Foster, Robertson etc
-
@kiwi_expat said in Foster:
I'm on the Razor bandwagon.
I used to think that if you had the cattle then any vaguely competent coach could get them across the line - but, Rennie (and Smith) vs Foster and then Razor vs Toddy Blackadder convinced me I was thinking bullshit.
Instantaneous improvement to repeated victory.
I reckon under Fozzie we're getting similar results to what we'd be getting under Toddy. Decent people, competent coaches, trying their best - but, they just don't quite have the magic touch.
Razor may not be able to work his magic with the ABs post-2023 (see Rennie and the Wallabies), but I reckon we'd be silly not to give him the shot.
Crusaders didn't win a title for a decade with their most talented & laden with international (Samoa, Fiji incl.) squads ever.
The majority of those players left, Razor and a bunch of kids in their early 20's came in, and they won a title every year since.
That's just the Crusaders. When you look at what happened to Canterbury after Razor left, the team has been underwhelming. Very inconsistent. A constant rotation of coaches coming in and out.
People rightly focus on his Canterbury and Crusaders records, but he also turned Sumner from a mediocre club into Champions. He also won at U20 level after years of NZ struggling at age grade level. So his success is a lot more consistent than many realize:
Yeah credit where credit's due. He didn't inherit a stacked team and I personally questioned whether he was too wet behind the ears for such an important gig. But he's absolutely smashed it. That cannot be denied.
I get the argument from @Victor-Meldrew that a coaching merry-go-round is neither desirable nor productive. But I guess the counterargument (apart from the rather appalling results and performances) is that Foster was part of the regime or apparatus that proverbially dropped the ball and has left us playing catch up. Razor isn't part of that, he's young and innovative and perhaps a fresh start and removing the last vestiges of the old guard is needed if we are to achieve the same level of sustained success that we've been spoilt with.
That last win against Aus excited me for the first time in ages. It was probably 90% due to seeing Jordie causing havoc at 12 (yeah fark you again doubters 🖕) but there are some positive signs there. Foster may have inadvertently stumbled onto a winning formula. Right now I'll just have to dare to dream. It's too late to change now. Foster will be there until the end of 2023 and hopefully Razor will get his chance and a 4-year time frame following that.
I must say it will be weird going into a RWC thinking we can't win it. Never felt that before. Will probably be nice not being a nervous wreck. Maybe I should thank Foster for that!
-
Trying for a different take on all of this I don't particularly think that the current mess were in is all Fosters fault but we are simply watching a dynasty in decline.
It's kind of like arguing that Romulus Augustulus was the worst emperor of Rome as he was the one there when Rome finally fell apart - this would provide endless and circular debate for months.
However I do think it's fair to say that the dynasty from Henry to Hansen to Foster was simply one link too far.
Dynasty's ultimately fall apart due to their own hubris, a lack of new idea's, risk aversion due to not wanting to change what's worked in the past, inability to self critique and ultimately sitting on their own laurels till everyone else catch's up and then passes them by.
I think this is what were seeing unfold in front of us, it's not Fosters "fault" but he's certainly not the right coach to take us forward.
Simply put we've done the same thing for too long and now not only have the rest of the pack caught up - they're passing us by.
So to get rid of Foster isn't an incorrect school of thought - we desperately need someone with new ideas, a new way of doing things, the All Blacks need to be given a clean sweep and to start again with something new and Foster isn't new - he's part of the furniture.
And I guess that's the appeal with Robertson - he's seen as someone who will bring new ideas and new ways of doing things.
-
@Rancid-Schnitzel Lol curse my slow typing - you beat me to the punch
-
@Windows97 They lost to provincial teams.
Stu Wilson's 1983 team was a low point.
Home
Access comprehensive player and match statistics for the All Blacks and Black Ferns. Explore career stats, player profiles, and historical data from New Zealand's iconic rugby teams.
-
@taniwharugby said in Foster:
@ACT-Crusader well they got the call wrong not to award Mils the try prior to that....genuine 14 pointer that one.
One of the great injustices in Rugby World Cup history.
@Chris-B as for the article on Razor, the wheels moved pretty swiftly, so where there’s a will there’s a way to get something done. Processes you say? What process…
-
@Windows97 said in Foster:
@Rancid-Schnitzel Lol curse my slow typing - you beat me to the punch
But yours was far more elequant. Wish I'd mentioned Rome!
-
@Windows97 said in Foster:
@booboo no I'm not 50
but even then I assume the terrible teams of the 70's didn't lose to Ireland and Argentina and I assume would have beaten Japan more comfortably too.No they just lost to Rhodesia instead ffs.
-
-
-
I'm on the Razor bandwagon.
I used to think that if you had the cattle then any vaguely competent coach could get them across the line - but, Rennie (and Smith) vs Foster and then Razor vs Toddy Blackadder convinced me I was thinking bullshit.
Instantaneous improvement to repeated victory.
I reckon under Fozzie we're getting similar results to what we'd be getting under Toddy. Decent people, competent coaches, trying their best - but, they just don't quite have the magic touch.
Razor may not be able to work his magic with the ABs post-2023 (see Rennie and the Wallabies), but I reckon we'd be silly not to give him the shot.
