Foster, Robertson etc
-
@Windows97 said in Foster, Robertson etc:
Would a team of Robertson, Schmidt and Brown be better than Robertson's original "team"?
I am not sure would it work together or would it be a Wyllie/Hart thing again.
It is a gamble, were a coaching team put together isn't.
The best coaches do not always work well together for a multitude of reasons.
I can see why the NZR and a lot of other codes do it the coaching team way.@Crucial beat me to it in Razor would already know who was on the application list coaches all sound each other out.
-
Ok lets look at it this way.
Under my proposal the worst outcome would be that Robertson gets the job and gets his team - exactly the same as it is now.
The best case would be that Robertson gets the job and people "better" people than what were in his team apply and he could choose to have them in the role.
Seems like a win, win situation to me...
-
@Windows97 said in Foster, Robertson etc:
Getting the best talent in NZ rugby, forcing them into pitched camps and then making them fight to the death for the job seems an entirely silly way of doing it...
I think we'd all agree with this.
-
@Chris said in Foster, Robertson etc:
@Windows97 said in Foster, Robertson etc:
It is a gamble, were a coaching team put together isn't.
The only gamble taking place there is "would the coaching team all get along together".
I think there's more than enough evidence in this year alone to show that a coaching team that gets long splendidly doesn't automatically translate to results on the pitch.
-
@kiwi_expat said in Foster, Robertson etc:
@Windows97 said in Foster, Robertson etc:
Getting the best talent in NZ rugby, forcing them into pitched camps and then making them fight to the death for the job seems an entirely silly way of doing it...
I think we'd all agree with this.
No, no your wrong here, a number of people have been arguing with me all day this is exactly how it should be.
-
@Windows97 said in Foster, Robertson etc:
The only gamble taking place there is "would the coaching team all get along together".
Is that not a big gamble for the next 2 years or so ?.Then it is a wasted process.
Look I do not agree with half of what NZR do and handle things I think they have been poor on a number of things.
But I do see and understand why they select the AB coach this way. -
@Windows97 said in Foster, Robertson etc:
@kiwi_expat said in Foster, Robertson etc:
@Windows97 said in Foster, Robertson etc:
Getting the best talent in NZ rugby, forcing them into pitched camps and then making them fight to the death for the job seems an entirely silly way of doing it...
I think we'd all agree with this.
No, no your wrong here, a number of people have been arguing with me all day this is exactly how it should be.
Choose the desired head coach first, then do whatever necessary to build the best possible team around them.
It's common sense, which inevitably means NZR will do the opposite.
-
@kiwi_expat said in Foster, Robertson etc:
@Windows97 said in Foster, Robertson etc:
@kiwi_expat said in Foster, Robertson etc:
@Windows97 said in Foster, Robertson etc:
Getting the best talent in NZ rugby, forcing them into pitched camps and then making them fight to the death for the job seems an entirely silly way of doing it...
I think we'd all agree with this.
No, no your wrong here, a number of people have been arguing with me all day this is exactly how it should be.
Select the desired head coach first, then do whatever is necessary to build the best possible team around them.
It's common sense, which means NZR will do the opposite.
On the surface that does seem the best approach, but I can also see the benefit of 'team' approach.
Not advocating doing what other teams do, but when Pivac was sacked, did his whole team go, and Gats came in with a new team, or is he working with Pivacs team?
Same goes with England and Eddie...Cockerill is there presently, I expect he would like to remain there regardless of who steps in...imagine if Norm Hewitt applied
-
@Windows97 said in Foster, Robertson etc:
@kiwi_expat said in Foster, Robertson etc:
@Windows97 said in Foster, Robertson etc:
Getting the best talent in NZ rugby, forcing them into pitched camps and then making them fight to the death for the job seems an entirely silly way of doing it...
I think we'd all agree with this.
No, no your wrong here, a number of people have been arguing with me all day this is exactly how it should be.
No we are trying to tell you that you are simplifying what happens to prove your argument and that your scenarios aren't based on reality.
-
@kiwi_expat said in Foster, Robertson etc:
@Windows97 said in Foster, Robertson etc:
@kiwi_expat said in Foster, Robertson etc:
@Windows97 said in Foster, Robertson etc:
Getting the best talent in NZ rugby, forcing them into pitched camps and then making them fight to the death for the job seems an entirely silly way of doing it...
I think we'd all agree with this.
