Foster, Robertson etc
-
@Old-Samurai-Jack said in Foster:
Hence I really think a "clean out" is what the ABs have needed since 2019.
I like the idea of a clean out.. problem is who do you bring in? (assuming you're talking players not coaches..)
-
@Old-Samurai-Jack said in Foster:
Hence I really think a "clean out" is what the ABs have needed since 2019.
Arguably pre-2019. Kieran Read was a shadow of his former (extraordinary) self in 18 and 19, but perservered with.
-
@Old-Samurai-Jack said in Foster:
It is hard to pinpoint the problem with this current group. The talent is there, they try their hearts out, they have good support, but what happens on the pitch is just not good enough or ruthless enough to get the job done IMO (consistently win against top-tier opposition and win the World Cup). Here is my theory and I think Carlos sees it as well. It seems that the ABs camp has become too comfortable and isolated. They are the "AB family". That absolute ruthlessness and desire to get that 1 or 2 % to get over the line is not there anymore. If they don't play well, and there are few consequences. Once upon a time one bad performance and you were out of the team, possibly forever. Now we have players still there that can be terribly off the pace (Sam Cane is the classic example). Go away to Japan, no worries, you are automatically back despite not showing you are better than others. They are consistently answering their critics by saying they only worry about what is happening inside the camp, etc, etc. Not all bad things of course, maybe it is even a sign of the times and I am a grump, but just maybe it has led to inadequate performances.
Hence I really think a "clean out" is what the ABs have needed since 2019.A lot to agree with there.
I think I missed Carlos’ comments, anyone link easily?
-
I'd have to say that from the heights of 2011, which you could argue was our best All Black team ever that our current day All Blacks are literally results and history-wise the worst All Black team we've ever had.
The decline has been remarkable.
The asleep at the wheel, don't worry it will come right even when it doesn't approach has been literally a marvel to behold.
-
@Windows97 said in Foster:
The asleep at the wheel, don't worry it will come right even when it doesn't approach has been literally a marvel to behold.
it has exposed the sycophancy of modern rugby media though ... there is a lot of glitter being sprayed on turds these days
-
@Windows97 said in Foster:
I'd have to say that from the heights of 2011, which you could argue was our best All Black team ever that our current day All Blacks are literally results and history-wise the worst All Black team we've ever had.
The decline has been remarkable.
The asleep at the wheel, don't worry it will come right even when it doesn't approach has been literally a marvel to behold.
You obviously haven't reached your 50th birthday yet.
-
@nostrildamus I not dissing Deans, I think he was a good coachm especially at Super level, was merely pointing success at lower level shouldn't alway be used as the barometer of a coach. Rassie Erasmus had no great sucess at lower levels same as Eddie Jones, sometimes slightly different skills needed. I alway thought Deans big weakness in coaching was his selection of players, and perhaps what counted against him at higher level. Regardless Deans said he could take Aussie higher up in the world, and farwhatever reason he didn't (a bit like Rennie at this stage)
Eddie as coach had plenty of lower-level success, he's won club titles with Randwick, Suntory & the Brumbies.
Rassie won a few Currie Cup titles, a Pro14 title with Munster & presided over the Stormers most successful period in Super Rugby history.
-
@kiwi_expat said in Foster:
@nostrildamus I not dissing Deans, I think he was a good coachm especially at Super level, was merely pointing success at lower level shouldn't alway be used as the barometer of a coach. Rassie Erasmus had no great sucess at lower levels same as Eddie Jones, sometimes slightly different skills needed. I alway thought Deans big weakness in coaching was his selection of players, and perhaps what counted against him at higher level. Regardless Deans said he could take Aussie higher up in the world, and farwhatever reason he didn't (a bit like Rennie at this stage)
Eddie as coach had plenty of lower-level success, he's won club titles with Randwick, Suntory & the Brumbies.
Rassie won a few Currie Cup titles, a Pro14 title with Munster & presided over the Stormers most successful period in Super Rugby history.
Yep forgat about Rassies currie cup, but he was only runner up with Munster in Pro 14 wasn't he? And Stormers didn't win with him did they. not sure they ever won super rugby title. I must be getting old . But regardless I still say lower level success doesn't always lead to higher up stuff, and wonder if Deans wouldn't have been better to get some experience up north before trying international coaching, which I am sure you agree is a pretty different beast to test stuff. This is not to say anyone should or shouldn't coach ABs, but I much prefer someone who has coached in a wider range of teams. Just an opinion I have had for quite sometime, quite different skills, selecting is as important as coaching ability, and perhaps man management (I believe a weakness of Deans and Mitchell).