Not sure how you comparing Rennie/Smith and Foster to start with, Rennie won a couple with Smith when Chiefs were markedly different team than the year before, maybe when they picked up the likes of Rettalick, Cruden, Elliot, Schwalger etc (who under the previous year's rules would of been Cane's players or other squads. made a difference, because NZR opened up criteria for super team selecting. That is in no way rubbishing Rennie and Smith, who did great job, just saying you comparing apples with oranges. And no I not arguing that Foster should get job, though am not as yet convinced Razor is the the answer as I said Deans was poor as a test coach and he had similar record. Mind you I am not the one who will be deciding the next AB coach and if it is Razor he will get my full support!
-
@Windows97 said in Foster:
@Chris-B They lost one mid-week game against a province, drew against Scotland and lost to England.
I'd still venture a series loss at home against Ireland and your first ever loss to Argentina at home is a little worse.
I'd venture you don't remember how poor/limited NH teams were in 70s. Hell we used to regularly win , without great AB teams, hell I was a youngish one eyed AB supporter, but even I used to admit we were fielding teams of players who weren't going to be mentioned in the same breath as the ones form 60s etc. Best team from NH in 70s was 71 Lions who cleaned us out in test series, and that was after losing a game against an Aussie provincial team on way over. They were a bloody good Lions team, but we were fairly ordinary
-
@kiwi_expat said in Foster:
so perhaps you should change your record.
The irony is STRONG in this one.
-
@Dan54 Yeah - the rules changed - and who took best advantage of the rule changes?
Rennie did. He recruited those players - part of being a good coach.
Retallick is from Amberley and was a bad miss by the Crusaders' system, but largely because he wasn't the player he became - primarily at the Chiefs.
-
@Windows97 said in Foster:
@Chris-B They lost one mid-week game against a province, drew against Scotland and lost to England.
I'd still venture a series loss at home against Ireland and your first ever loss to Argentina at home is a little worse.
Hmmm a loss at home to world number 1 Ireland and an Argentina that beat South Africa and Australia is plumbing the all time depths??
Remember that the All Blacks used to blood players in midweek fixtures or tour matches and lost a few of them along the way. Ask Pat Lam if he remembers. Nearly lost to Fiji too but was not a test match.
Now the second stringers are tested in the first xv against even the strongest opponents. Maybe that is more the reason for the variable results.
I think you might find that all teams struggle a bit for form in the couple of years before World Cup as they test players and tactics.
This is no great AB team but it is very far from the worst I have seen.
-
@Dan54 Yeah - the rules changed - and who took best advantage of the rule changes?
Rennie did. He recruited those players - part of being a good coach.
Retallick is from Amberley and was a bad miss by the Crusaders' system, but largely because he wasn't the player he became - primarily at the Chiefs.
Pfft, don't you dare mofo, the Magpies made him, we sent him to the Chiefs fully formed in 2012.
He was a bad miss by the Crusaders though, they opted for Central Hawkes Bay's Dom Bird instead (and turned him into a pussy in the process), and now BBBR is one of the AB greats and lives in Central Hawkes Bay.
-
@Dan54 Yeah - the rules changed - and who took best advantage of the rule changes?
Rennie did. He recruited those players - part of being a good coach.
Retallick is from Amberley and was a bad miss by the Crusaders' system, but largely because he wasn't the player he became - primarily at the Chiefs.
Yep like I said there was no way I was dissing Rennie or Smith, just saying comparing the teams from 2011 and 12 was like comparing apples and oranges, one was basically an area team, the other was a wider selection catergory. You can't compare what coaches of each team did with what they had is all. I will say I was always a Rennie fan, even if really looks to be struggling as a test coach.
-
@Windows97 said in Foster:
no I'm not 50 but even then I assume the terrible teams of the 70's didn't lose to Ireland and Argentina and I assume would have beaten Japan more comfortably too.
No. We lost to Ireland club teams instead...
Two points.
The rugby world outside of New Zealand has moved on hugely in the last 5-10 years (just like the 1970s...) and the competitive environment is much, much tougher. I think it's a huge mistake for NZ rugby in general not to factor this in and assume our talent pool in players and coaches, is and always will be, relatively stronger than our competitors and a magic solution is available. Dangerous complacency that.
Secondly, I don't want to bang on about the olden days like a GOM, but it wasn't just the awful results and the endless string of wonder-coaches promising to recreate the glory days of 10 years past, it was the head-in-sand-recreate-the-past attitude of NZ rugby in general that was was worse. We ended up with real concerns about the future of the game in NZ as younger players left it in droves as they found game boring and unappealing. There are some echoes of that at the moment.
I think Foster should have departed after Ireland III, but I'm a lot more optimistic now than back then. Ways to go but here's some forward momentum and Foster has the coaches he wanted and a team firmly behind him. And NZR seem to be addressing some of the deeper issues, e.g. around player development with stuff like the AB XV tour.
-
@Windows97 said in Foster:
@booboo no I'm not 50 but even then I assume the terrible teams of the 70's didn't lose to Ireland and Argentina and I assume would have beaten Japan more comfortably too.
Drew with Ireland.
And lost to Irish & English club teams.
