad) doesn't have much impact on team performance. Which, given the way some on here fetishize Roberston as an AB Head Coach, is a bit illogical - if not weird.
Just because one head coach has fuck all impact now new assistants have been forced on him, does not mean all head coaches do nothing.
I'm not saying I totally agree, but it's not weird. Foster is an ineffective head coach, and his team shit as an abs team ever had been. But now he's been forced to move away from his choices as assistants, the abs are improving.
Sorry, but it's incredibly weird thinking to say a head coach has no impact on results and in the same breath argue a new Head Coach will improve things.
Peter De Villiers as Boks coach (2008-2011) - it was well known that he couldn't coach for shit & the assistants did essentially all the coaching for him. Foster appears much the same.
De Villiers started out OK and the Boks faded badly in 2010-11. So if you are saying his assistants did all the work, you're arguing De Villiers wasn't to blame for those latter poor results either, and his assistants should have carried the can.
Which is a bonkers argument when you look at it.
Not really. Even the players admitted that the assistants Gary Gold and Dick Muir were ultimately responsible for the success of that era & said De Villiers was pretty useless as a coach.
Every different to Foster then when you consider the high praise he gets from players like Ritchie, Ardie and Sam Whitelock.