If I thought about it you kind of proved my point, Rassie and Eddie learnt their trade in a few different team? But I can also where people can say success is enough with same team, I always liked Joseph (he had coached in a few places also) as he took Clan from bottom of pile to winning title, -
@WillieTheWaiter Wouldn't throw the baby out with the bathwater. I think they have most of the right players. More about new management and a "cultural shift".
-
@nostrildamus kind of beat me too it Nostri, he certainly won plenty, funnily enough, never anything at super level, which kind of makes a joke of super titiles being the reason for making someone a test coach. I mean Robbie Deans got about 5 super titles, and was hardly a success as a test coach ,though seems to be doing bloody well at top club level in Japan.
Are we talking about Eddie Jones here? The Eddie Jones who won the 2001 Super title (the first non-NZ side) and whose Brumbies were the team to beat for about three years. Or some other Eddie Jones?
-
@Chester-Draws said in Foster:
@nostrildamus kind of beat me too it Nostri, he certainly won plenty, funnily enough, never anything at super level, which kind of makes a joke of super titiles being the reason for making someone a test coach. I mean Robbie Deans got about 5 super titles, and was hardly a success as a test coach ,though seems to be doing bloody well at top club level in Japan.
Are we talking about Eddie Jones here? The Eddie Jones who won the 2001 Super title (the first non-NZ side) and whose Brumbies were the team to beat for about three years. Or some other Eddie Jones?
Yep, as I said, I think I getting old, forgetting Rassie and Eddies win in early 2000s, I was in Qld when Eddie coached there, and must of blanked out his early sucess lol.
-
@Windows97 said in Foster:
I'd have to say that from the heights of 2011, which you could argue was our best All Black team ever that our current day All Blacks are literally results and history-wise the worst All Black team we've ever had.
I must retort. Oh, and the next 3-4 years were crap as well - despite the NZRFU pretty ruthlessly sacking coaches who didn't get the required results.
-
@Victor-Meldrew said in Foster:
@Windows97 said in Foster:
I'd have to say that from the heights of 2011, which you could argue was our best All Black team ever that our current day All Blacks are literally results and history-wise the worst All Black team we've ever had.
I must retort. Oh, and the next 3-4 years were crap as well - despite the NZRFU pretty ruthlessly sacking coaches who didn't get the required results.
Yeah immediacy bias
-
@kiwiinmelb said in Foster:
Probably a lot of timing involved with looking good as a coach . Not talking about any coach in particular, just generalising .
But moving into the right job at the right time taking over the right group of players and vica versa can make or break you .
A pretty important consideration and as has been alluded to, take SCW. Known as the Bus “cos he weren’t no coach”, but he had some great cattle.
In re NZ many have compared Henry’s and Hansen’s reigns to Foster without much consideration given to the number of all time greats they had at their disposal - and in their primes. Not to denigrate H&H’s achievements or to make excuses for Foster, but that issue does have a significant impact.
-
@Catogrande said in Foster:
@kiwiinmelb said in Foster:
Probably a lot of timing involved with looking good as a coach . Not talking about any coach in particular, just generalising .
But moving into the right job at the right time taking over the right group of players and vica versa can make or break you .
A pretty important consideration and as has been alluded to, take SCW. Known as the Bus “cos he weren’t no coach”, but he had some great cattle.
In re NZ many have compared Henry’s and Hansen’s reigns to Foster without much consideration given to the number of all time greats they had at their disposal - and in their primes. Not to denigrate H&H’s achievements or to make excuses for Foster, but that issue does have a significant impact.
There's a chicken and egg though - really good coaches lift players, make them better and really have an effect on the team. Dane Coles is a great example; he got turned from a hothead loose rake to a world class hooker with pace and swerve like a back, and niggle like Fitzpatrick.
-
@Catogrande said in Foster:
@kiwiinmelb said in Foster:
Probably a lot of timing involved with looking good as a coach . Not talking about any coach in particular, just generalising .
But moving into the right job at the right time taking over the right group of players and vica versa can make or break you .
A pretty important consideration and as has been alluded to, take SCW. Known as the Bus “cos he weren’t no coach”, but he had some great cattle.
In re NZ many have compared Henry’s and Hansen’s reigns to Foster without much consideration given to the number of all time greats they had at their disposal - and in their primes. Not to denigrate H&H’s achievements or to make excuses for Foster, but that issue does have a significant impact.
There's a chicken and egg though - really good coaches lift players, make them better and really have an effect on the team. Dane Coles is a great example; he got turned from a hothead loose rake to a world class hooker with pace and swerve like a back, and niggle like Fitzpatrick.