No, no your wrong here, a number of people have been arguing with me all day this is exactly how it should be.
Choose the desired head coach first, then do whatever necessary to build the best possible team around them.
It's common sense, which inevitably means NZR will do the opposite.
...and if it turns out that there is no one in tune with the head coach you just signed up? I'd say that it is common sense to make sure there is a cohesive plan around assistants first.
-
@kiwi_expat said in Foster, Robertson etc:
@Windows97 said in Foster, Robertson etc:
@kiwi_expat said in Foster, Robertson etc:
@Windows97 said in Foster, Robertson etc:
Getting the best talent in NZ rugby, forcing them into pitched camps and then making them fight to the death for the job seems an entirely silly way of doing it...
I think we'd all agree with this.
No, no your wrong here, a number of people have been arguing with me all day this is exactly how it should be.
Choose the desired head coach first, then do whatever necessary to build the best possible team around them.
It's common sense, which inevitably means NZR will do the opposite.
Except if that decision doesn’t include all the information required to choose the right head coach.
Had the Head coach been chosen last time without consideration for their team, there would have been an assumption that they’d get Brown. However, he was only prepared to be an assistant alongside Joseph.
L -
@Crucial said in Foster, Robertson etc:
@Windows97 said in Foster, Robertson etc:
@kiwi_expat said in Foster, Robertson etc:
@Windows97 said in Foster, Robertson etc:
Getting the best talent in NZ rugby, forcing them into pitched camps and then making them fight to the death for the job seems an entirely silly way of doing it...
I think we'd all agree with this.
No, no your wrong here, a number of people have been arguing with me all day this is exactly how it should be.
No we are trying to tell you that you are simplifying what happens to prove your argument and that your scenarios aren't based on reality.
I'm not overly sure as to which reality you live in.
If you have a small talent pool you need to do your best to attract as much of that talent as possible to apply for a vacancy.
Not put in place silly rules or process that limit that already small pool of talent.
Because if you put in place silly rules you have less people apply and less chance of getting the prerequisite talent to do the job.
Worst case scenario you get whittled down to only being able to pick from a very small pool of talent - like only 2 applications for the AB coach for instance.
You then don't get the right people for the job, they lack the necessary talent and when it comes to perform they fail (sounds awfully familiar doesn't it).
This is the EXACT reality we are in now.
All of the above is entirely of the design of the NZRU.
And instead of trying to offer a solution you offer nothing but apologetics.
I mean if you want to think this is the gold standard for recruitment fine, I'm honestly flabbergasted that something so obviously broken would have so many excuses made for it. But after all, this is the internet.
-
@Windows97 still missing the aspect of pre-negotiation and filtering before the process.
-
@Crucial said in Foster, Robertson etc:
@Windows97 still missing the aspect of pre-negotiation and filtering before the process.
Which if you have a small talent pool is a stupid thing to do
-
@Windows97 said in Foster, Robertson etc:
@Crucial said in Foster, Robertson etc:
@Windows97 still missing the aspect of pre-negotiation and filtering before the process.
Which if you have a small talent pool is a stupid thing to do
or cuts to the chase.
-
@Crucial said in Foster, Robertson etc:
@Windows97 said in Foster, Robertson etc:
@Crucial said in Foster, Robertson etc:
@Windows97 still missing the aspect of pre-negotiation and filtering before the process.
Which if you have a small talent pool is a stupid thing to do
or cuts to the chase.
Or terrible results, and people being found out they weren't up to the job
-
@Chris said in Foster, Robertson etc:
Look I do not agree with half of what NZR do and handle things I think they have been poor on a number of things.
But I do see and understand why they select the AB coach this way.It's the reason we're in this mess, Razor would've had the job if not for Brown pulling out at short notice.
It's a flawed process as obviously they weren't picking the head coach based off their respective track records as head coaches, but based on the experience of the team around them, it created muddled thinking and shortsightedness, who cares if Foster has a former international scrum coach & forwards coach in his group? Ultimately you're assessing the person who's most suitable for the position of All Black head coach, and when the other candidate Razor, is ultimately a head coach through & through, proven successful in that very role - in multiple environments, meanwhile Foster was not a through & through head coach, however had proven his niche as a competent backs coach. Are you giving Jason Holland (poor head coach but seemingly innovative backline coach) a head coaching gig over Razor simply because he has Plumtree and Feek lined up in his staff?
And let's imagine here... it's 2019 again, Razor is already in the driver's seat, even if initially Razor had an average coaching staff, there's still far more room for adaptability there, as you already have the most suitable leader in place (Razor's clearly an effective leader of men, he elevates & maximizes the output of not just players - but the coaches that work around him too).
As we know in Foster's case, assistants are far easier to shuffle around... cheaper, more disposable, much easier to remove than a head coach on $1 million contract who's got a rabbit-hole of legal options & avenues to explore if you try to push them out prematurely...
-
@kiwi_expat said in Foster, Robertson etc:
@Chris said in Foster, Robertson etc:
Look I do not agree with half of what NZR do and handle things I think they have been poor on a number of things.
But I do see and understand why they select the AB coach this way.It's the reason we're in this mess, Razor would've had the job if not for Brown pulling out at short notice.
It's a flawed process as obviously they weren't picking the head coach based off their respective track records as head coaches, but based on the experience of the team around them, it created muddled thinking and shortsightedness, who cares if Foster has a former international scrum coach & forwards coach in his group? Ultimately you're assessing the person who's most suitable for the position of All Black head coach, and when the other candidate Razor, is ultimately a head coach through & through, proven successful in that very role - in multiple environments, meanwhile Foster was not a through & through head coach, however had proven his niche as a competent backs coach. Are you giving Jason Holland (poor head coach but seemingly innovative backline coach) a head coaching gig over Razor simply because he has Plumtree and Feek lined up in his staff?
And let's imagine here.. it's 2019 again, Razor is already in the driver's seat, even if initially Razor had an average coaching staff, there's still far more room for adaptability there, as you already have the most suitable leader in place (Razor's clearly an effective leader of men, he maximizes & elevates the output of not just players - but the coaches that work around him too).
As we know in Foster's case, assistants are far easier to shuffle around... cheaper, more disposable, much easier to remove than a head coach on $1 million contract who's got a rabbit-hole of legal options & avenues to explore if you try to push them out prematurely...
I don't believe it was the process that made the NZR make the wrong decision in not picking Razor.
That was a flaw in the individuals making the wrong choice.Even with an all in approach they would have come to the same decision Foster for HC.
Bad judgement by a shit board not necessary a flaws system.I understand in my job why boards select this way,It is the way it is done in most cases.
Gatland before taking the Wales job again would've chosen to keep the assistants or they go.
As it is who a coach sees he can work with,This is people's way of putting food on the table, a coach wants to know he can get the job done and keep it by having the right people around him or the job is slipping through his hands very quickly.
I bet my life Razor like all coaches would not apply for the Job if he couldn't pick the team he wants.
-
@ploughboy said in Foster, Robertson etc:
@Joans-Town-Jones said in Foster, Robertson etc:
@ploughboy said in Foster, Robertson etc:
@kiwi_expat said in Foster:
Was flicking between the Barbarians match and the All Blacks. Really showed who is the coaching guru out of the 2 games, the difference in cohesion and tactics. We certainly shouldn't be giving Robertson any credit whatsoever for taking a rag-tag group and turning them into a winning team in two coaching sessions.
Razor had 2, yes 2 training sessions with this team that beat a All Blacks B side, who had already been together for weeks and already had a win on tour. Took a group that haven't played together, from different countries and languages and beat a NZ XV team that had weeks of training together including another game. Then we flick to All Blacks with the Foster swapping players game after game with little clue of a game-plan. I certainly didn't waste much more time watching the aimless kicking and disorganized mess in Black.
Also McDonald has had more failures than successes, always outsmarted by Robertson in head to heads. Razor does it his way and doesn't have to call in the likes of Schmidt and other international or ex-international coaches to help him out. McDonald seems to lack the technical skills that Robertson displays in his game-planning, strategy & team selections. NZRU adore Leon though, despite his limited success and his inability to counter Razor's pragmatic tactical nous and astute calculated game-plans.
yeah what a legend 277 caps in baa team. only three havnt played internation rugby in the starting team against 116 in nz team.against 6 Abs that two had 83 caps combinded,.
if you carnt get that team organized you would be pretty poorHow many test caps do the ABs now have and Foster has had them all season?
i dont think you understood the post
Enlighten me
-
@Chris said in Foster, Robertson etc:
I don't believe it was the process that made the NZR make the wrong decision in not picking Razor.
That was a flaw in the individuals making the wrong choice.
they were both factors.