Oh for sure. I do wonder what England might have achieved back in the late 90s, early 2000s with an effective coach. In all that time of pretty much NH dominance we won only one Grand Slam - and that with a who's who line up of England greats.
-
@Catogrande said in Foster:
@Catogrande said in Foster:
@kiwiinmelb said in Foster:
Probably a lot of timing involved with looking good as a coach . Not talking about any coach in particular, just generalising .
But moving into the right job at the right time taking over the right group of players and vica versa can make or break you .
A pretty important consideration and as has been alluded to, take SCW. Known as the Bus “cos he weren’t no coach”, but he had some great cattle.
In re NZ many have compared Henry’s and Hansen’s reigns to Foster without much consideration given to the number of all time greats they had at their disposal - and in their primes. Not to denigrate H&H’s achievements or to make excuses for Foster, but that issue does have a significant impact.
There's a chicken and egg though - really good coaches lift players, make them better and really have an effect on the team. Dane Coles is a great example; he got turned from a hothead loose rake to a world class hooker with pace and swerve like a back, and niggle like Fitzpatrick.
Oh for sure. I do wonder what England might have achieved back in the late 90s, early 2000s with an effective coach. In all that time of pretty much NH dominance we won only one Grand Slam - and that with a who's who line up of England greats.
I just remember seeing Josh Lewsey (who I rated very highly ) go into England camp and the longer he was there, the worse he got. Classic coaching setup not getting the best from players
-
@Catogrande said in Foster:
@Catogrande said in Foster:
@kiwiinmelb said in Foster:
Probably a lot of timing involved with looking good as a coach . Not talking about any coach in particular, just generalising .
But moving into the right job at the right time taking over the right group of players and vica versa can make or break you .
A pretty important consideration and as has been alluded to, take SCW. Known as the Bus “cos he weren’t no coach”, but he had some great cattle.
In re NZ many have compared Henry’s and Hansen’s reigns to Foster without much consideration given to the number of all time greats they had at their disposal - and in their primes. Not to denigrate H&H’s achievements or to make excuses for Foster, but that issue does have a significant impact.
There's a chicken and egg though - really good coaches lift players, make them better and really have an effect on the team. Dane Coles is a great example; he got turned from a hothead loose rake to a world class hooker with pace and swerve like a back, and niggle like Fitzpatrick.
Oh for sure. I do wonder what England might have achieved back in the late 90s, early 2000s with an effective coach. In all that time of pretty much NH dominance we won only one Grand Slam - and that with a who's who line up of England greats.
I just remember seeing Josh Lewsey (who I rated very highly ) go into England camp and the longer he was there, the worse he got. Classic coaching setup not getting the best from players
Classic SCW. Lewsey - great full back, OK wing. Jason Robinson, great wing, OK full back. Now where shall I select these two this week..?
Edit: And this is a thing with so many coaches. Seemingly making selection and replacement decisions just so they can show they are "coaching".
-
@Catogrande said in Foster:
@Catogrande said in Foster:
@Catogrande said in Foster:
@kiwiinmelb said in Foster:
Probably a lot of timing involved with looking good as a coach . Not talking about any coach in particular, just generalising .
But moving into the right job at the right time taking over the right group of players and vica versa can make or break you .
A pretty important consideration and as has been alluded to, take SCW. Known as the Bus “cos he weren’t no coach”, but he had some great cattle.
In re NZ many have compared Henry’s and Hansen’s reigns to Foster without much consideration given to the number of all time greats they had at their disposal - and in their primes. Not to denigrate H&H’s achievements or to make excuses for Foster, but that issue does have a significant impact.
There's a chicken and egg though - really good coaches lift players, make them better and really have an effect on the team. Dane Coles is a great example; he got turned from a hothead loose rake to a world class hooker with pace and swerve like a back, and niggle like Fitzpatrick.
Oh for sure. I do wonder what England might have achieved back in the late 90s, early 2000s with an effective coach. In all that time of pretty much NH dominance we won only one Grand Slam - and that with a who's who line up of England greats.
I just remember seeing Josh Lewsey (who I rated very highly ) go into England camp and the longer he was there, the worse he got. Classic coaching setup not getting the best from players
Classic SCW. Lewsey - great full back, OK wing. Jason Robinson, great wing, OK full back. Now where shall I select these two this week..?
Edit: And this is a thing with so many coaches. Seemingly making selection and replacement decisions just so they can show they are "coaching".
Selection is coaching
Players in their best position
Combinations which complement and are greater than the sum of the parts
Amazon.co.uk
